Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gulker

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: Keep. WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply to user pages only articles. And Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines does not forbid this. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Gulker

User:Gulker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Deceased Wikipedian who made all of one edit to the encyclopedia, and that was to start the user page - someone else added the other material. There is absolutely no reason to keep this. MSJapan (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep, as he also uploaded quality images to commons, and which are used on this and other sister projects. He was clearly intending a proper userpage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines Thincat (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Three pictures on one day; that's the extent of it. As for the guideline, By default, constructively contributing Wikipedians should be honored with a listing at WP:RIP. Criteria for placement on the Deceased Wikipedian page has not been discussed, although by common sense listed users should have been active enough to be considered part of the community. 4 edits? That's not even enough to get autoconfirmed. MSJapan (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• It is enough. It is more than most do. The images are actually quite good. We should thank him, not insult him. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Really? Most people don't ever contribute. That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Moreover, he's dead; I don't think he cares either way as to whether there's a page for him or not. It's not like he checked part and participated in the community; he uploaded 3 things to Commons on February 9, 2009, made one edit to his user page on enwiki in September 2009, never did anything else, and died over a year later. Nobody thanked him then, so it couldn't have been such a big deal, could it? He clearly didn't invest in the community, either. You're grossly overstating the matter, and what's "insulting" is that there are contributors in that cat with thousands of contribs for years, and this guy's on par with them as a "contributor", apparently because "he's dead." Think about that. MSJapan (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

He contributed enough to have a userpage. Given that he has a userpage, the tag is appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as per MSJapan, not meeting the standard set at WP:RIP. 1 single edit for his own userpage is certainly not enough (this user did not contribute to WP, and intentions mean nothing). If uploading 3 images to Commons is so significant, then his userpage at Commons may be kept. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You and MSJapan are mixing up two things: The "Deceased Wikipedians" obiturary list at WP:RIP (which requires names to be manually added) and the template {{Deceased Wikipedian}}.

WP:RIP applies to that obituary list ("Welcome to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians, a memorial listing of English-language Wikipedians who died.") and WP:DWG has a section named "On WP:RIP and memorial pages" specifically for that list as well. I agree that a user with just a handful of edits does not belong there, but: None of the accounts listed by MSJapan was ever added to that list! Therefore your both arguments are based on false assumptions - and what you are complaining about is a complete non-issue.

However, none of this has anything to do with adding the {{Deceased Wikipedian}} template to a user page: The rules for adding the user page template are defined in the section "On the userpage" of WP:DWG: "A standardized and secular template, {{Deceased Wikipedian}}, is available to be placed on the user talk pages of deceased Wikipedians." Adding this template does not add a user to any memorial portal or hall-of-fame, it simply indicates that the account owner is dead, nothing more. Therefore, per our established rules: Keep.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. But to take the argument even further, this discussion is not about whether or not to add {{Deceased Wikipedian}} to the user page. It is about whether to delete it or not. Since this user never was a contributor to WP, he doesn't need a userpage telling us he's dead. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Uploading to commons a quality image that is used on an en.wikipedia article makes him a contributor in my book. I would not oppose moving and redirecting his userpage from here to commons, to Commons:User:Gulker, but I do think doing so would be completely pointless. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

He's a contributor at Commons, not en:wp. If you consider that the same as contributing to en:wp, you may as well make a memorial page for him at every one of the 294 wikis! Where is your bar, your standard??? -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this a slippery slope argument? With global account unifications, I would have had all uncreated userpages on sister wikis where he has contributions redirect to his first editing account's userpage. I suppose that is Commons. The bar, for commons contributions counting for en.wiki is an uploaded image used in en.wiki mainspace. But I am more concerned with the distaste of a vendetta against users who contributed but not to someone's bar. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed a very similar MfD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Irelandd, as keep. However, this has slightly less participation, and the only edit the user to whom the page belongs made locally (i.e. on the English Wikipedia) was to create this userpage. I will point out that had the user created it at meta-wiki (i.e. a global user page) we wouldn't have any say about it locally.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• The relister is injecting inappropriate opinion in the administrative action of delisting. Asserting importance to where the contributions were made, is to imply that commons is not Wikipedia. And the reference to meta is very out of place, users are not encouraged to create userpages at meta. If the images were uploaded locally and then transferred by bot, would that change things? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• I neutrally stated facts while contrasting this with the semi-related MfD I had just closed. The comment regarding meta is relevant in my humble opinion (at the least it is thought provoking).— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Meta is indeed full of interesting and thought provoking stuff, but I think it fell out of fashion before userpages came into fashion. I hope his userpage doesn't get deleted ultimately for the reason that he made it on en instead of meta. If it must be moved, move it to commons, not meta, but again, doing so would be completely pointless, and I still find the whole issue offensive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

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.