Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Burkr

User:Burkr

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 Keep there is no apparent violation of any policies here, and it is already in userspace, tagging as not an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Content of user page is not in any way related to the encyclopedia or the user proper. User account is a SPA with 4 SPS-created articles, centering on Planet Poker. A review of the page history is revealing, and especially since this user ignored advice to userify it was even left here after fair warning. Not encyclopedic even if placed in its appropriate article, and not material for a userpage under any stretch.. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've agreed with some possible alternative and further explained circumstances below. We have agreeable contingencies now, at least. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Userspace is not mainspace, nor are userpages required to be mainspace articles. Not spam. Not advertising. Page history is not relevant as to whether the page as it stands should remain in userspace. We are not seers here, but a page with all blue-links in it is pretty likely to pass muster here. Timelines are, by the way, accepted in many articles. Collect (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move or title appropriately - The page's purpose is unclear, and usually a user's landing page is for describing that user. While there is no particular need to delete the page, it should be moved or subtitled such that its purpose is clear. If it has no purpose, then delete it. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 19:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{(edit conflict)To clarify: It's copy-pasted ad-cruft from some deleted articles, which is my nominating it at all. Userspace doesn't have RS or N or CSD:A7 to worry about, but precedents on user frontpages not being a sancuary for refugee articles on the verge of dletion in the mainstpace do support the practice. Thus why MfD posted and not my claiming its anything different, but it's been a breeding ground for edits on a SPA self-promotional account creating, un-CSDing and keeping total ownership of said articles. It is okay as as subpage! WP:RS WP:N WP:OWN WP:USER and 50 other things have come up with no change in behavior... all the basics have been discussed.

Extended content

All ignored and since only an admin can force userification. For the record my hands were tied. I'm not going to stand by and see article content that's been tossed around in a bunch of contested articles that are starting to make the rounds on a lot of different forums just sit there as a page not 100% related to the user. My take on user page policy has most always been that if it's article-looking it needs to be ready for an upload. of course that's never a 100% given. I entirely admit it's a matter of 100% raw

...Soooo sorry on this WP:TLDR underfor the continued rambling, but it's hard to be concise in just the nom blank since the situation is strange. Your view is 100% correct and within policy and it's and I admit it's a total apples/oranges on my interpretation of the "sanctuary precedent" idea. This is why there are discussions, at if no one finds thin randomly again, I'll easily surrender 'no consensus' despite the lowest of the low diverging opinion types of XfDs typically being at least 4-5ish. So closing admin, please as withdrawl or no consensus as per nom, if just this body guards views here, and even a few more reasonable claims might wander through by, please close at one week without a relist evem as no consensus (with just the two of us) or with even a few more posts to that effect come in. If even a 1% shot of someone blowing up with incivility, I have no desire to push my point as it's a separate but imo balanced difference in opinion.

This is the last I'll comment too since this is "my case" with a tainted POV to go on. It looks bad enough for me to report back at all, so I apologize for that. Also. per WP:TLDR I collapsed some of my own text but it does have some important opinions/requests on discussion close (or not close, likely...). Support Userification basically, if non one wants to read the box, hah. It would be against the user's wishes and admin request though, so still worth being approved/suggested here imo. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not related to the project or the user. Miami33139 (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2010 (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.