Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Destinigurl09


 * 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 blank the page. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Destinigurl09
User talk page used to post uncited "factoids" about Miley Cyrus, some of which directly contradict our article and others of which are just kind of dubious. This is yet another thing User_Talk Space is not. --Dynaflow  babble  01:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Note: the content was moved from User_talk:Destinigurl09 to User:Destinigurl09 part way through the discussion to enable better communication with the content's poster. --Dynaflow  babble  14:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like an information dump under a WP:SPA. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Move and welcome - This account was created yesterday and nominated within 3 hours of creation, very bite-y and no attempt appears to be made to actually interact with the user and let them know this is not the right place or thing to have on a user talkpage. My suggestion is to (a) move the page to a sandbox subpage, (b) welcome the user to WP, and (c) link them to sandbox page with the info. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I may have erred by not leaving a welcome message. I have taken your suggestion and made the problem page her userpage instead of her Talk page.  However, the content still needs to be deleted, as it is full of unverified or unverifiable information about a living person.  BLP doesn't stop at articlespace (Biographies of living persons).   --Dynaflow   babble  14:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep BLP was not the reason cited for deletion, and, frankly, I see zero contentious or remotely important information on the page. Anything contentious, of course, would be immediately deletable.  Absent finding anything specific to delete as falling in that category, the userspace list of stuff is well within guidelines.  Collect (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * An acceptable use of one's userpage generally per Collect, I'd say, but it's as likely as not that this is a copyvio (even as this is just a recitation of facts, there is, one might reasonably argue, sufficient creativity in the presentation as to confer copyright [Feist], and because this is not a matter of the preservation of content in mainspace, we oughtn't to devote extended time to an inquiry about its copyrightability [for my part, neither would I suggest this be as a matter of policy and nor would I conclude this is as a matter of law something to which copyright attaches, but I recognize that there are those who would think differently]), although whence one can't be sure (there are many uses of the full list that predate the creation of the userpage, and I see nothing to suggest that the user is the original author); blanking (or, better, asking that the user blank herself), with a very polite and delicate note explaining that although anyone who contributes to the project is welcome to have a userpage, in the use of which the community are disposed to accord some latitude (a general recitation of the reasons for which one likes Miley's music would be fine, we might note [although that there are any such reasons boggles this man's mind] ), we cannot harbor content of dubious provenance. Joe 18:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:USER, already welcomed, if someone is offended by the page (although I don't see why) - then request user to move to sub page. — Ched (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This was apparently created from the Internet Movie Database's collection of Miley Cyrus trivia, although some of the names have been changed. Since the IMDb is copyrighted, this information should not be copied over here even if it has been slightly altered. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a copyright violation (per Metropolitan90) and because Wikipedia is not a free webhost for unverified trivia about celebrities. It doesn't really matter that the information is not especially contentious or negative, especially since none of it should be added into the article without proper sourcing (IMDb is not a reliable source). Also, moving to a sub page makes no difference, because it doesn't change the nature of the content. –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Metropolitan90. Copyright violation.  And even if it is not, wikipedia doesn't content copied wholesale, "facts" have to be referenced to reliable sources.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that this is not userpage material. It is an unacceptable immitation mainspace article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The latter submission does not, I think, command the support of the community, who have (rightly, IMHO) resolved several times (most recently three-plus weeks ago at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ChanceYoungJr.Robert) that even the exact replication of mainspace content on one's userpage is to be permitted where userpage is appended and GDFL attribution (as, e.g., with a link to the article) is provided, unless the replication effectively circumvents a deletion decision (see User page); surely, then, content like this, which would be mistaken for an article by no one, is fine (that the subject is a living person is theoretically trickier, but neither have the community undertaken to proscribe all comment on living persons that does not work toward an encyclopedic end). Joe 22:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If the user wanted to append userpage, and assert that the content reflected something about their interests, themselves, or had some purpose, then OK. However, I don’t think that in this case the information serves any purpose, and it should be allowed to exist as a reader may find it and read it at face value.  If it weren’t a copyright violation, then I would be happy with blanking or moving to a user subpage.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Blank consistent with my first comment and per Collect (this would, to my mind, be a "keep" absent the copyright problem). Where one thinks the content of a userpage to be inappropriate, it is probably best that he/she bring the issue to MfD, lest a unilateral blanking should precipitate some nastiness, but when MfD bares out a consensus that the content is problematic, it is almost always better to blank than to delete outright (userpages only, of course; problematic subpages necessarily go); the effects of the two are identical, but the former, especially when accompanied by a gentle note of explanation from the closing administrator, is (to use an overly simplistic term) nicer, less likely to upset or drive away altogether a new or inexperienced potential contributor.  (Note also that we probably needn't to worry about leaving a copyright violation in the page history; see Help:Page history and Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages.)  Joe 23:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that blanking is preferable to raising an MfD where you *know* that the page is problematic. There is little point in having several editors contribute to a SNOW delete where a single editor can blank and tell the user what was so wrong with the page.  The user, probably a new user, probably didn’t know the rule.  Allowing this user to be able to see the problem page in the history, and allowing him to possibly retrieve some of the material himself, or fix the problem, is nicer than the confrontation of the MfD template in his talk page and a public trial at MfD.


 * If you’re not sure the page is problematic, I think you should (a) politely discuss with the user, or (b) find out, or (c) leave well-enough alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * speedy delete This is a copyright violation of http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1415323/bio. very little has been changed from this biography that IMDb claims copyright on.
 * Blank per Joe as a copyvio. Or gently tell the user to blank it herself. She's probably very young and could be taught about policy rather than subjected to an MfD in her first few days.  Graymornings (talk) 07:46, 2 March 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.