Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elisa Villar

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Delete. Xoloz 03:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elisa Villar

This is a detailed user page for an editor with no contributions except to it. The question has been raised whether this is a violation of WP:NOT (Section "Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site"), and I think we need a proper review in order to establish precedent. Are we willing to keep such pages when the editor has done no work on the encyclopedia, or not? Chick Bowen 16:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "What wikipedia is not" page has a section on free hosting, blogging, webspace provision and social networking which says that user pages should be "used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia". The first line of WP:USER#What can I not have on my user page? says "your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian.". It says that "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants" (emphasis added). Of course everyone shouldn't be forced to have a userpage as boring as mine, but this is just a personal homepage. If we don't want to turn into a free webhost, then this has got to go. --Hughcharlesparker 16:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and the comments above. I think deletions like this shouldn't be done rashly, as very often the first thing a user does is set up their user page. However, given a certain period of time that the user shows no intention of contributing to the encyclopedia, deletions like this are necessary to prevent our servers as being used as a free webhost. In this case, the user page has sat there for more than 2 months, and I feel that is enough of time. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yep. Definitely a vio of WP:NOT. Not sure that this should be used as a "precedent" per se. As EWS23 said, we need to be careful with this stuff. But yeah, it's obvious that they are using Wikipedia as webspace. Btw, if this is deleted, it should probably be protected from recreation. Very open to abuse. --Woohookitty^(meow) 17:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason to protect from re-creation until re-creation has already happened. Angr (t • c) 10:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above. Should we also include Image:ElisaVillar1.PNG in this vote as it only serves as part of her user page? --Charli e^{( @CIRL | talk | email )} 17:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What wikipedia isn't#...personal websites etc... says that uploaded files not used in encyclopedic content will be deleted, so I'd say yes, we should. (My comments above about latitude stand here as well.) Go for it. --Hughcharlesparker 18:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this discussion is a roundabout descendant of Hughcharlesparker's listing of that image on IFD. I processed that day's IFD and didn't delete it because this page still existed, but if this page ceased to exist, I think that the original IFD listing would allow the image to be deleted. Or is that too convoluted? Chick Bowen 18:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have said that it was me who originally listed the image for deletion. I originally listed this user page for deletion too. I don't think that's too convoluted, it seems like a logical approach. --Hughcharlesparker 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But cf. Raul654's conclusion that a consensus exists for one's being permitted to upload personal photos for userpage use (of course, I recognize that the user here is not contributing, but I mean only to suggest that, if we are to implement a blanket proscription against the use of personal photos for unencyclopedic purposes, we'll have a lot of work to do). WP:USER's proviso that f the community lets you know that they would rather you deleted some or other content from your user space, you should probably do so, at least for now - such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. After you've been here for a while, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you get away with it seems to cover the situation well, IMHO. Joe 18:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current policy and practice seem to be directly opposed. To add to what you've said: I've read somewhere recently that although wikimedia has a shortage of bandwidth, it has ample disk space - sorry, I can't remember where I read that. I'm not aware of a problem with user specific images, so it seems to me the policy needs changing. I'll ponder that for a couple of days and then head over to WP:NOT's talk page. --Hughcharlesparker 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only contributions are to the userpage. Stifle (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a web hosting site; the idea that anyone can simply use an user space for a website, especially without contributing to the encyclopedia, is ridiculous. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. I echo the concerns above about carrying precedent too far, but this is an obvious case. Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Closing admin, if this is deleted, please put Image:ElisaVillar1.PNG up at WP:IFD for deletion as an orphan (and as a photograph in .png format -- eew!). Angr (t • c) 10:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per all above. --Bhadani 15:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, however the quotes section leads me to believe this is actually somebody else's page about her (not quite an attack page, but very silly indeed). In either case, it should go, and that concern makes me think the picture should go as well, as they may not have had the right to release it under the GFDL. -- nae'blis _(talk) 14:19, 23 May 2006 (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.