Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Xgsdev


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was Criteria for speedy deletion G11.

User:Xgsdev
I believe this user page is the recreation of an article that has been deleted. -- Rilak (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Userspace recreations are quite OK.  Encourage the user to put it in a subpage, and to reserve the main userpage for introducing himself.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * & unblock user. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification - The user has been indefinitely blocked for using a promotional user name. There is no reason to believe that this article was recreated in good faith as opposed to promotion. Rilak (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The username does not strick me as promotional. Instead, I think it is an honest declaration of the editor's interest.  These blockings of newcomers accounts based on someones belief of inappropriateness of the username is bitey.  I see no meaningful correspondence with this newcomer, but he is to be blocked, and have his userpage deleted?  This is not good.  I see no reason to not assume good faith on the part of the editor.  He is new.  He hadn't read that policy page that says you cannot add utube links as references or external links.  His first pages were deleted, so he tries again in userspace.  This is all very reasonable.  I think he deserves an apology.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Smokey 100% here. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep "no reason to believe" is insufficient as opposed to a positive reason to delete.  Lacking a solid reason, keep. Collect (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Spam. And since the user is blocked, there's nothing he can do with it. Does Wikipedia host memorials to blocked users? --Calton | Talk 18:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If user were Banned, you would be right, but he is not. The newcomer seems to have been blocked without debate.  I think he should be unblocked.  If his username were really inappropriate, he should be renamed on request.  He can then move his userpages.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - See also XGS PIC 16-Bit and XGS AVR 8-Bit. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Calton, it's essentially promotional/advertising, ie spam. The user page should be deleted and could be under speedy G11 or maybe even U2. Affiliated or not there's no reason for advertising on Wikipedia. I believe the two articles linked to above by carbuncle should be considered for deletion via a debate (ie AFD), or possibly PROD. As for the side-topic of the user block: this is not the forum for that discussion, but I've given my thoughts on it on my talk page for SmokeyJoe if interested. Nja 247 08:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, and for participating here. I do object to the suggestion that U2 applies.  Indefinitely blocked does not equate to non-existent.  G11 should not be used here if it is not used for XGS PIC 16-Bit and XGS AVR 8-Bit.  Is it obvious/unambiguous enough?  I'm thinking that the mainspace articles should go to AfD, and the userpage question should reflect the AfD outcome.  What I am sure about is that in principle, the userspace should not be deleted due merely to the user being indefinitely (aka temporarily) blocked.
 * I also note a strong suspicion that the user has remained an active contributor under other usernames, and that, as an unintended consequence, this MfD is serving the may serve to hide pattern evidence of wider spamming. Noting this concern, blanking is preferable to deleting.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming good-faith, I request that you rephrase your comment. I started this MfD to remove spam from Wikipedia. Rilak (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no intent to suggest User:Rilak or User:Nja247 have done anything other that to follow established methods to remove and prevent further occurence of spam. I am suggesting, as a thought still developing, that our documented custom of deleting userspace spam and blocking spammy usernames is, actually, counter-productive.  I am not 100% convinced that the material on the multiple pages is speediable spam, but if it is, there is a network of it.  You don't get rid of spam just by deleting the most obvious occurences.  It is important to track the spammers, and tracking is hindered by deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Userspace pages are OK, if they are worked on and are not promotional. These pages show up in google searches (another discussion), or will after mirroring etc. etc.  This is not what userpages or userspace is for.  Simple.  WP:G11.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:22, 2 July 2009 (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.