| Revision as of 17:57, 15 March 2008 editObuibo Mbstpo (talk | contribs)1,675 edits →User:Cjneversleeps/Corrections.com: *'''Keep''' everything that's nominated for MfD. ~~~~← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:52, 10 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background-color: #E3D2FB; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!-- | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to nominate a miscellany page for deletion, you must manually edit the MfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result of the debate was '''keep'''. <span style="font-family:Lucida Calligraphy;"><b>]</b></span> <sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 00:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
| An admin userfied an article here and it has not been worked on since. Was originally tagged for speedy as ]. Reads like an advertisement for a non-notable web site. Fails the spirit of ]. ] (]) 13:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | An admin userfied an article here and it has not been worked on since. Was originally tagged for speedy as ]. Reads like an advertisement for a non-notable web site. Fails the spirit of ]. ] (]) 13:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment:''' Judging by a comment left on my talk page, this is a ] as it is the organization itself writing the article. ] (]) 16:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | *'''Comment:''' Judging by a comment left on my talk page, this is a ] as it is the organization itself writing the article. ] (]) 16:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::I guess we might need to look a little deeper at all this. Articles do get created with a COI, but, then there are better fixes than deleting them if they have usable, verifiable material, and userfying it removes the problem, even if it sits there in user space for years, it does no harm. The COI is irrelevant for this process. it would be relevant in article space, in terms of judging who is editing it, but not as to content.--] (]) 21:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *AGF much? Give him more than a few days to work on it. We have userfied articles that have gone months without work. If he had left this in his subpage for a long time without working on it, that would be one thing. But it has been a grand total of five days, and he has indicated that he intends to work on it. And I agree that there is a probable conflict of interest, but I will be watching to ensure that it remains neutral, verified and exhibits notability. '''] | ]''' 21:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | *AGF much? Give him more than a few days to work on it. We have userfied articles that have gone months without work. If he had left this in his subpage for a long time without working on it, that would be one thing. But it has been a grand total of five days, and he has indicated that he intends to work on it. And I agree that there is a probable conflict of interest, but I will be watching to ensure that it remains neutral, verified and exhibits notability. '''] | ]''' 21:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' - These are learning opportunities that should not be lost by making an editor steaming mad that his or her userpage draft has been deleted. Especially if Seresin is going to watch (maybe even mentor? - we can hope). Nothing wrong with you explaining your concerns to the user though and maybe together we can get the user to contribute valuable information in an area of expertise without writing ad copy.--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 04:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' - These are learning opportunities that should not be lost by making an editor steaming mad that his or her userpage draft has been deleted. Especially if Seresin is going to watch (maybe even mentor? - we can hope). Nothing wrong with you explaining your concerns to the user though and maybe together we can get the user to contribute valuable information in an area of expertise without writing ad copy.--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 04:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' for now at least - it was only userfied a few days ago, give them a chance. '' |
*'''Keep''' for now at least - it was only userfied a few days ago, give them a chance. '']'' 14:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' everything that's nominated for MfD. ] (]) 17:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' everything that's nominated for MfD. ] (]) 17:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Note this user has applied this comment to everything currently on MfD. '']'' 19:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hut pointed this out on ], if I remember correctly. However, to see what is happening, I've started looking at each of the MfDs involved. And, damn, Mbstop is right. Every one, so far, is a worthless waste of time. We need to RfC MfD, or, at least, write much better policy about it.--] (]) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Leave it a month and then {{tl|prod}} it. If the user contests the prod, bring it back. Tag as a user page in the mean time. No real need to do more at this point, as far as I can see. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''Absolutely, it wastes far more editor time to propose this for deletion than to leave it. Even if it is appropriate to delete it, it has been in the user's space for far too little time. What in the world is the hurry?--] (]) 21:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div> | |||
Latest revision as of 07:52, 10 February 2023
- 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 debate was keep. Greeves 00:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Cjneversleeps/Corrections.com
An admin userfied an article here and it has not been worked on since. Was originally tagged for speedy as A7. Reads like an advertisement for a non-notable web site. Fails the spirit of WP:USER. Redfarmer (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Judging by a comment left on my talk page, this is a conflict of interest as it is the organization itself writing the article. Redfarmer (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I guess we might need to look a little deeper at all this. Articles do get created with a COI, but, then there are better fixes than deleting them if they have usable, verifiable material, and userfying it removes the problem, even if it sits there in user space for years, it does no harm. The COI is irrelevant for this process. it would be relevant in article space, in terms of judging who is editing it, but not as to content.--Abd (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- AGF much? Give him more than a few days to work on it. We have userfied articles that have gone months without work. If he had left this in his subpage for a long time without working on it, that would be one thing. But it has been a grand total of five days, and he has indicated that he intends to work on it. And I agree that there is a probable conflict of interest, but I will be watching to ensure that it remains neutral, verified and exhibits notability. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - These are learning opportunities that should not be lost by making an editor steaming mad that his or her userpage draft has been deleted. Especially if Seresin is going to watch (maybe even mentor? - we can hope). Nothing wrong with you explaining your concerns to the user though and maybe together we can get the user to contribute valuable information in an area of expertise without writing ad copy.--Doug. 04:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep for now at least - it was only userfied a few days ago, give them a chance. Hut 8.5 14:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep everything that's nominated for MfD. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note this user has applied this comment to everything currently on MfD. Hut 8.5 19:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hut pointed this out on WP:AN/I, if I remember correctly. However, to see what is happening, I've started looking at each of the MfDs involved. And, damn, Mbstop is right. Every one, so far, is a worthless waste of time. We need to RfC MfD, or, at least, write much better policy about it.--Abd (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note this user has applied this comment to everything currently on MfD. Hut 8.5 19:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Leave it a month and then {{prod}} it. If the user contests the prod, bring it back. Tag as a user page in the mean time. No real need to do more at this point, as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- KeepAbsolutely, it wastes far more editor time to propose this for deletion than to leave it. Even if it is appropriate to delete it, it has been in the user's space for far too little time. What in the world is the hurry?--Abd (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2008 (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.