Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Family History

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 all. The overwhelming consensus here is that all of these pages are attempts to use Wikipedia as a webhost, the usual leeway granted to userspace notwithstanding, and should be deleted. Tim Song (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following user-space pages are nominated for deletion here, in no particular order:

The user to whom all these pages belong appears to be extensively using Wikipedia as a personal website/web-host/memorial, specifically to present his family history. Most of the nominated pages are completely unreferenced. Some (particularly this and this) contain full and verbatim copies of what are presumably copyrighted sources. Admittedly, it's not clear which are genuinely part of the author's family and which are pure fantasy, but they all date from about 2005-6, and none seem to be appropriately housed in the userspace at the present time. Many of the images on the pages have/had false copyright declarations etc. (and also raise WP:NOTWEBHOST issues), but these are being dealt with separately.

The editor in question will almost certainly say that I am harassing him and pursuing a vendetta; this is not true, but is anyway irrelevant to this discussion, where I urge people to look at the issue on its merits alone. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 09:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll say that this is pointy hounding contrary to our civility policy. I stumbled across an edit war between these two editors earlier today at Percy Claude Byron and it seems apparent that they can't get along. User:TreasuryTag should be warned, blocked or banned for escalating the matter in this unpleasant way. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reason for keeping them? If anyone is concerned with my behaviour, feel free to open an WP:RFC, but this is not an appropriate forum to discuss it. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 10:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, banned?! What's the matter with you? ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 10:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia" this is not, as far as I can see, relevant to the working of the encyclopedia - if it is, the onus should be on Mr. Norton to prove otherwise. SGGH ^ping! 10:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- having looked at about ten or fifteen of these articles it's pretty clear that they will never be mainspace articles. There's no sources in any of them (except for FindAGrave sometimes), or any assertion of notability of the subjects. I don't know what any of these subpages are for, but whatever it is it has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a webhost. Reyk _YO! 10:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_social_networking.2C_or_memorial_site. These pages look wonderful to me, family history is meaningful and worthy, but there is no encyclopedic reason for them to be in the editor's user space. Unless en.WP's notability thresholds shift someday (which could happen but is not foreseen now), they won't grow into articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. *More* non-notable bios from Richard. Jack Merridew 11:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty clearly WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for. These would be acceptable if they were being worked on in order to be moved into namespace, but that doesn't seem to be the case - this is just a user recording his family history. Robofish (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Think about what a Wikipedia userpage is for; for telling us who you are and what we can relate to in terms of interests, hobbies, and identify potential connections on which to edit collaboratively. But a family tree, what does that add to the project? If someone has an interest in genealogy, I'm sure there's a userbox for it, or one to be made. But we don't need to see the whole tree itself and such; we're not buddies. This is the sorta thing you share on facebook, so per "not facebook/myspace" and similar, toss it all. Tarc (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not facebook or a blog. These articles are a waste of byte-space and advance the project not. Sapporod1965 (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion doesn't actually release any bytes. That action and the related discussions just add to the space. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Don't_worry_about_performance. XfD is not about bytes. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. There are plenty of those that Richard should use. Fences&Windows 19:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I happened upon this issue casually and almost randomly. I don't know any of the editors involved. But it certainly looks to me that there's a wikiwar being waged here, and this set of MfD nominations is part of that war. I'd probably support deletion in another context, but I have a feeling that this would be better addressed by reprimanding all the editors involved in this ongoing skirmish individually and instituting a zero-tolerance policy for their antagonistic behavior. Then in a few weeks if someone wanted to MfD these family memorial pages in user space, I'd support that. Erie lhonan 20:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Do you have any reason, grounded in Wikipedia policies or guidelines, to keep the pages? ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 20:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are exactly who I am talking about re reprimanding, Mr. Third Vice Chancellor of the Exchequer or whatever you are calling yourself this time; you and Norton1958. WP:POINT - please read it. I am suggesting ignoring any administrative actions you or he initiates against the other due to your uncollegial behavior, reprimanding both of you and any other editor involved in your mudfight, and then letting someone else initiate any potential administrative actions on content. Erie lhonan 20:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't present a reason, grounded in Wikipedia's content policies, as to why these pages should be kept, your comment is likely to be discounted. Your choice, though. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 20:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for keeping is that your RfD nominiation is a case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I would support this nomination if it weren't in the middle of a personality war between you and the creator of the pages. The fact that YOU nominated it given your ongoing conflict is my reason for keeping it. I am concerned that you are using the Wikipedia community to try to carry out a personal vendetta, and I don't think it's appropriate for the community to allow you to do this. I tell you what - if you drop this RfD nomination, I will nominate these pages for RfD within 15 days. But you have to stay entirely away from Norton's contributions in the meantime. How's that sound? Erie lhonan 20:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[1] "I would support this nomination" sounds very clear. The issue of who nominated it is neither here nor there, and will doubtless be ignored by the closing admin. Thanks for clarifying your position, which is, in fact, perfectly in accord with mine: the material should be deleted. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 20:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erielhonan, for this to be a case of TreasuryTag disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, wouldn't there have to be some, you know, actual disruption? TT can make all the points he likes: if there's not disruptive behaviour, and there isn't any here, he's not doing anything wrong. In fact, since these pages should be deleted and you admit it- but want them kept anyway just to make a statement about TreasuryTag, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you are being nonconstructive to make a point? Reyk _YO! 23:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk, to me this is all a bunch of silly politicking and deserves to be disregarded because of that. Rules should never be applied without regard to context, and the context here is a pre-existing personality conflict between the MfD nominator and the maintainer of the nominated pages. That's the point I am trying to make. If you take TT's nomination out of context then it may or may not be valid (and I am persuaded by the 'leeway for active contributors' Keep argument), but that's not an accurate picture of what's going on here. As far as me being disruptive, I'm a casual editor who happened upon a bad scene. I'm commenting because I think it would be unjust to consider this nomination. I think a MfD nomination from a disinterested party wouldn't be tainted. This doesn't pass my sniff test, it puts personality before principles, and that's my point. Also, please do not emphasize pronouns that refer to someone who you disagree with, it seems to take it to a personal level. Erie lhonan 15:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rules should never be applied without regard to context. Actually, they should. You have said that you think the pages should be deleted. So they should be deleted. Keeping them just to spite the nominator is absurd. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 15:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When did this become about me spiting you? I don't spite you. I question your motives, in asking the community to delete a lot of work done by someone whom you obviously don't like. Also, as I said I've been persuaded by another Keep argument (leeway for active contributors), so please feel free to stop saying I think the articles should be deleted. I don't have a very strong opinion on that. I do have a strong opinion on the motivation behind this nomination, and your rapid-response monitoring of this page sort of reinforces that opinion. If you would like to continue to make this about why I'm wrong, go ahead. Just keep in mind that it kind of reads as petty. Erie lhonan 15:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't quite clear. You did say that you "would support this nomination if it weren't in the middle of a personality war" – the only logical conclusion one could draw from that statement is that you think that the pages, which you admit are inappropriate, should anyway be kept simply because I was the nominator. In fact, you made that explicit in the same edit.

