- 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. @harej 00:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Various WP:NOT: WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTBLOG. Twri (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - while I'm not usually in the business of deleting things in userspace, I think this is generally inappropriate; Wikipedia is simply being used as a vehicle through which the user is publishing his original research. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There's nothing wrong with an established editor keeping such things in user space. Wknight94 talk 02:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Giving material so that others understand your interests is a valid use of userspace ab initio. Such "research" as is presented is within proper use of userspace, as he is not promiting the material as an article. Well within reasonable amount of userspace taken up therewith. 22K edits does suggest he is an "experienced editor" to be sure. Given that - best choice is Keep. Collect (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Borderline "too much unrelated stuff" for background on the editor. But he is a valued editor, and I don't think he is doing it to promote his original research for free (I bet he could get access on a better web site, and would have come up with a different title). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the reasons above. I notified the user, but he has not contributed since early on 9 January, so he probably has not seen this discussion. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Many users have reasonably large user pages (although I can't help but notice that the nominator does not), wherein they describe themselves and their interests. I thought I should do the same, so as to entertain visitors to my home page. Several comments. 1) Next time, can someone warn me in advance, so that I can make a copy for myself? 2) This is not 'original research', its 'wacky thoughts', as the page explains. Its a piece of mathematical chocolate cake laced with mathematical LSD & hallucinogens. Its just a mathematical version of 'more cowbell' seen on other wikipedia user pages. Should we have an argument whether 'more cowbell' is original literary authorship, and thus should be deleted? Or is this an attack specifically aimed at the sciences? Why the heck is this puff-piece offensive to the nominator? 3) I publish my 'original research' in a variety of academic journals. Google should be able to find some of these, my first-name/last-name is world-unique. Some of my research is on ArXiv, I can provide a more detailed list of publications since the google record is rather incomplete. 4) I have a personal web page at http://linas.org where I can blog about anything I feel like; I don't have a shortage of outlets where I can express myself. I don't need WP to publish. Instead, the above Wacky Thoughts page was provided to entertain other Wikipedia editors, that's all -- its for a narrow audience. 5) What is the true reason for this nomination? Why is the nominator so offended? I can't accept the stated reasons for the nomination -- it just doesn't ring true or honest -- basic gut instinct informs me that the nominator has a hidden agenda, as I can't otherwise imagine why the nominator would find this fluffy puff-piece offensive. What's the real dirt behind this? linas (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Paul August ☎ 23:17, 13 January 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.