Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NFAN3/Christmas Wishlist

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 keep. (Radiant) 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:NFAN3/Christmas Wishlist

Using Wikipedia as a webhost. Page is not related in any way to building the encyclopedia. --Slowking Man 05:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep - suboptimal, I agree, but this is an active user with good-faith edits made today, and current users are allowed leeway on a page or two in userspace. I'm not buying him any of the stuff he wants, though. Newyorkbrad 06:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  To echo Doug Bell below, I'm not trying to be a userspace Nazi or anything, but I think this falls pretty squarely on the side of things that don't belong on Wikipedia. If something's encyclopedic worth is iffy, I'm willing to give leeway for a good-faith editor, but I can't think of any way this could possibly be related to the project. --Slowking Man 07:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep — Yeah, it's not related to Wikipedia, but I think people need to stop patrolling userspace for stuff that "shouldn't be there" and start doing something remotely useful. — Werdna talk criticism 06:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Good to have you back, Werdna. Newyorkbrad 06:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I actually found the page when somebody vandalized it. --Slowking Man 07:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — While I don't mind some leeway on allowing contributing users some unencyclopedic stuff on their user subpage (although not much), I think a Christmas list is too far. Borders on being a solicitation, and I'd hate to see where this led if it became commonplace. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. User is an active contributor and it is about as encyclopedic as "countries I would like to visit". Not useful for encyclopedic work, but acceptable if kept to a bare minimum. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, this can be used for someone to look at and be able to get an idea of what the person's game interests are, so they can be asked to contribute on discussions about them. Yes, I'll go through contortions like that in finding a reason to keep a user subpage of an active contributor. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 14:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep IMO-Its fine. Users have have pages for images they uploaded and stuff (BTW:I upload a few of those pics). And the statement "(This) Page is not related in any way to building the encyclopedia" is untrue because it helps people get to know me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NFAN3 (talk • contribs) .

  BTW:About the pics, why were they removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NFAN3 (talk • contribs) .

  I removed them when I made the nomination. I'm sorry, but according to the fair use policy, fair use images are not permitted in pages outside of the Main namespace. --Slowking Man 19:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, does not disrupt anything on Wikipedia, and user makes constructive edits, though this has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Terence Ong 06:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I am quite astounded by the response here. Perhaps the users did not have a look at WP:NOT; which clearly states that Wikipedia is not to be treated like a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. This user can conveniently have this list on MySpace, Blogspot or any appropriate site. I believe he can be politely convinced to move this list to a free webspace provider. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; I am equally astounded at the unwillingness to leave useful contributors alone. The intent of WP:NOT would be effectively, and more civilly, fulfilled by asking NFAN3 whether he would consider moving it elsewhere; which nobody seems to have bothered to do. Since I consider this an unimportant blemish, I'm not going to; but those who felt this important enough to spend WP:MfD's time on should have done this first. Septentrionalis 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  Thank you. No one told me they had a problem with this until its about to be deleted. Infact, a lot of my friends called it creative and like it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NFAN3 (talk • contribs) 22:45, November 30, 2006 (UTC).

• Keep; Let's not bite those less prolific than ourselves. Good faith editor who needs to be encouraged and guided. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I don't think this qualifies as "excessive" personal information per WP:USER, and I could see it as an extension of his interests (statement of which is explicitly allowed). Don't see any indication that it's going to get out of hand. Plus, to be honest, I'm more concerned about the nomination of an active good-faith contributor's userpage for deletion without any attempts to discuss the matter with that user than I am about a couple of templates on that userpage whose placement isn't furthering the encyclopedia project. (Good job on removing the fair use images, though -- those did need to go.) Shimeru 07:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nearly headless nick. See WP:USERPAGE/ WP:NOT.__Seadog ^♪ 14:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I understand the images needed to be removed 'cuase of Fair Use. But why is everyone ok with this?--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 22:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We are? I just went through and removed all the pictures. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Kee per Dloh, Shimeru,Pmanderson, and New York Brad. JoshuaZ 04:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - no reason to delete a page of an active contributor. That's a dangerous road to start going down. If it isn't violating some tangible policy (NPA, copyright, etc), do we really want to be in the business of deciding which cutesy user pages are allowable and which are not? BigDT 07:25, 4 December 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.