Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Userpic


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was redirect to Avatar (icon). --Ezeu 20:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Userpic
I say: this entire article is original research and should be scrapped permanently. Yeago says: even if it's original research, it's still a useful article. What says AFD? Ashi b aka tock 14:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, sounds like a neologism. Chris Kreider 14:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neologism with 1.6M results on google...? Of course, Avatar is the natural winner with 26M but check your thoughts somewhere before your fingers.Yeago 00:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Avatar (icon). While not absolute synonyms, they could easily be discussed together. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Given what this source says about userpics, they appear to be one and the same as avatars, and thus we should not have duplicate articles about the same thing simply by two different names. Please cite sources if you wish to demonstrate otherwise.  Unsupported claims that "It's plain fact." don't win arguments here at Wikipedia.  Cited sources do. Uncle G 16:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmm, I agree with you on many scales. But this is an article about 100 pixel squares. My issue here is with things like 'audience' and 'readability'&mdash;things the witchhunters of original research are too busy to bother about =).Yeago 19:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Avatar (icon) as per Andrew Lenahan. -- Whpq 16:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge - Agreed, most of the observations at Userpic are my own enlightened observations and not objectively verifiable (except of course through plain observation which has no place, anymore, in the institutionally insecure Wikipedia). However, I feel that an outright delete/redirect is inappropriate because of audience which Avatar caters to (it mentions many MUDs and cites Neal Stephenson at length, for godsakes). While Avatar certainly has its origins among that group, it is an increasingly obscure slice of the internet. The opening lines of Avatar say it all. Of course, the fact that Avatar is a filthy mess of an article does not mean Userpic should be saved.Yeago 19:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Avatar (icon) given Andrew and Uncle G's arguments. NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs ] 19:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge —  with Avatar (icon), i agree with Yaego. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 19:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't Merge and Delete per Shii. Additionally, all the material is original research and merging it would sully whatever article has the misfortune for it to be merged with.  Anomo 10:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good but who is 'Shii'?Yeago 06:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am one of the few people on Wikipedia lucky enough to have a nickname! Ashi b aka tock 15:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I figured they were a wiki-cheerleader of yours. Especially considering they say 'per shii' and yet you didn't vote. Just checkin', Shii =)Yeago 16:08, 30 October 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.