Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SiameseTurtle

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 Deleted at user's request per CSD U1.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:SiameseTurtle

More WP:FAKEARTICLE or WP:NOTWEBHOST concerns with these "oldest people" lists in userspace, similar to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NickOrnstein and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Verne2000. Ca2james (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - The main userpage has tables that are all useless without reliable sources. If sources are found, it can be added to List of British supercentenarians. The other three are also available elsewhere. Twins = List of oldest twins. Oldest = Oldest people and British supercentenarians = List of British supercentenarians. CommanderLinx (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It just goes to show how useful these userspace lists have been in developing many of the reliably sourced articles in Wikipedia today (you're welcome). These pages were used as a base to create several articles, and many of the other userspace articles are pages that are being developed. As for the lack of reliable sources, well there are many reliable sources that can be cited. Unfortunately, it seems that many editors are not interested in constructively improving articles by adding sources - but rather interested in destructive editing by mass deletion. Here are your many reliable sources, which could have been added, even by yourself: [1] [2] [3] [4]. There is no particular need for these sections of my page anymore, but the destructive attitude against a multitude of editors who have contributed to dozens of articles is against WP:POINT - "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally, COMPLETELY KEEP ALL - As per SiameseTurtle; all of his defending statements apply to Wikipedia's 'Founding Fathers' Guidelines', such as "WP:USER states that they can be used for "organizing and aiding the work users do on Wikipedia"". The lists I have on my page are in relation to Oldest people and the rules state that as long as information on my page relates to articles on this website than it is permitted. Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:WEBHOST. If editors want to make up their own lists, they can do it somewhere else. If they want to work on names for the articles, they should be directed to Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians or wherever else the project for this is doing it. There needs to be a central location for all this. There is zero purpose to have user versions of lists other than to create their own forks of the material. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I pity all of you wanting to be like a bunch of Chiefs over this great website. I will pray for all of you. God Bless all of you and please spend some Christmas Time with your family and more time away from the computer. Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all As per nom and CammanderLinx, with no bias against the user resurrecting their Userpage with the opening paragraph and Userboxes which are appropriate for such a page. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another example of pointless duplication, largely unsourced. If people wish to keep their own personal copies of this data they can - but not on Wikipedia, this isn't a webhosting service. As for claims that this material is intended for article improvement, I note that it has not been significantly edited for 3 1/2 years. Not that it is any use for article content without sources... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2014 (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.