Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Icelandic Hurricane's subpages

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 No Consensus Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Icelandic Hurricane's subpages

User:Icelandic Hurricane/Formulas, User:Icelandic Hurricane/Ríþenskus, User:Icelandic Hurricane/Nor'easter, User:Icelandic Hurricane/2005-06 Nor'easter season, User:Icelandic Hurricane/Genealogy, User:Icelandic Hurricane/New words, User:Icelandic Hurricane/Wubberton Jones, User:Icelandic Hurricane/Nor'easter Alfred

All the above pages fail WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information and Wikipedia:User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. None of this is encyclopedic nor helps us build an encyclopedia. I appreciate that subpages can be used to build pages, but only for pages that will be moved to article space sometime in the future. Delete all. NSLE _(T+C) at 11:30 UTC (2006-03-28)

• Merge User:Icelandic Hurricane/New words and User:Icelandic Hurricane/Ríþenskus. The rest; strongly keep. Icelandic Hurricane #12 12:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree with the assertion that "all the above pages fail." I took a look at Wikipedia:User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F, and I saw that the following should not be permitted: "Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages)". This would seem to imply that personal information that's only a couple of pages are permitted. It also says: Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be moderated. It seems to me that User:Icelandic Hurricane/Genealogy (the only page here I've looked at) meets that test. So, for User:Icelandic Hurricane/Genealogy, I vote keep. -- Sholom 13:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• It appears editor is using his page to promote a novel method of naming and classifying storms. This is a confusing violation of WP:NOT, and is a disservice to readers. Keep Genealogy and W. Jones; delete the rest. Xoloz 15:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• I see NSLE's point in this, but it is hard to decide. Alot of the subpages are very short and should be merged or deleted- but I think that W. Jones, and Genealogy should be allowed to be kept. With the Nor'Easter Season pages, it is a tough subject, but I think that he should be allowed to keep some of the information, but not so that it spans three seperate pages. Weatherman90 23:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• • The reason I tagged W. Jones as well because WP:NOT a memorial. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:44 UTC (2006-03-29)
    • It's my understanding that WP:NOT a memorial is rarely, if ever, applied to userpages, to avoid offending good faith users who wish to pay tribute to a dead loved one. I have myself paid tribute this way, and have seen many, many other longtime WPians do so. Xoloz 18:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

How come other people get to keep there original research? There's Weatherman90, Storm05, and Hurricane Devon to name a few. Icelandic Hurricane #12 20:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The existence of other bad pages is no reason to keep yours; it is only a reason to delete them, and you are free to nominate if you wish. Xoloz 21:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

But I don't think they are bad (including mine). Icelandic Hurricane #12 21:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And for the record, I've looked at some of Storm05's subpages, and they contain real information which CAN be used in articles on Wikipedia to better the project. a fake "Nor'easter season" article cannot. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:41 UTC (2006-03-30)

• Keep Several of these look like article drafts. For the rest, MYOB -Septentrionalis 01:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no such thing as a "nor'easter season", this is made up. Might I also remind you about civility. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:19 UTC (2006-03-30)

I know that the Nor'easter season does not officially exist, that is why I put it on my userpage, people should know that not everything on userpages is reliable and official. Icelandic Hurricane #12 01:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but user subpages can be used to store article drafts, your nor'easter season clearly isn't for using in articles, and Wikipedia isn't a personal webspace provider for you to host this stuff. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:48 UTC (2006-03-30)

• Delete them all. It's painful and Wikipedia is not a free webhost. And I mean, "Nor'easter Alfred"? Come ON. Mike H. That's hot 03:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep user space pages that do no harm. Guys, find something better to do. Like writing articles? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a free webhost or memorial. Go use the wikimemorial for that. -M^ask 03:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• These pages aren't offending anybody, and they aren't trying to creep into article space as hoaxes. They might make good Uncyclopedia articles in the future. Until then I don't see the harm caused by any of this, as ridiculous as others might find it, so keep until the user decides otherwise. — Mar. 30, '06 [03:47] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Keep per freakofnurture, and note that user seems to have made a good number of contribs since joining (even if their userspace edits are almost equal to their article space edits). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Define "good", as quite a number of hi edits have had to be fixed and/or reverted. Still, how does that play a part in your decision? NSLE _(T+C) at 05:09 UTC (2006-03-30)
    • The "good" part was an assumption; and regarding the latter part of your question, it plays a part because not a webhost is generally relaxed for people who are actually contributing to Wikipedia (it's my belief that the spirit of WP:NOT was to ban people looking for a MySpace-like experience). And as per freakofnurture, at least these subpages aren't creeping into article-space as hoaxes (or non-notable cruft). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Geneology and send all others (see exceptions that follow) to BJADON. Exceptions: merge "New Words with "Ríþenskus," and then send it to BJADON; delete Wubberton Jones (WP:NOT a memorial); delete "formulas" (WP:NOT original research, despite my attachment to it). The record will still be kept, making Icelandic Hurricane happy, while NSLE will be happy because it is off in a spot where no one will consider it real. Another alternative is to tag each of the pages with Template:Humor. An acceptable compromise? You tell me. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 05:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  Evidence for this method is used on User:J.smith's page, User:J.smith/The Neo Angelus Revolution. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 05:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, these seem like trivial experimental pages, of the sort that are quite acceptable in userspace. I cannot understand the mindset which leads people to wade through orphaned user subpages looking for something they can delete. Perhaps I'm missing something? -- Visviva 05:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What is experimental about something that doesn't even exist? NSLE _(T+C) at 06:51 UTC (2006-03-31)
    • Are you suggesting that we need to subject everything in User: namespace to verifiability? -- Visviva 09:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • an understanding of policy and what is/isn't allowed would be my guess. -M^ask 17:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, that was rude. Thanks for reminding me why I seldom visit the deletion pages. What policy, exactly, is at issue here? And why should attempts to delete harmless user subpages not be regarded as a serious breach of WP:CIVIL? -- Visviva 09:55, 1 April 2006 (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.