As for your other point, in which you complain about my "rapid-response monitoring of this page" – the alternative: presumably if I made the nomination and then completely ignored this page, you'd be accusing me of drive-by deletion? ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 15:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Clarity isn't the problem. 2) I reevaluated my position on the delete-worthiness of these article, please see above. 3) Again (and again) it's not because it's you nominating these pages, it's because the nomination smells like vendetta. Nothing personal. 4) I'm done playing 'who gets the last word' in this thread. But I am curious to see how long this edit goes unrebutted. Erie lhonan 17:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have multiple problems with assuming good faith, but that's a matter for the potential future WP:RFC/U rather than here. ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 17:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erielhonan , thank you for understanding and being honest and fair about this situation. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for saying so, Feyd. Being pleasant is nice. Erie lhonan 21:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep active constructive editors are traditionally allowed some leeway in their user space. Also the articles are well written, and may be moved to main space if ever our WP:GNG is relaxed to be consistent with our vision. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for real? "He's been around awhile", "the prose is nice", and "someday it might be article-worthy?" Most people with biases at least try to pretend their !vote is couched in objectivity, but this is pretty obviously, um, not. Tarc (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FeydHuxtable's point seems a reasonable one. There is little functional difference between the articles in question and other draft articles which editors maintain in their userspace such as User:Tarc/Ultraviolence (band). Such marginal prospects do not have to demonstrate notability because they are not in article space and notability is not, in any case, a policy. The time to challenge such stuff is when it is placed in article space. Until then, editors should be allowed some reasonable freedom to use their workspace as a scratch pad where they may tinker and doodle as they please. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big difference between a handful of subpages about borderline notable subjects, and dozens and dozens of subpages that will never make encyclopedia articles and don't even seem to be intended for the mainspace. Reasonable freedom, yes. Webhost used as an indiscriminate dumping ground, no. Reyk _YO! 08:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty stupid comparison to make Warden, not that I'm surprised. There is no linkage between a userfied deleted article and a shitpile of Myspace pages, as this is. Don't waste my time with this sorta thing, pls.Tarc (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Textbook violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything. This is not a little bit of personal stuff in user namespace, this user abuses Wikimedia projects as his personal webspace. Not only en.wikipeda but also Commons with creating out of scope galleries of his non-notable family members in the Commons gallery(main) namespace and filling image descriptions with massive bio-spamming. It is unbelievable that such voluminous spam comes from a user with ~100K edits. --Martin H. (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Editors matter, we should be making more effort to not present the appearance of turning so quickly on Richard, one of our most valuable colleagues. True, this material goes beyond the standard user page, but there is a harshness and coldness to saying "delete". This is interesting, touching, and valuable information. There are, however, other places where it might be better hosted, and of course, a link to that location would be welcome in Richard's userpage. This one, http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Family_History_and_Genealogy_Wiki, looks particularly well suited. We should ask Richard to think about move the bulk of the material there, and not threaten him with a week long deadline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first one as reasonable personal information, delete the rest as WP:NOT#WEBHOST. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Aiken ♫ 09:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It matters not why TT examined the contributions of this user, the fact is he uncovered a gross violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. I42 (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as an extreme violation of WP:NOTWEBSPACE. SmokeyJoe's suggestion to RAN to move it to a Wikia is a valid one, but I do not think it requires holding off on an MfD. Being his family history, one would presume he has copies (and if not, considering the current consensus here, common sense would say to start making them). In either case, it does not belong on Wikipedia - this is neither a hosting service nor a memorial site. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agree with SmokeyJoe that alternatives should be presented to Richard Arthur Norton in the spirit of collegiality and he should be give time to move stuff. The correct course of action, when finding large numbers of user pages created or uploaded by a single user is to approach them and discuss it first before carrying out a mass nomination. TreasuryTag, did you approach Richard Arthur Norton before all these mass nominations that you carried out? I've looked through your edits to his user talk page and I see no indication that you did anything other than dump a load of deletion nominations templates on his userpage, the only preceding edits I can find being the one where you two are arguing about something else. Mass nominations can be considered disruptive and in bad faith if they are not preceded by such an approach (there are precedents for this that I can dig out for you if you like). On a more general note, I have lots of old stuff in my userspace that I blank after a while with a notice saying "blank to page history". That may technically breach the spirit of not letting old stuff hang around, but page blankings take one or two edits and use less resources (I'm talking here about community time that is better spent elsewhere) than deletion debates. And to Richard Arthur Norton, the advice Gwen Gale left you on your talk page is good - these pages and most of the images