Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:William Esdale

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. JohnCD (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:William Esdale

Fake article. Blatantly self-promotional beyond what is expected for users to say about themselves. User has made only one edit outside his user page, and that was to ask for autoconfirmed rights in order to add more of his work to his user page. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, FaceBook, MySpace, or a Google profile. WP:User pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royal broil 17:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A copy also exists at User:William Esdale/sandbox. And presumably also existed at the recently deleted William Esdale? A case could be made that this is a user draft, although writing autobiographies on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, and it looks like this one would not pass our notability guidelines. However, if this is a draft article, it should be in his sandbox only and clearly labelled with {{User sandbox}} to take it out of the search engines. The content of the actual user page under discussion here is completely inappropriate per WP:User pages and should be removed. Voceditenore (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the same as the deleted article. I realised that after having opened this MfD - in fact I should have probably summarily speedied the user page. I suppose any other admin could do that now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I totally agree with Voceditenore, violates WP:User pages. B-watchmework (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTAPLACETOPROMOTESTATICFORMSDRAWINGTHEVIEWERINTOVISCERALSTATEOFPSYCHOLOGICALEMOTIONALRESPONSE. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2013 (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.