Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Beehold

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 no consensus. @harej 22:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beehold

Userpage consists of eight versions of a page which was deleted twice at AfD. There's USERFYing deleted articles for improvement, and then there's making a POINT. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on WP:EM and WP:UP. The page now consists of just one version of a previously deleted page, which I am working on to source correctly, in the hope of adding it to WP at a later date.

WP:EM/Questions to consider in debating a deletion states:

Does the content make an editor happy? : Yes
Will deleting the page actually do Wikipedia any good?: No. Remember that deletions don't actually free up space.
Is it harmless? Yes. In general, content in these namespaces should only be removed if it's harmful to the encyclopaedia.
And ... Is there a potential future use for it? Yes - the book is published by a mainstream publisher next year and there is already talk of a film. I am continually on the look-out for WP reliable references to add, and will only release it again when fully sourced.

- I have also just edited the page, so that there is now only one version of the article there. It is regularly edited anyway and, in time, I hope it will become a welcome addition to the encyclopaedia.

Policy is not a trump card according to WP:EM. Indeed, to use the "WP:NOT a free webhost" arguement in a userpage deletion debate is actively discouraged by Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:User page states: Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian. Pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project. This is what I am trying to do.

My userpage does not feature any of the examples listed by WP:UP at What may I not have on my user page?

This is my user page - so obviously I would like it kept the way it is. I have used the "This is a Wikipedia user page" template at the top of it - to ensure that no-one stumbling across it is left under the misapprehension that it is part of the regular Wikipedia public encyclopaedia. I kept the various deleted versions as a guideline for myself, as I aimed to use them to resurrect the article when WP reliable sources become available. I have now, following this discussion, deleted all but the most detailed version. I am not trying to make a POINT out of this, whatever SarekOfVulcan (the original proposer of deletion for the article I have saved) may claim. My user page has already been vetted by admins and passed as acceptable - and, indeed, has been sitting here quietly for a great many weeks without causing trouble - until this. I feel as if there is a personal vendetta against me.--Beehold (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an acceptable use of userspace. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom, or refactor so that only one example of deleted article exists. Wikipedia is not a web host for hosting lots of different versions of an article that has twice been deleted via the AfD process. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to neutral based on refactoring per my suggestion. I still don't see why it should be necessary to keep it, but I don't feel strongly enough about the refactored version to !vote for its deletion. I would definitely expect it to be deleted if it was in the article namespace. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the suggestion that the user merges the different versions so that there is only one version on the page. I feel that this is basically a userfied article being developed - but having multiple old versions is not really needed. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this were to be placed in the main article space, I would be voting delete, as the sources I can find are either blogs, reader reviews (i.e. not by professional book reviewers) or bookshop sites - which use the copy provided by the publisher. However, if Beehold follows the advice given above by myself and Scjessey (yes I know it's a delete !vote, but with a possibility of refactoring given), I feel there is no reason why this should not remain on user space until reliable sources are available. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, based on several factors taken as a whole:
1. POINTy misuse: Use of userspace for personal material not suited to the encyclopedia is a concession, not a right. ~~This use appears WP:POINTy; it contains 8 copies of the page one after the other.~~ (Repeat copies now removed). "Pointy" breaches and content are a bit different from edits that seem to be purely trying to help the 'pedia.
2. No encyclopedic relevance: These are not draft articles, or a page with uses in other encyclopedic activities. It's material for which there is apparently no likelihood of inclusion in the encyclopedia
3. Not a purpose of userspace: Long tranches of personal material (which is all it is now) isn't really what userspace is for either.
4. History leading up to page creation: The community has decided (twice) to delete this page; the author's response was to add it to userspace repeatedly, then argue they were not deletable there. While not presuming his motives, I disagree with the assertion. It also feels like wikilawyering - which makes me more inclined to discount it.
5. User page content guidelines:
  "Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia."
  
  "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia... pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project..."
  
