Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/User:Wordsurged

There is very mixed feeling about this. However, it seems to me that there is most support for the option of reviewing the position on Mar 3. I certainly see no consensus to delete immediately.--Poetlister 17:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Wordsurged
Normally I'd leave a user page alone, but the creation of this page is the user's only edit, made on Nov. 6, 2007, and is a cut-and paste copy of The ClueFinders 5th Grade Adventures: The Secret of the Living Volcano. BD2412 T 05:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 06:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reluctant keep I don't think that we have any policy reasons to delete this. Is it a copyvio?  If so, we could delete on those grounds.--Poetlister 13:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we really need 'policy reasons'? It's flotsam. A userpage by a non-user, most likely merely an experiment. I queried the user about it long ago and (of course) got no response. BD2412 T 15:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There's no reason for non-users to have user pages.--Cato 22:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have a problem with that, even, if the page had some semblence of utility to the project! BD2412 T 23:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, I'd say that if a user contributed for weeks or months then went idle and maintained a decent page I'd say there is a case that there is value to the project at a meta level. For example for future editors to get inspiration on how to format their own user page for usability, to convey information to other editors or simply to provide context for the discussions which shaped procedures of WQ.  However... -- Greyed 00:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As this article is not a well maintained user page of a prolific editor (see my comment above), no sense in keeping it around. -- Greyed 00:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Could the user have copied the material there intending to create a page later? Could he have mistakenly thought this is the way we do pages here, or that he was in some way subscribing to the page? It's been less than two months. I agree it certainly doesn't look like intends to return, and I can see why we want to discourage people from using WQ as a place for jotting down stuff for private reference, but it seems inhospitable to delete his page without even a note to him telling him how he is violating WQ policies (and I have to admit that after reading Policies and guidelines I'm not quite sure how he is). I'd like to add such a note and then wait at least 90 days (i.e., another month) before removal. If we have access to an email address for him, perhaps we should send him a note. It's not as if the page were somewhere anyone else was likely to see it. --Ubiquity 08:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If I were to drop a note on this user's talk page saying that I intended to delete his user page, and would not do so if he raised an objection within, say, 90 days, would you object to my then deleting it if the 90 days passes without comment by this user? BD2412 T 17:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that would be more than fair. In fact, I'd say 45 days would be fair. The 90 days I mentioned earlier included the almost 60 since he last appeared. --Ubiquity 18:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll support that too.--Poetlister 23:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I dropped a note on his talk page, setting a deadline of March 3 (that's just under 60 days from today). BD2412 T 23:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine to me. Thank you for contacting the user, BD2412. --Aphaia 21:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer that we wait much longer than 90 days since there is no harm in keeping an user page and deleting it might make the user feel unwelcome. I suggest revisiting it in a year. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 00:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * keep--Lookatthis 19:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Inesculent 05:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per BD2412 and Cato. User page is no user property. Users are invited to use it to help build the project. It is pointless to keep non-users' userpages. I don't proceed to claim we should get rid of all of such, since it may increase our workload. So normally I'd rather like to leave them as are, but if we find there is a potential problem, we have no reason to hesitate to remove that. --Aphaia 21:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Potential newbie biting. I prefer to wait much, much longer before deleting the entire page. I don't see any harm in keeping the page and there is some small potential harm with deleting it if we make an user feel unwelcome. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment FloNight suggests waiting a year. Either we have a policy of letting people keep pages (except in egregious cases) or we ask them not to create them and just disappear.  If the latter, 90 days seems long enough.  My own belief is teetering towards keep, but I'm not sure.--Yehudi 16:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)