Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Shadow Axis

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 Delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Shadow Axis


Wikipedia is not MySpace or Facebook. Also see ANI. jcgoble3 (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have suppressed, hidden from view, all personal information on the page, nearly all of the over 600 edits. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nom. Also, facepalm. Why would you want to publish a bunch of your personal love letters in public? Totally inappropriate and pretty stupid. Ever heard of e-mail? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 22:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and ditto to all the above. Any of these people will be glad to help. Noting in passing that has almost 400 edits, not a single one of which is to mainspace. Mogism (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment One of the users has now mostly blanked the page, but the eight months of chat can still be seen in the page history. jcgoble3 (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Delete The page has been mostly blanked. I think we can give these two lovebirds a day or so to set up an email account (?!) so that they can continue their discussion about getting felt up in an appropriately private environment, and then this page can be safely speedy deleted under CSD G7.  ‑Scottywong | confess _  22:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The content is beyond our expectations for use, but we generally do not delete user talk pages. As long as the editors understand they shouldn't be using the page for general chat only, I think that it would be complete overkill to delete the page, speedy or otherwise, as it is does not fit the exceptions for deleting talk pages.  If someone can point to the policy that allows us to delete, I will be glad to look, but otherwise I'm bound by WP:DELTALK which states we can NOT delete talk pages under this type of circumstance.  Even WP:RTV doesn't guarantee a talk page will be deleted.  Blanking should be sufficient.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You just linked it above: " other user space material may be deleted or redacted for privacy reasons". If the intimate details of Gorgeouspants and Handsomepants's adolescent fumblings isn't "for good reason", I'm not sure what is - personally I'd delete this immediately, since now it's at ANI we can expect all the various nutcases to have a look, and it's better for all concerned if Encyclopedia Dramatica don't get the chance to do a cut-and-paste.. Mogism (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Privacy refers to WP:OUTING. If this were to qualify as outing in some way, then that would be an exception.  Otherwise, the information they provided was given freely, knowingly, on a public website.  Not trying to be overly bureaucratic, but the policy has always been viewed strictly and exceptions are supposed to be just that, exceptions. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be more than comfortable with an IAR speedy delete on a page like this. ‑Scottywong | express _  22:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not even IAR, and privacy and outing are two completely different things - the policy is "It does not matter whether the privacy breaching material was posted by the user themselves or by a third party, whether in good or bad faith, recently or in the past, whether accurate, whether the target is identifiable to the administrator, nor whether it is a statement, pointed speculation, or implied", and since this is jam-packed with identifying information about both the posters and multiple third parties it certainly qualifies. Mogism (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And I won't labor it if you do, Scotty. I'm still obligated to point out the policy issues at hand. It isn't supported in policy as written, although it is certainly arguable as an IAR decision.  I disagree with Mogism, I've disclosed a ton of personal information on Wikipedia, including where I live, my real name, my activities, etc.  Simply "being personal information" isn't reason enough to delete the page, per the policy.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There isn't a policy for this situation because it's not a common situation. The content on the page serves no useful purpose to Wikipedia, and might contain personally revealing information about minors (making an assumption here).  It's somewhat hard to believe, but it's possible that they weren't aware of the public nature of their discussion venue.  I think common sense would say that the page should be deleted unless gorgeous/handsomepants objects to the deletion.  The recent blanking of the page leads me to believe that they don't object.  ‑Scottywong | chatter _  22:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the biggest supporters of IAR, after all. But I wouldn't be a very good admin if I didn't know and vote based on the policy as written.  I already said I wouldn't labor it if you did, but that is what it would take, invoking WP:IAR, not stretching the meaning of "private".  Once you said that, I saw the logic in your desire to to ignore policy in this one instance.   Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BURO && SW. NE Ent 22:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Obviously. Lol. I know it's completely against WP:NOTMYSPACE and inappropriate for Wikipedia. my b. --  ♪ ChrisBkoolio     ...    (Talk)    02:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously. Lol. What a ridiculous fucking waste of time. Thinking that somehow our readers will be helped by rushing to propose deletion of a talk page that our readers will never see and our editors can simply not look at if it bothers them almost defies belief. But of course, the rules say it isn't allowed! Why bother improving articles when we have important stuff like this to handle? Joefromrandb (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You could have chosen to simply not look at this MfD if it bothers you, and instead go improve an article, but here we are. ‑Scottywong | talk _  15:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed! I'm glad you see how much disruption this has caused. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I looked through each of the 17 visible edits and what is left is a personal, social talk exchange between User:Chrisbkoolio and User:Shadow Axis. A good reason to delete the page is to not have to determine on an edit by edit basis whether there is consensus that any of the reamining 17 edits contain nonpublic personal information. Due to the What links here feature, this MfD can serve as a record of the social talk exchange event between Chrisbkoolio and Shadow Axis and reactions to that event should there be a need for such reference by other users. Thus, another good reason to delete is that there is nothing remaining in the talk page that is needed for reference by other users. Delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. Limited biographical information is allowed, but user pages should not function as personal webpages or be repositories for large amounts of material that's irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia" (which is policy) and User_page "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website." (guideline).  This is all academic at this point, but I don't see it necessary try to stretch this into an WP:OVERSIGHT issue or reach into WP:IAR when an application of WP:NOTMYSPACE will do.  If I'm not getting this right (I'd like to learn!), please explain....   14:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:UP. I'm not sure specifically what the above is about since the page only had 17 visible edits by the time I got to it (as of the time of this MfD post). (User:Fred Bauder previously had suppressed or hidden from view over 600 edits.) WP:UP notes that:"User talk pages are generally not deleted since they are usually needed for reference by other users. Individual revisions, log entries, and other user space material may be deleted or redacted for privacy reasons, or due to harassment, threats, gross offensiveness and other serious violations. Exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason, including a wish to permanently leave Wikipedia. In addition, nonpublic personal information and potentially libelous information posted to your talk page may be removed as described above."
 * Comment - If the main rationale for not deleting is the (stupid, silly) rule that "user talk pages should not be deleted", then just move it to the currently redlinked user page and then delete it. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 22:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. No talk related to Wikipedia. Private. Kids just discovering the Internet. Unusual case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Absolutely ridiculous. Publishing your personal love letters to others on Wikipedia in public is extremely foolish. This is obviously the sort of thing for email. Per WP:NOT, this is not a social networking site, such as Facebook, and per WP:UP. Nothing at all related to Wikipedia. TBrandley 05:02, 21 November 2012 (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.