are not really suitable here - I can understand you being upset with how this was handled, but you need to recognise the consensus that has formed here, no matter how heavy-handedly this was handled. Carcharoth (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as relevant to presenting RAN's background and editing biases, and thus being relevant to the business of building an encyclopedia. He's an editor whose main work is in genealogy and it's therefore to be expected that he may maintain userspace relevant to his interest in and motivations for that work. In addition, these may all be potential articles at such time as RAN can find notability. Lastly, the nomination, while not necessarily in bad faith, comes in the context of a systematic attack on RAN's editing history that is at the very least uncharitable; I note that the problem with these pages was not discussed with RAN prior to their nomination for deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To put it another way, if RAN had made these articles in the mainspace, had them deleted through AfD, and then requested their userfication until such time as he improved them, there would be absolutely no argument for their deletion. I'm not sure why he's worse off for having had the good sense to not launch them into the mainspace until they were ready. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further, their mass nomination is inappropriate. User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Janice Nicolich, for example, is arguably notable (significant coverage in two independent reliable sources) and with a little love and care could probably survive an AfD in the mainspace. I'd urge editors to not let the fact that many of us regularly disagree with Richard stop us from assessing these pages in accordance with WP:AGF, the relevant content policies, and an analysis of each page on its merits. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If any of the bios are notable, then it calls into question the whole mass nomination. However, I am not sure that DustFormsWords is right, and I am not comfortable at all with the section on Verma_Harrison. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I but that's an issue going to article content rather than the notability of the article subject. If the articles are deleted, we're left open to the slightly ludicrous proposition of RAN saying, "Well, okay, can you userfy them for me so I can work on them?", which, were these in the mainspace, he'd be entitled to do (subject to attack/BLP issues being redacted). - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm—if there is a consensus to delete them from userspace as being years-untouched web-hosted material, then they wouldn't be userfied on request. Surely that's obvious? ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 08:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all While it's unfortunate that there is significant history behind the participants, and the deletion may not be appreciated by some people, it is inescapable that these pages do violate WP:NOTWEBHOST. We don't avoid taking the correct action due to our interpretation of what might be motivating some editors, and these pages are not in any way suitable for article development, and they do not contribute to Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All While there may be some useful material in some of these, they don't belong in User space. If User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) wants to work on one or two of them, fine, but the main subpage title --User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Family History cries out that mass deletion is appropriate. These articles haven't been worked on for years (I generalize -- I have not looked at all the histories), so there can hardly be an argument that they deserve to be kept on the grounds that they might become good articles. RAN work on them off Wikipedia if that is the case. As for TreasuryTag's behavior, it was perhaps not the best, but that's irrelevant here. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Multiple articles in user space that are not notable, any content included about any living people has BLP issues also. Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note closing admin At least one of the user space page under consider has been moved since this MfD began. Specifically, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Family History was moved to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/My family History and then to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/My family history. I bring this up not to accuse RAN of anything improper, but only so that if this is closed as "delete all" then the closing admin will know these pages also should be deleted. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: productive users should be, and generally are, given significant lee-way in user space. wp:NOTWEBHOST is primarily used to discourage people who don't otherwise use the encyclopedia from using the space to network, advertise, or store material. Notability is not a requirement of user space. I assume these have been __noindex__ed?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddy431 (talk • contribs)
Delete We're not a web host, and productive editors are given reasonable leeway when in user space when it work might improve the project. This is just a personal genealogy project. AniMate 06:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all excess pages as being better suited to a genealogy site than WP. This goes beyond a short c.v. for an editor, to be sure. Note that there is still no requirement for the subjects of a page in userspace to be "notable." The issue here is one of excess. Collect (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only to say it, I think the notion of notability was only brought up because after 5 years, there was still no hint the content was headed for the article space, hence it wasn't use of userspace for encyclopedia building, which is the pith of WP:User page. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is to allow active editors some leeway. The point here is that this exceeds reasonable leeway. And the policies allow some "personal content" in userspace - too often the bit about being not "encyclopedic" has been used as a personal tool at MfD. Collect (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a personal web page. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 19:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete all Per all... 68071 ^talk ...

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.