Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Writism1

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. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Writism1

WP:FAKEARTICLE ZZArch ^{talk to me} 09:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Manning (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE --It's Atreem (From the planet Venus) 23:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at User talk:Writism1, I see that we have done extremely poorly in dealing with an enthusiatic contributor. it is unimpressive that the block notice reason doesn't match the block log reason. If the username is not OK, why block account creation? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I see only a clear and exclusive focus on using Wikipedia as a soapbox for what is clearly unsupported original research and a reckless disregard for numerous warnings posted on talk page. That is what the block is for. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 05:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People are more likely to learn if engaged (ie talked to) at a human level. It looks like nobody haas attempted to entice the person into conversation.
Ultimately, however, this has to be deleted. Mainly as promotion. It clearly failed mainspace, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Writism. There are signs that the author understands the importance of being recognised and discussed by others ("Art historians have analysed the growth of Writism in several phases"), and if this is the case, if these "historians" are independent of the proponents of writism, then this is probably a suitable subject for wikipedia. To prove it, reliable sources reporting the independent historians analysis are required. However, reading on the proponents website, "for 14 years in absolute obscurity, equus caballus gazing, invented and conceptualized writism" it sounds like this is a brand new concept, which means it is not for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only for things that others (third parties) have already covered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2012 (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.