Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cremepuff222


 * 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 Various. This user has voluntarily had several less-useful pages deleted already, and some of these pages are more then approriate for speedy keep. Guest/Address books are being dealt with around the corner, and these pages have been listed there. As this user has been very responsive to this, if there are any other pages that need deleting, try their talkpage first before relisting on here. — xaosflux  Talk  03:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Cremepuff222
While prowsing the autograph page controversy, I came across this user's page. The distracting talk page caught my attention and I decided to dig into their contributions (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cremepuff222/contribs. This user has made only 83 main space edits, but over 1200 edits to their own user space.  While there is nothing abhorrent here, it is a clear violation of WP:NOT.  If any of these can be shown to be of value to the project, I will withdraw that part of the nomination.  I purposefully left out a few that seemed productive.  &mdash;dgies tc 01:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Cremepuff222
 * User:Cremepuff222/ApplewormSandbox
 * User:Cremepuff222/Archive Header
 * User:Cremepuff222/Archives
 * User:Cremepuff222/AutographAsking
 * User:Cremepuff222/Autograph Book
 * User:Cremepuff222/Autograph Book Header
 * User:Cremepuff222/Awards Header
 * User:Cremepuff222/BlueGreeting
 * User:Cremepuff222/Calendar
 * User:Cremepuff222/Current Puzzle
 * User:Cremepuff222/Gag
 * User:Cremepuff222/Greeting
 * User:Cremepuff222/Greeting Template
 * User:Cremepuff222/Header
 * User:Cremepuff222/Menu
 * User:Cremepuff222/OriginalBoxes
 * User:Cremepuff222/Original Boxes Header
 * User:Cremepuff222/PinkGreeting
 * User:Cremepuff222/PurpleGreeting
 * User:Cremepuff222/Purple Greeting
 * User:Cremepuff222/PuzzleSolvers
 * User:Cremepuff222/PuzzleSolvers Header
 * User:Cremepuff222/Puzzles
 * User:