Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alternative addicts

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. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alternative addicts

Fake Article with user name standing in for article title Legacypac (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any doubt about whether it is a fake article can be clarified by checking diff. Johnuniq (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you unwilling to click on the external link put on an existing article, I took the chance and found out that it's a dead end. — Myk Streja _Talk to me 07:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep What do you mean, "a fake article"? Per WP:STALE this page should be blanked, rather than deleted.Newimpartial (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We mean exactly what we said. This type of page is not allowed in userspace. Legacypac (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we", white man? :) Anyway, the diff posted only shows that a user posted the alternativeaddicts website as a reference to another article, which does not make this draft article "Fake". According to what policy is this draft inappropriate for userspace? Newimpartial (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

resorting to racial assumptions now? User:Johnuniq immediately saw the issue too. The section on WP:FAKEARTICLE is within the page all about userspace and the larger section about what is not allowed in userspace. Are you just being a troll? Legacypac (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was a joke. https://Fward.asia.wiki.org/jenny.uk.fedwikihappening.net/whos-we-white-man/kate.au.fedwikihappening.net/whos-we-white-man.

I have read the section WP:FAKEARTICLE about five times now, and the only remotely relevant passage is this: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Pages that look like articles outside of mainspace should not be indexed for search engines." The draft in question is not indexed for search engines, is not an old revision, deleted content, or a preferred version in a dispute, nor is it a hoax, promotional, or inappropriate content. Neither of you have shown any reason why this draft should be seen as "fake", except for concern about the username which is not relevant to the WP:FAKEARTICLE policy.

I know that I am easy to troll :(, but could you please stop making it look so easy?Newimpartial (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"looks like an article" other then the word "user" - The page looks like an article, with the username standing in for the article name. Also, userspace IS indexed by search engines andIS further mirrored all over the web. As an SEO expert i can assure you there are definite benefits to a page like this for link building on wikipedia and its many mirrors. Legacypac (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are an "SEO expert" then you know this user page is not optimized for search. Anyway, no Wikipedia article looks like this, it is a stub at best. By your argument all userspace drafts are WP:FAKEARTICLEs, which is absurd. It has a {userspace draft} template right on it, so it is doing no harm. Newimpartial (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By your argument all userspace drafts are WP:FAKEARTICLEs If you a) are unable to understand the plain-English statement; or b) willing to distort someone's argument, as part of some odd crusade, perhaps you should be working in some other area of Wikipedia, like actual articles. --Calton | Talk 14:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inappropriate for user space. Speedy would have been justified. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fake article, trying to use Wikipedia as a free promotional tool. Could probably have been speedied and the editor blocked, given the external link the editor tried to introduce). --Calton | Talk 14:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a fake article intended to promote a... business? Ethos? Way of life? Problem is the username looks like an article title... Wait, isn't that part of being a fake article? Hmm, three edits after the initial entry, all of them maintenance activities. — Myk Streja _Talk to me 08:07, 3 June 2017 (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.