Misplaced Pages

:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marine 69-71/Tony Santiago: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:42, 5 April 2011 editDamiens.rf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,536 edits →User:Marine 69-71/Tony Santiago: WP:UP#PROMO← Previous edit Revision as of 15:44, 5 April 2011 edit undoDamiens.rf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,536 edits →User:Marine 69-71/Tony SantiagoNext edit →
Line 12: Line 12:
*'''Keep''' Although folks are obviously welcome to improve the page as they see fit, there's no ''need'' for the ultimate goal here to be moving the page back to mainspace. In general, when someone retains a copy of a recently deleted article in their userspace, that copy is improper and should be deleted. But when the page in question is, in fact, a biography of the editor in question, that is 100% permissible in my opinion, given the fact that the contributor in question is a longstanding productive contributor to the project. ]. ] (]) 07:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Although folks are obviously welcome to improve the page as they see fit, there's no ''need'' for the ultimate goal here to be moving the page back to mainspace. In general, when someone retains a copy of a recently deleted article in their userspace, that copy is improper and should be deleted. But when the page in question is, in fact, a biography of the editor in question, that is 100% permissible in my opinion, given the fact that the contributor in question is a longstanding productive contributor to the project. ]. ] (]) 07:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
** The contributor already have a biography written in first person on his user page. Keeping a pseudo-encyclopedic article sets a bad precedent. I constantly work on removing advertisement and self-promotion from Misplaced Pages and I see the "''opportunities''" this precedent will open. That he is a "''productive contributor''" should give him any privileges. Please note ]. --] 15:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC) ** The contributor already have a biography written in first person on his user page. Keeping a pseudo-encyclopedic article sets a bad precedent. I constantly work on removing advertisement and self-promotion from Misplaced Pages and I see the "''opportunities''" this precedent will open. That he is a "''productive contributor''" should give him any privileges. Please note ]. --] 15:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
** And of course, don't forget that page, as it stands, is a copyvio, for the contribution history have been erased. --] 15:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:44, 5 April 2011

User:Marine 69-71/Tony Santiago

This is a hard copy of a recently deleted article (a biography about a Wikpedian). I don't know if it's usually accepted to keep a pseudo-encyclopedic article hosted on Misplaced Pages's servers, but, in any case, the copy was made in such a way that the article's history was lost, what, if not fixed, constitutes a violation of the text's licensing terms set by its contributors. Damiens.rf 15:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The article in userspace is harmless, and given the history here should be left along as a matter of contributor relations if nothing else. While I understand the comment about licensing, given the history and circumstances of this article (including the identity of the primary authors) it is completely fictive to suggest that anyone would really feel his or her intellectual property rights are being violated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Not fictive at all. I, for one, do not like how my name was erased from this copy's history. --Damiens.rf 16:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Misplaced Pages is not a webhost. The history is irrelevant if the original article has been deleted. Green Giant (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete per Green Giant and WP:UPNO. "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website." True, this user has other subpages that have no connection to Misplaced Pages and belong on a personal website, but that does not justify yet one more page that has no place here. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
That's truth. We already have a complete autobiography on his user page, a public love letter for his wife on another page, his collection of autographs in some other and a list of aggrandizements in yet another page. This is "extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Misplaced Pages." as described in Misplaced Pages:UP#PROMO. --Damiens.rf 19:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete-- WP:NOTWEBHOST. --E♴(talk) 14:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. It contains way more details than usual, but I don't think that this page is all that different than the "About Me" sections on most Wikipedians' user pages. My only real concern is that there needs to be a {{User page}} template (or something similar) at the top of the page. This will ensure that people who he gives this link to that are unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages won't think that this is an "official" article. BurtAlert (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    "About me" pages are usually written in the first person, while this one is written as an article. As pointed out above, the user already have many pages advertising his persona. This one may be mistaken by a valid article. *: We delete vanity biographies of non-notable people everyday. What if their creators start duplicating this material on user pages? --Damiens.rf 15:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep: there is a long-standing tradition of userfying deleted pages for interested editors. Since the AfD (which I'm upset to have learned about well after the chance for me to chime in passed, probably because it was never listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military‎ for some reason) was closed due to notability issues, not anything about it being inappropriate for any namespace. As far as I'm concerned, it's simply a userspace draft (though it could use being tagged as such). If people think it's a COI for it to exist in the userspace of the biographical subject, then I'd ask for it to be moved to mine (with the appropriate history for attribution); I will endeavor to improve it until it can be returned to mainspace. bahamut0013deeds 23:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Although folks are obviously welcome to improve the page as they see fit, there's no need for the ultimate goal here to be moving the page back to mainspace. In general, when someone retains a copy of a recently deleted article in their userspace, that copy is improper and should be deleted. But when the page in question is, in fact, a biography of the editor in question, that is 100% permissible in my opinion, given the fact that the contributor in question is a longstanding productive contributor to the project. Editors matter. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The contributor already have a biography written in first person on his user page. Keeping a pseudo-encyclopedic article sets a bad precedent. I constantly work on removing advertisement and self-promotion from Misplaced Pages and I see the "opportunities" this precedent will open. That he is a "productive contributor" should give him any privileges. Please note WP:UP#PROMO. --Damiens.rf 15:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    • And of course, don't forget that page, as it stands, is a copyvio, for the contribution history have been erased. --Damiens.rf 15:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)