Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Epeclect

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: content overwritten . As mentioned by Mz7, is now a moot point as content has been overwritten by {{sockpuppeteer}}. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Epeclect

No evidence of notability Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hello, what is Wong with my user page ? As a representative of a moral person, I would like to propose in transparency a first contribution here. This proposal is a translation from the french wikipedia page Méthode clinique, which is sourced with french universitary referencies. The term "clinical method" appears in many search terms and publications, it'a transversal term itself and should intéress wikipedia communities of différent sciences : medicine, psychology, anthropology for example.--Epeclect (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: notability isn't something we consider at MfD. Is there something else at play here? VQuakr (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an advert. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this draft article to Draft:École de Psychothérapie Éclectique. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that got reverted. VQuakr (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because the page move broke the link to this discussion from the page. The move would be appropriate if the discussion results in keep. Legacypac (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dubious page about a dubious organization posted by a user named for the org. Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's rather at lot over at fr.wikiversity on this; in general it seems like a weird bit of... whatever. It is short and lacks external links, so it doesn't seem too onerous in terms of spam - but I suppose since the creator is blocked there is not much point in keeping it (either as a draft or as a user page) so weak delete as a (very mild) WP:FAKEARTICLE. VQuakr (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encourage the user to clarify that he is a single individual, and possibly change the username if it is unclear. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indef'd CU.confirmed sockpuppet Legacypac (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the evidence of sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epeclect, the page has now been overwritten by {{sockpuppeteer}}. As a result, I see this discussion as moot and can be closed without further action. If any editor wishes to continue the draft the user started, they may do so in the draft space; the content is still in the revision history. Mz7 (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2017 (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.