Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Littleghostboo/Userboxes

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 kept per WP:SNOW. There is clearly not going to be a consensus to delete this page. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social network ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 18:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. User appears to have many non-userspace edits. I think we need to allow a little leeway here. Abeg92contribs 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Contributor is active in project. There is nothing to gain by deleting this page, but it may drive away the contributor. Seraphim ^Whipp 20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per my reasoning in the essay Wikipedia:Editors matter. Consider whether the deletion of this page will have a net beneficial impact on the encyclopedia. As SeraphimWhipp correctly points out, there is nothing to gain by deleting this page; deletions don't even free up server space, as deleted material remains in the archives, and there's nothing on this page which is divisive, inflammatory or likely to cause harm to Wikipedia. In contrast, deleting the page may well result in Wikipedia losing a good contributor. Therefore, there is absolutely no reasoned argument for deletion; trite Wikipedia-is-not-isms are not particularly helpful, as I keep trying to explain to people. Walton^One 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• keep. Active user, nothing to gain by deleting page. Doesn't appear to violate WP:NOT policy, and keep as per Walton. R. Baley 21:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based on merit of user.--WaltCip 00:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Userboxes = self-expression. Userboxes ≠ social networking. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Sorry if you think my page is unorganised because I haven't updated it for a long time, but I see no reason for the deletion of my page. I'm sure my Userboxes do not have very racist, etc. content, and having a subpage for userboxes isn't a crime, is it? And...I don't really think this is considered social networking...Littleghostboo[ talk ] 10:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep I was under the impression that users were pretty much free to do whatever they wanted with their User pages. Ewlyahoocom 11:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Regretfully keep Personally, in principal, I am against userboxes of any kind as they seem to promote a passive bias (especially the "This user hates/opposes..." types). However, so many users use them it looks as if this user is being singled out to make a point. Seems more like a beef with policy (and I would support that) that would not justify deletion of the entire user subpage. Would recommend instead reasoning with the user on her talk page to tone it down as it took forever to load. Two other reasons lean towards keep, 1) it is not on her main userpage, and 2) none of the boxes (that I had time to look at) were individually offensive.--12 Noon 19:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep user has plenty of contributions to the mainspace and should be given latitude on what they are allowed in their userspace. Hut 8.5 12:18, 24 October 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.