Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jacques-laporte

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. --RL0919 (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jacques-laporte[edit]

WP:NOTMEMORIAL - 8 edits on three separate days, all to add links to his own webpage. No reason to memorialize this user to the community. MSJapan (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of the edits non-reverted? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of his edits were reverted, as there was no reason to revert them. They were (are) quality links about a (technical/historical) topic where he was (and is) recognized as an expert in the community (CORDIC algorithm and its implementation in Hewlett-Packard calculators), not SPAM. The links are still present in the Calculator, CORDIC and HP-35 articles - ten years after he added them. It was removed from the Logarithm article years later in a general cleanup. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Matthiaspaul. Keep. Was a productive contributor. Contributed a little, in line with project goals. Was a Wikipedian. Some contribute a little. Some contributed a lot. All contributors are valued. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a bit puzzled about the nomination. I added the template to indicate that this is a dead account and any attempts to contact the account owner would be pointless, because the account owner is deceased. Users could have wanted to contact him because he was an expert on the subject and recognized in the community for this. I certainly didn't add him to a Wikipedia hall-of-fame. How should adding this purely informal tag aid in "memorialize this user to the community" - after all, it's seen only by those who end up at his user page for some reason? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The longer I think about this nomination, the more I find it embarrassing. It is clearly derogative in tone at the borderline to being frivolous. WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply, and adding the tag is even suggested in our behaviour guideline at WP:DWG. In fact, it should also be added to the user talk page. Hence: Keep. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines Thincat (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From that guideline, By default, constructively contributing Wikipedians should be honored with a listing at WP:RIP. Criteria for placement on the Deceased Wikipedian page has not been discussed, although by common sense listed users should have been active enough to be considered part of the community. Tell me how 8 edits, not enough to even autoconfirm, meets that criterion. Second of all, it's not the template - it's the fact that he's been added to a category of users, the majorty of whom were long-term contributors and actually contributed to the community in a meaningful way over that time. MSJapan (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to WP:RIP ("Welcome to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. This is a memorial listing of English-language Wikipedians who died.") and are citing a section in WP:DWG named "On WP:RIP and memorial pages", which does not apply, as he wasn't put into that "Deceased Wikipedians" (obiturary) list at WP:RIP or any other WP hall-of-fame.

What applies to the template on the user page is the section "On the userpage" in WP:DWG: "A standardized and secular template, {{Deceased Wikipedian}}, is available to be placed on the user talk pages of deceased Wikipedians. Its placement is at editors' discretion, and should be considered on a case by case basis."

You are also complaining that the template put him into the category "Category:Deceased Wikipedians", because this category also contains deceased editors who contributed more or over a longer period of time. While I don't care if he's put into that category or not, that's how the template was designed, and according to the name of the category this appears to be a perfect fit. I find it only natural that such a category also contains editors who contributed more.

Trying to understand your motivation for the nomination, you seem to seek for a new category "Deceased veteran Wikipedians" or something along that line. Feel free to propose such a category, but I would be against it as it would create a two-class system, whilst one of our basic principles here at Wikipedia is that we should all be treated the same. In my book, creating such a new category would actively "memorialize users to the community" and thereby violate WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I don't care if an editor made 1 or 100000 edits, for as long as it was a good-faith contribution to the project.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the appropriate guideline and serves the useful purpose of letting other editors know there's no point in trying to contact the user. A history of quality COI edits should not disqualify an editor's page. Meters (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2016 (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.