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. The user is welcome to re-create this user page, as long as they actually create a user page there, not a fake article. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Metro2fsb[edit]

User:Metro2fsb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

I'm just acting as a middleman for CT55555. See below for their rationale. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user page looks like an article and I therefore think it could mislead people and should be deleted as per my understanding of WP:USERPAGE CT55555(talk) 04:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the janitors are more powerful then the content creators on Wikipedia. Fair assessment? Can you help with Draft:Council for Foreign and Defense Policy?

1. Draft:Council for Foreign and Defense Policy (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
2. Doctor Lisa (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Metro2fsb (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC) This comment by Metro2fsb is not contributing to the deletion discussion and is rather trying to recruit people to help with their editing, for which this is an inappropriate venue. As such I've struck this both because it's irrelevant and likely to confuse discussion participants. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 04:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in the absence of a better reason for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is my first time here, so I may be framing things wrong, but perhaps WP:FAKEARTICLE is the specific thing I should be quoting as justifying the deletion. Currently this looks like an article, but it is not. CT55555(talk) 05:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:This looks like a userspace draft on a legitimate topic. It should perhaps be moved to another title that indicates it is a draft, but I see no reason to delete this. Userspace and draftspace aren't indexed by web search engines and generally aren't found by regular readers unless people intentionally go looking for them, so there is no real concern about such things as this misleading people. See WP:RAGS. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 02:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The linked essay questions why anyone would be looking at someone else's user space, and so by way of explanation it is because the user keeps tagging me in things, so I checked out who they are, and their user pages looks a lot like wikipedia page of a Russian Think Tank, which seems very weird to me, but I see consensus appears to be that people have can a user page that mimics a wikipedia article. That's strange to me, but I guess I'm learning something here. CT55555(talk) 03:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It does seem somewhat at cross purposes that the user has opted to host their (presumed) WP:USERDRAFT on their main userpage rather than a separate subpage of their userspace such as I've done, so again, it should perhaps be moved elsewhere for that reason. But I don't see any deliberate effort to mislead here, or any other content violation- Metro2fsb could quite possibly simply not know how to make a user subpage. If that's the case, deletion is not the solution here. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 03:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It seems my initial read of the situation was mistaken. This userpage is a duplicate of Draft:Council for Foreign and Defense Policy, which was initially created by Metro2fsb in mainspace, but ultimately draftified due to a lack of adequate sources. Rather than try to seek out those sources and improve the draft themselves, Metro2fsb has apparently gone about attempting to recruit other users to improve the article for them (which is what nominator is evidently referring to when they say Metro "keeps tagging [them] in things"), and have duplicated the draft on their userpage as part of their efforts to promote it to other users (as can be seen by the request for others to add to it that is written at the top).
  I can't and won't speak to the appropriateness of their editing, and that matter is outside the scope of this deletion discussion. But given this context, I can see that this is clearly an inappropriate use of their userpage, per WP:COPYARTICLE. As such, it should be deleted if it is not revised to something more suitable. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 04:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. —Alalch E. 01:45, 13 January 2023 (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.