Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Maxcrc/Countries without frost

< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
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 Delete. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maxcrc/Countries without frost

edit
User:Maxcrc/Countries without frost (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned draft, unlikely to be considered encyclopedic. "Frost" is too vague a term. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user FreeRangeFRog is lying in his purpose to vandalise other userpages' content. That page was modified few days ago by myself, so his lies about an "abandoned" page don't stand at all.. That user seems to have a clear reputation of vandalising pages of other users. Perhaps he has nothing to do .There is no reason to remove a userpage , the only reason "abandoned" is a clear lie, as you can see my last edit few days ago. (I don't always log in when i edit, that's why sometimes you see IPs).MaXiMiLiAnO (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sparse edits through 2009-2012, followed by a few edits in the last 30 days that were nothing more than reverts, apparently. Wikipedia is not a webhost, and you should not be keeping this unsourced and apparently made up material in your userspace indefinitely. Drafts are intended to be turned into articles. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What user FreeRangeFrog states is untrue. On 9 February the page was edited and changes were made. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Maxcrc/Countries_without_frost&diff=646147311&oldid=594645985 The revert was dated 9 February on a change made on 22 January, instead a change of the text was made on 8 February in the line regarding Qatar.That was not a revert, but a change in the text,since it was made that time alone.

Regarding the content of being vague, this also doesn't make sense, as in the first line we can read the following "This is a list of countries which haven't recorded any official nor unofficial freezing air temperatures".

I don't understand what is unclear to him, unless he doesn't agree with the content itself,which wouldn't be a valid reason for deleting the page. It looks like he is moved by personal reasons to have that subpage (that is not a draft) deleted, because it seems he didn't bother to check at the last changes nor at the page's content. I don't see a difference between that and other userpage's subpages . They all have been kept for years, with or without sources, some with more and some with less frequent edits. Therefore it would make more sense to request a deletion for the main userpage if the reason is an abuse of Wikipedia as being used as host. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.98.69.173 (talk) — 171.98.69.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete I don't see this ever moving into article space. There are no references, especially for the percentages, which are admitted estimates (who estimated them? Is this original research?). And if it isn't going to make it to article space, it shouldn't be in user space, since user space isn't meant to be a permanent home for articles.  DiscantX 09:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, there is no requirement that user subpages be draft articles. This is not a policy-based argument. Risker (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Risker, I feel this falls under #3 at WP:Subpages#Disallowed uses – "Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." There is no requirement that subpages be draft articles, but this is a draft article, and it hasn't shown any signs of being moved to the article space in years, and so it doesn't belong in the user space. Drafts are meant to be temporary. This isn't, to use your examples below, an essay or Wikipedia related blog. It isn't even Wikipedia related. Which is exactly what the user space is for (except of course temporary drafts).  DiscantX 04:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why do you think this is a draft article? Has the user said it is a draft article? (In fact, he has said above that it is not a draft.) Is there a "draft article" notice on the page? How do you know this isn't just a list the user refers to for other reasons? Risker (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No hope of ever becoming an article. Nothing but vague WP:OR. More than 7 years old and no better now than when it was when created. We don't even know what the estimated percentages are for (% of country that is frost-free? % of time the country is frost-free? % of sources that say the country is frost-free? likelihood the country is frost-free?) And what's the point of making estimates such as 0-80%? Might as well just say 0-100% chance and be done with it. Meters (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there might be potential for this to be built into an encyclopedic list, based on statistics from weather authorities, but at the moment it isn't that. It's just a list of stats. User Maxcrc seems to be using this space to host a page linked from his own website, along with several other pages. He should just host them there. Ivanvector (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't have done that, I have just turned down all of those requests, Meters. If you really feel it is necessary, bring it to MFD. Risker (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Asked Risker to explain reasoning on his talk. Meters (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I have responded on my talk page. To summarize briefly, this MfD has not come to a conclusion yet, and there is not a community consensus that the original page is even deletion-worthy (yes, I can read the votes, but it's early days). Putting up a whole slew of additional userspace pages, which are doing no harm at all, and are not actually webhosting, up for CSD at the same time, while the user has also just been blocked (and that is a whole different subject which I won't deal with here) comes across as premature at best, if not mean-spirited. I'm still at a loss as to why instead of coming straight to MfD, there wasn't even an attempt to discuss with the user whose userpage is being discussed here. This whole thing is a big mess that could have been avoided entirely. Risker (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, these aren't really WP:U5 - there's a slim possibility they could be turned into articles with some work or used for other existing articles, and thus are plausible drafts. Each one should be evaluated on its own merits. Personally I can see a rationale for deleting each one, since the user who was working on them is blocked indefinitely; they are likely to become stale drafts, but that's not a speedy criterion. Ivanvector (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I have noted above, there is no requirement at all that user subpages be article drafts. Many users have all kinds of things in their userspace that will never be suitable for articles; I have essays in mine, Newyorkbrad has a Wikipedia-related blog, others keep logs of their activity, etc. As long as the user isn't straying into areas that are not permitted by policy or convention (e.g., BLP violations, fair-use images, polemics, games or the like) then they're generally permitted. Risker (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × several) Of course you're right, and thank you for interjecting your comment four times above. The pages you mention here are all related to Wikipedia or the project's goals, which is generally (but admittedly not always) required for user pages. Newyorkbrad's blog is Wikipedia-related, your essays have to do with Wikipedia (I'm assuming), I have pages and templates in my user space which are useful to my editing but unlikely to ever move to main space. The problem is Maxcrc's page pretends to be a Wikipedia article. The harm is that a user happening across his website might click one of these links and find what looks like a Wikipedia article but is really just a list of unverifiable guesses as to the likelihood of freezing temperatures in an assortment of countries. That usage is inappropriate.
Maybe this could be turned into an encyclopedia article, maybe a list of countries without freezing temperatures listing countries in which the official record low is above 0 °C (32 °F), sourced to weather authorities? I don't know if national temperature records are easily compiled - temperature extremes are often by city, but that might be a useful list as well and could be made sortable by country. If we were to create such an article, this page in Maxcrc's user space would not be of much benefit at all, since it just lists stats with no explanation as to what they are or where they came from. Ivanvector (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no deadline, DiscantX. I assume Maxcrc will use it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tag as non-article and Keep - user pages of active user. Other UP's for this user (eg User:Maxcrc/Europe) are clearly not drafts. As far as I can tell this editor is using Wikipedia and these UPs for his own purposes. I think that is acceptable and should be encouraged. As long as the UPs can't be mistaken for articles I see no problem here. --Surturz (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2015 (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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Maxcrc/Countries_without_frost&oldid=1073545768"