Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Coolgirly88/barfed/found/that

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 discussion was  delete all, including those of active editors. Mkativerata (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Coolgirly88/barfed/found/that


These pages are listed here. The arguments for deleting secret pages are summarized in the essay Why secret pages should be deleted. WP:UP states that examples of unrelated content to writing an encyclopedia are "Games, roleplaying sessions, secret pages and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia". Such activities are generally frowned upon by the community. Facetious games of no educational value relevant to the project are routinely deleted at MfD." WP:NOTMYSPACE states that "[t]he focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." To the creators: in a July/August 2010 policy discussion (at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34), community consensus was that the policy What Wikipedia is not does prohibit secret pages. The deletion of this page is not a reflection on you; instead, it is a reflection of the changing community consensus that secret pages set an inappropriate ethos at Wikipedia. In that policy discussion, I wrote here about why all secret pages should be treated equally; whether a user social networks or does not social network on Wikipedia has no bearing on the fact that all secret pages should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * #Delete all except those shown to be of encyclopedic relevance (if any). FT2 (Talk 03:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the ones for Winner42 and Ajdlinux because these users are active and constructive editors, and I believe substantial leeway should be given to editors in their own user space. Also keep Artichoke-Boy's signature page because that is not a secret page and so should not be bundled in with this mass nom. I am indifferent to the others. Reyk  YO!  18:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When active and constructive editors are hosting userspace drafts of possible articles in their userspace, or when active and constructive editors are hosting content related to building an encyclopedia, they are given substantial leeway. But in this case, these pages are not related to building an encyclopedia. All pages that violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be treated equally. I do not believe that tenure, content contributions, and a high number of edits to the mainspace "buys" editors the right to violate WP:NOTMYSPACE by hosting games on Wikipedia's servers. Thank you for catching my error in nominating Artichoke-Boy's signature page; the page I meant to nominate is User talk:Artichoke-Boy/Signature Page, not User:Artichoke-Boy/Signature Page. I've corrected this in the nomination. Cunard (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I tagged mine for speedy deletion - it came in the last time there was a squabble about secret pages, and it's only fitting that it go out this time there's a squabble over them. :) -- Robster2001 (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all except for the guestbook. Secret pages are a waste of time, and they don't help build an encyclopedia. ~  Nerdy Science  Dude  00:07, 21 October 2010 (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.