Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:William M. Connolley/betting on climate change


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE. The raw vote total is 12-6 Delete. Most of the Keep commentors argument is that it's harmless, which would be fine if most commentors agreed with this, but most don't. No convincing argument that this enchances the Wikipedia. Herostratus 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley/betting on climate change
This page is a ridiculous violation of WP:USER, and any sort of rational sense. This page has (probably) been created as a result of another of the inane arguements at Global warming, and could well, having been linked from there, serve to escalate the incivility and disputable NPOV problems over there. It needs to go - betting in the user space? You couldn't make it up... Mart inp23 18:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - per avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia from WP:USER. QmunkE 19:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Substantial? One page? --BozMo talk 14:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per What can I not have on my user page? at WP:USER and WP:POINT. ~ UBeR 19:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. User space, and nothing particularly uncivil there. Anyway, I very much doubt that any Wikipedia user page will influence any hearts and minds in either camp. bd2412  T 06:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a clear WP:POINT issue, however - incivil or not. Mart inp23  10:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, misuse of userspace and also an absurdly long-term proposal. For any sort of substantial future data to be the basis for this would mean a years- or even decades-long bet. He's welcome to host it somewhere else, I guess, but if he actually wants to bet on global climate patterns the timescale is going to be long enough he might as well just put the money in savings bonds or something. --tjstrf talk 08:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per BD2412. There's no harm to this. It even seems a somewhat useful rhetorical device to encourage more thoughtful edits on climate change pages. Derex 08:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the page is clearly being used to prove a point, hence WMC is using Wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT, which is prohibited. Mart inp23 10:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to read WP:POINT again. What is "forbidden" is to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Where is the disruption in this page?--Stephan Schulz 23:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep there is a huge amount of less relevant stuff on user pages and keeping this where it is keeps it away from more important pages. --BozMo talk 08:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "More important pages"? Like what? You think he'd go and talk about it in article space or something? --tjstrf talk 09:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Patstuarttalk·edits 18:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not relevant as its not an article. --BozMo talk 14:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - the userpage is not a soapbox. I actually don't have a problem with the material personally; I think it should be allowed in small measure, but as it stands, it's against WP:U. Patstuarttalk·edits 18:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, its a user page so who really cares. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * DeleteI have to agree with Martinp23. It is a clear violation of WP:POINT. I can not see how you can deny that. Even though you may not like a policy you still must follow it. If we could pick what policies we want to follow then there would be no point in having policies. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 00:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a clear violation; it's not even a violation. This policy 'point', I think it does not mean what you think it means. Derex 07:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also delete per wikipedia not being a soapbox. I would also like to say that I do not disagree with what is being said so people can not say "He just wants it deleted because he is a sceptic." Just because you agree with it is not a reason to keep it. --James, La gloria è a dio 00:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Point point point. And if this doesn't get deleted, I have permission to create a user page exactly like this, which also violates WP:POINT, but since this page didn't violate it, I have violated nothing in doing this.--WaltCip 13:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It certainly isn't a violition of WP:POINT]. AFAICS he isn't using it to make a point on wikipedia and he is allowed to make a point on his own blog. I certainly don't see any *disruptive* use to make a point. [[WP:USER is a possible reason for deletion but he has been held to be an expert on climate issues on wikipedia and does a lot of editing of the climate related pages. Therefore I consider the page to be relevant to what he does on wikipedia. An expert should also be allowed more latitude to make a point on their user page as long as it isn't disruptive. crandles 14:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This kind of stuff is meant for blogs, not for wikipedia. Also it is not related to wikipedia. Having to much about stuff not relating to wikipedia is a violation of policy. It violates policy so it should clearly be deleted. We can not pick what policies we want to follow and what ones we do not. If we did then there would be no use for policies. I know I have said this before but I can not stress this enough. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 18:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Basically, the page is using Wikipedia as a place not to discuss editing Wikipedia but instead as a personal discussion board about wagering on future events. Clock Accelerator 00:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - betting on the outcomes of scientific questions is a longstanding practice and the wagers made on such questions are often the best source of information about their likely outcomes. It would be absurd to delete this userspace page. James S. 07:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia: The free academic bet-booking website that anyone can edit." Err, yeah, I think your line of argument pretty much refutes itself there. --tjstrf talk 08:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've say that that's a perfect candidate for WP:NOT. Mart inp23 08:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then edit WP:NOT if you really believe it's a problem, but no ex post facto deletions of userspace pages, please. In fact, if you do edit WP:NOT for this solitary case, then I will ask that WMC's betting page be specifically grandfathered in. James S. 21:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, commonsense dictates that the spirit (and, maybe somewhere, the overly long text) of WP:NOT covers this particular instance already. Mart inp23 21:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Common sense is subjective, and clearly there is no consensus here. WMC is a respected scientist, and whether this page gets deleted or not I propose we start Betting on scientific questions to cover the vast amount of this which goes on in reputable scientific circles, starting centuries before WMC created the userpage in question. James S. 00:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Archive I will agree that it was interesting, but any more bets should be taken outside of here. We don't want fiscal arrangements being made within this website, it doesn't seem to sit to well with the whole "We-don't-try-to-get-your-money-like-everyone-else-on-the-net" ideal of wikipedia. I don't see any reason why an archive of it would do harm, though. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's a blog, not a Wikipedia page. Sadly, although William Connolley is in many ways an excellent chap and a good and skilled editor, he has a tendancy to vain publishing, as with his (heavily admin-defended) Wikipedia article, of which this is but the latest example. MarkThomas 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Please allow the user to copy the text to his personal site/blog. I don't see how this is useful to Wikipedia discussions or article. People don't donate to Wikipedia for hosting such pages. 220.227.179.4 10:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - No way. Doesn't violate any policies, doesn't disrupt Wikipedia, doesn't particularly do anything really, it should be left up to the creator to do with as he pleases. At worst it should be just integrated into his main userpage. Though I think we all know the real reason this is coming under such attack, it's content, essentially a bunch of Global Warming deniers are out to delete anything that they don't agree with, etc. --Hibernian 18:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.