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 Both pages speedied per G7 and G8. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to violate WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UPNO#Excessive unrelated content. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Much better now. WP:NOTADVOCATE Substantially advocating something and not much directed to improving the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If he hadn't put a link to it in his user ID, and had kept it boxed up somewhere, would this still be an issue? People write all kinds of essays here. Seems to me his mistake (as someone told him earlier) was in trying to turn it into a preaching tool. The question is, is there any hope of any part of that essay working its way into a Mormon-related article at some point? Or is it essentially a "POV-fork"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Its purpose to the project, beyond being a resource for advocacy, is very unclear. He should explain its purpose in respect to the project. It is very POV, which looks bad, but in userspace POV doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't intended to help build NPOV mainspace content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  In short, he needs to come here and explain himself, or we can pretty well guarantee it will soon be history. Another thing that undercuts its credibility is using about 27 different font sizes, as if it were a large electronic religious tract, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep It is relevant to wikipedia because I am unhappy with the state of LDS articles in general and since I am being supressed from changing them by a number of individuals. I have voiced an alternative opinion in that essay and questioned some of the skeptical criticla theories that are being presented as mainstream in that article, and used sources to do it. Nonetheless I have blanked the content of the page, so you cant just delete it now. Routerone (See here!) 07:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the essay to be a reasonable personal userspace essay, it would have to say at the top of the essay what it's purpose is, and why it is not just a deletable polemic.

In its current form (behind the blanking, which does not hinder deletion), it is highly POV, and not obviously connected to any ongoing Wikipedia issue.

Questions that Routerone should have answers prominently provided at the top of the essay include:

• What articles are problematic
• What inaccuracies are present on these articles
• what sources contradict the above
• What happened when you tried to fix the article directly.

Linking to the page from your signature is very bad form. It is inappropriate canvassing Routerone should also consider any applicable messages in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in the interests of restoring the page content for the forseeable future. You are nominating a blank page for deletion. I have the content of the essay saved on my computer so being honest.. its not a great loss. Routerone (See here!) 09:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realise that you are still linking to it from your signature? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a blank page. I ought to use it for something more apropriate for wiki-guidelines. Would that be allowed? Routerone (See here!) 09:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FIrst, get the link out of your signature, before an admin does it for you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second, you can create a new sub-page with a neutral title such as "User:Routerone/sandbox" if you want your own working-storage section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Routerone (See here!) 10:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Aghhh See User:Routerone/notes which is the redirect for this page. Looks to me like a candidate for speedy deletion as an attack page. But as I'm involved, I'll take it to ANI instead for another opinion. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an attack page, at all nor is it intended to be. Merely making valid civil comments on another editors editing and rising concerns about some articles is not problematic in my opinion. Routerone (See here!) 11:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Griping about specific editors in the way you're doing is usually a step or two towards the exit door. Is that what you want? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I guess. Everything looks OK now. You should take it out of your signature, though. Gigs (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC) The attacks on specific editors need to go. Sorry I missed those at first. Gigs (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While not an outright attack page it does disparage a editors, Nor is this an Essay provides any guidance to users as essays are supposed to. its simply Soap Boxing We are not a Word Press or Blogspot were a rant like this belongs The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't find this essay personally offensive or anything but Wikipedia is not a webhost, blog, or soapbox. Why not just write a short paragraph about LDS on your userpage about why you believe in it? Lots of people do that and it's usually fine, but this length of personal essay is sort of pushing it. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not myspace, it's not a blog, attacking other editors (especially by having it linked in your signature) is (a) in bad taste and (b) against policy. If you alter the page to remove those details and consensus is that it can stay, the article history should be deleted- either by you (by copying the content to a new page) or by an admin (no copying necessary). I'm willing to do the latter on request. tedder (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page Speedily Deleted- I requested it. Happy? Routerone (See here!) 14:20, 7 October 2010 (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.