Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fixious

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 debate was no consensus. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fixious

Not an actual editor's page: Only edit (in July) was to this page and its 54 userboxes. PROD tag added, but removed by User:Doug with the edit summary, Not editing is not grounds for deletion of an otherwise OK userpage - an IP edited in January and it may have been this editor just not logged in, which is not even close to being correct, as a quick glace at this, this, and this would have revealed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs) 15:13, 25 February 2008

Delete user in question has no intentions of contributing to the encyclopedia. Charles Stewart (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This user is not a contributor to the encyclopedia, and none of this page's contents help to build an encyclopedia. Further, we have policy on this, as noted by the nominator. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. There is nothing wrong with this userpage, and it does not violate any policy at all. I don't see where it's policy to delete a user page simply because someone hasn't edited yet. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• A quick glance at this, this, and this, as above, should have been a sufficient clue about the violated policies. Did you overlook them? --Calton | Talk 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. User appears to have departed a long time ago without actually helping the encyclopedia. At best, there's no reason to keep a userpage for a user who is no longer around; at worst, Wikipedia is not MySpace. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • How do you know this user isn't around? I, for one, was around for quite some time before I made any edits. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You were "around" for seven months before you made any edits? --Calton | Talk 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes. I visited Wikipedia a lot, browsed it, I had an account. Just because anyone -can- edit doesn't mean everyone -must- if they want to be part of the community. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Non-responsive: so, you had a full-fledged user page for seven months before ever doing any editing -- you know, the actual point of asking the question? --Calton | Talk 09:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
        • You didn't ask that. And, for the record, yes. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• I fail to see the benefit to the project obtained by deleting a page of userboxes, nor how a page of userboxes is in anyway WP:MYSPACE. In the event this user decides to edit (and he or she may be a current user, just not editing), is it really so valuable to delete this page that the user comes back and finds a redlinked userpage? If the user never edits again, is there some great detriment to the project by letting this page be? The nomination gives good reasons to get rid of some pages, but not these pages. It's a pointless deletion with a possible large negative effect (i.e. WP:BITE).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Reality check: a quick glance at this, this, and this should have been a sufficient clue -- especially since I already left them on your User Talk page. Did you overlook them? As for your argument, the idea of actively encouraging the use of Wikipedia as a free webhost -- which, as has already been pointed out to you, is explicitly against policy -- strikes me as a very bad idea generally. --Calton | Talk 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• You have not addressed the concern I have, where exactly does it say in any of those policies that a userpage with nothing but userboxes on it is not allowed - or that to have one you have to edit. These references to WP:USER, WP:NOT#WEBHOST and WP:NOT#BLOG mean what in these two instances? WP:USER does not prohibit an inactive user from having userboxes on his or her page and the other two have no relevance whatsoever, userboxes are neither a blog nor use as a webhost or a lot of people are in trouble. We gain nothing by deleting the pages. Granted, we likely don't lose much either (unless the user is around or comes back and feels bitten) but what policy supports this action?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Exactly. They're not using it as a blog or webhost. And nothing violates WP:UP#NOT.

• Where, exactly, did you buy your nuclear-powered hair-splitter?
• They're not using it as a blog or webhost Nor are they using it as dessert topping or floor wax -- which is just as relevant since, "blog or webhost" are not the claims on the table here. What part of the words "social network" did you overlook? It even has its own warning tag.
• Of COURSE the quoted policies support the nomination, starting from the general principle of purpose -- to aid in the EDITING of an encyclopedia -- to the specific wording used in the policy. Top to bottom. Your wikilawyering and handwaving assertions does not change these things one iota, and once again, how is actively encouraging the use of Wikipedia resources as a free social network doing the slightest bit of good? --Calton | Talk 03:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• ...Okay, they're not using it as a social networking site. They're using it in the same way that everyone (including you, for the record) uses userboxes and similar templates: to tell visitors a bit about themselves. They're not updating with their latest thoughts and feelings. They're not trying to meet people. And while you're trying to tell us about all these policies (WP:USER is a guideline, by the way, not a policy), your argument boils down to "They don't edit, therefore they don't get a userpage". I don't see that supported anywhere. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, they're not using it as a social networking site. They're using it in the same way that everyone (including you, for the record) uses userboxes and similar templates: to tell visitors a bit about themselves - Do you even read what you write? The first clause is immediately contradicted by the second: that's what a social networking site is
• your argument boils down to "They don't edit, therefore they don't get a userpage". - Yes, which is, you know, actual policy, which I quoted from the actual policy page, so the handwaving about WP:USER is just misdirection, as was the including you, for the record -- yes, three years here and I have one (1) userbox, which I added last week.

• You want to explain to me how your living in Japan, the list of countries you've visited, your college major, or barnstars contribute to the project or aid in editing the encyclopedia? --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see that supported anywhere. - Other than long-standing policy, long-standing practice, and long-standing precedence from dozens of cases listed on this very page over the years, no. How did you overlook all of that? --Calton | Talk 00:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not overlooking it, I just don't see it applying here. Yes, userpages get deleted all the time. They get deleted for being spam. They get deleted for being nothing but webpages or blogs. They get deleted because the user is banned or indef blocked. I have never seen a userpage deleted simply because the user was inactive when there was nothing else wrong with the page. If you can bring up some examples, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong (maybe not gladly, but still) --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2008 (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.