Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Flameviper/Flameviper

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Deleted - blanked by author. That strikes me as a concession that it should be deleted. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Flameviper/Flameviper

User space being used as a "sandbocks/creation page" for the user's personal wiki hosted on another website. Inappopriate since it's not at all related to this wiki. Metros232 20:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. And WP:BJAODN isn't at all related to Wikipedia, either. But we keep it anyway. I don't think that you can really judge what is necessary to the encyclopedia. If you were right, and it was "unnecessary", then we ought to delete all user pages, since they're not an integral part of the encyclopaedia. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 20:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment see WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. It explains the reasons behind what I nominated this for deletion. It contains extensive work for a non-Wikipedia related project. Metros232 21:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - This page has no point, but I agree with Flameviper. All user pages have no point (except for user talk pages). Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 20:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. Userpages allow users to display relevant information regarding their particular functions, qualifications, and abilities within the community. These allow for more effective collaboration and serve to benefit the Encyclopedia as a whole. alphachimp 23:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)*::Comment. And what is more relevant regarding a user's qualifications within the community: a link to the user's wiki, or a link to the user's company, which users can include on their userpages with no hassle? Freederick 00:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  Comment There's a substial difference between a link to his Wiki and a sandbox for the development of his wiki. alphachimp 06:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and relocate user can move this somewhere else, and if the page is deleted, this can't happen.--Chilifix 22:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: To where? I already have it unobtrusively stuffed in my userspace, which is usually the destination fror relocations. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 23:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Perhaps to your personal wiki? alphachimp 14:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Your page provides absolutely no redeeming value to the encyclopedia. In fact, it is for another Wiki. alphachimp 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. I don't see Category:Wikipedia humor being nominated for deletion. Or any other "unconstructive" pages for that matter. I once made a nasty remark against another user on Metros232's talk page. That's the only reason this is being nominated for deletion, and not one of the thousands of other "useless" pages. And besides, an editor who has contributed numerous pages should at least be allowed to keep one. Userspace hosting is only a viable criterion for deletion when the account is solely created for the purpose of webhosting. Seeing as I have 2000+ edits and have been here since May 2005, I don't see that happening. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 23:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  Comment That's not really a legitimate argument. You're welcome to nominate whatever pages you wish (including mine!) for deletion. alphachimp 23:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  Addendum It's also a fairly alarming bad faith assumption to simply assume that Metros232 is nominating your page because of a prior disagreement. Although I sympathize with your concerns, it's far more productive to focus on responding to the comments about the userpage, rather than making Ad hominem attacks. alphachimp 23:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  Appendix If we're going to be serious about removing all unencyclopedic content, then just tell me. I'll go right along. But it wmakes no sense to selectively delete my user subpages and not the rest of "useless" content. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 23:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Again, you're more than welcome to MfD whatever pages you wish. Or, if you're so inclined, you can propose changing WP:USER or WP:NOT to specifically limit or allow certain types of pages. alphachimp 23:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  I'm just saying that unless there's some legitimate reason to delete the unencyclopedic pages, it's unwarranted to randomly nominate pages for deletion. And oh, did I mention that the person nominating my user subpage for deletion has a good reason to not like me? ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 00:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Right. That reason is Wikipedia is not free webhosting. As for his motives, it doesn't matter either way. The MfD is here, and we're discussing policies, not editors. alphachimp 06:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The page in question is a sandbox. Users are actually encouraged to create these as subpages. Yes, it does have a link to what Metros232 alleges is “the user's personal wiki hosted on another website”. I've actually visited that site, and the “personal wiki” appears to be... a more extended sandbox for Wikipedia. Now, if that “personal wiki” were kept in its entirety here, then there would be no grounds for deletion, since it is a Wikipedia sandbox. But if the user is considerate enough to host it on his own space and link it from a user page, a witch hunt follows. This makes no sense. Freederick 00:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. May I suggest a civilized solution: 1. User Flameviper replaces the text: “This is a sandbox for Flameviper wiki” with the text: “This is my sandbox” on the page in question. 2. User Flameviper includes a link to his wiki on his main (interests, hobbies, personal data) userpage. End of controversy. Freederick 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment what IS the purpose of your sandbox for your other wiki. Couldn't you just make the sandbox on that wiki? Doesn't that make sense? Considering it's YOUR wiki, wouldn't it make sense to have your sandbox on YOUR wiki? Metros232 01:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, the page is useless. So is just about every user page that exists. Still, not a good reason to eliminate this specific one, and it does look like some kind of retaliation is motivating the nomination. Isn't WP large enough for these two users to co-exist without a pointless conflict? Captain Infinity 01:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This has nothing to do with vendettas and all to do with policies, so please assume good faith. Metros232 01:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's hard to think of a better example of what is not allowed on user subpages than a working page for your own web site. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT free webhosting. And what Doug said. Opabinia regalis 02:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I do not see how freewebhosting issue applies. The content is wikipedia-related. I think it is a community-building, morale-improving, all-round good outlet for wiki enthusiasm. What is it hurting? Jerry lavoie 04:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not Wikipedia-related. It's the user's own personal Wiki that's host off-site. This is his sandbox to develop content for that website, not to develop content for Wikipedia. Metros232 04:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How a user uses a sandbox is not really monitorable is it? Unless it has defamatory or otherwise harmful content? Every sandbox edit is a potentially editor-skills improving venture, and if you think about it differently, applying a huge dose of WP:AGF, couldn't his external wiki be viewed as a sandbox for wikipedia? Examining the spirit of the rule invoked, not the letter of the policy (see WP:BURO). Why does wikipedia not want external sites promoted on its servers? Because they can not afford to pay for somebody elses web traffic, we do not want our readers being dragged off by spam, and it distracts us from our purpose: to create the worlds only free international encyclopedia. How does this sandbox page violate that??? Jerry lavoie 04:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can't this page simply be exported to the wiki it belongs to? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per above comments, I'm agreeing with WP:NOT, generally an irrelevant user sub page. Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Relates to user's personal wiki, so can be hosted there. Page announces that "some people can edit" it, so not really appropriate here. JChap2007 20:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "The Flameviper Wiki" != "Wikipedia" EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Not sure why this is worthy of a big debate when ignoring it would be a more harmonious option all round, but still, WP:NOT#USER and WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F suggest it isn't appropriate. Put it on the Flameviper wiki. CiaranG 21:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Alphachimp and others above and WP:NOT. Please move this to The Flameviper Wiki. Sarah 11:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per Freederick's notion. either edit it or move it, dont force someone else to do it.DUBJAY04 02:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per everyone above, and WP:NOT-from K37 10:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Alphachimp and Doug. riana_dzasta 12:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because its effect on the encyclopedia = zero. If I had a subpage of the alphabet in order since I keep forgetting, would that get nuked too? Milto LOL pia 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  If it didn't have anything to do with Wikipedia or your contributions to it? Yes, quite possibly. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  What about this MFD? Is it going to "improve the encyclopedia", or is it as non-effective as the page it discusses? This is all just a discussion about nothing. We might as well file a request for arbitration regarding Thomas 12, it would have roughly the same effect. Milto LOL pia 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  Both arguments are flawed, in that this page has to do with the operations of the project, while the contributions page is a dynamically generated portion of the MediaWiki software. Good luck submitting an MfD for Special:Contributions.
  The long and short of it is that FlameViper's subpage goes against Wikipedia:User page; see the "What can I not have on my user page?" section. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete', WP:NOT. It's policy. That's it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: Creator has blanked virtually all of the content—and subsequently been blocked for a month. Newyorkbrad 03:20, 10 February 2007 (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.