  "Examples of unrelated content include... extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia... non-encyclopedic related material... In general, if you have material that... is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, it should be placed on a personal web site"
  
  "[T]his space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content"

Reference: WP:NOT, WP:POINT, WP:UP FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Update - user has now reduced the 8 copies to one copy. If the nomination is left standing then the above are still my view. If withdrawn then it's moot. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete FT2 makes a strong case. I think the comment "This is my own, personal, user page" shows a misunderstanding about what userpages are. They are not your own webspace, they are not the place for a preferred version of an article. They are not your own. Userspace is there for the same reason as every other part of Wikipedia, to help create an encylopedia. Chillum 20:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is a recreation of deleted content, and it is uncertain whether it will become a notable topic. However, it does appear to be an attempt to improve the encyclopedia, it could potentially become an article, and I can't see any problems with the content, such as BLP or WP:NPOV. Another possible reason for deletion is WP:POINT. The Beehold account does appear to be an account created to illustrate a point, and the multiple copies don't appear to be an appropriate use of user space, but I don't think any disruption caused by the existence of this page is enough to justify deletion. Maybe it is inappropriate for a user page, but I don;t think it would be a problem if it was a user sandbox, if the multiple copies (maybe intended as content forks) are removed, and the page is moved to a subpage. I also recommend addition of a NOINDEX template if the page is kept as a user page. snigbrook (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to another page in editor's user space. We've seen this kind of thing before and I think the consensus has been that a userpage is not the place to store or display deleted articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering the contents of user's talk page, I don't think the user is here to build an encyclopedia. Gigs (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would have to object to the comment by Gigs above, that I am "not here to build an encyclopedia." I have written, or contributed to, a wide range of articles here and had at least one DYK. The essay on my talk page is a tongue in cheek WP essay, which appealed to my sense of humour when I came across it. That is all.--Beehold (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a comment that I make lightly. If you are serious about improving Wikipedia, then you should start demonstrating that through actions and not just words. Much of your contribution history is devoted to this Jason Steed issue, and things related to it. That, combined with the essay about how to game Wikipedia cast your intentions in serious doubt. It might be time to just move on to other things. There's millions of articles out there. Gigs (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gigs - no offence mate, but much of your contribution history is devoted to Pokemon and other people's talk pages - and so what? Just as you have an interest in Pokemon etc, so this book, Jason Steed, intrigues me. It is already huge on the internet, has been named as Malia Obama's favourite book etc - so I'm pretty certain that, at some point, it will have its day on Wikipedia. Until then, I was quietly building up something to 'go live' when there are enough WP-reliable sources. I wasn't pushing it at anyone, I had the "This is a Wikipedia user page" template in place and I was regularly adding little snippets - so it wasn't 'abandoned.' I really, really don't see why the piece can't be allowed to sit on my userpage until I have built it up enough to be WP acceptable - after all, we are meant to be building an encyclopaedia.--Beehold (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, I have just about zero interest in Pokemon. My recent involvement with the Pokemon wikiproject has been to work with them to delete inappropriate non-notable articles in the Wikipedia namespace. But your point is taken regardless. We all have areas of interest. The thing is, notability isn't something that hinges on how good an article it is. Unless the novel gets more actual third part reliable source coverage, it won't ever be acceptable, no matter how good you make the article. Even if it gets deleted here, you are of course free to save a copy offline or on another wiki with more lenient policies, and if more coverage emerges, then you can recreate it here. Gigs (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I !voted to delete from mainspace. The book is not yet notable. There are some peculiarities , though--the widespread interest in it seems highly unusual for a self-published novel. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it does become notable upon regular publication and I think it's not irrational to let this stay here for a few more months at least. DGG ( talk ) 08:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to complain about the lack of discussion about this on the talk page, but then I discovered the talk page is full of nonsense, nonsense that should be there as per WP:BEANS. If it is an attempt at a humorous essay, then it should not be on his talk page, or on any talk page, and should be tagged {{humor}} or similar. User:Beehold is not doing things according to our norms, and it would be a good idea for him to try. As for the userpage, If User:Beehold means to improve it to meet our guidelines, then good luck & would you mind moving it to a subpage, but if not, then it should be blanked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for SmokeyJoe: Please feel free to direct any more complaints to my now 'oh so nice and clean' talk page. The much-despised WP essay - which I got from Wikipedia in the first place by the way - has now gone the journey. I hope that brings a jolly smile to your face.--Beehold (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you Beehold. You seem to want to be very reasonable. I didn't so much despise your essay, as despise it taking so much so much space on your talk page, and with it being untagged huymor/sarcasm. Can I suggest that you move the Fledgling Jason Steed stuff from your userpage to a subpage, and reserve your userpage to describing yourself? The "essay" that you removed from your talk page could conceivable fit well on your userpage, although my preference would be for it to be on a well tag user subpage, if one is to overlook WP:BEANS concerns. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.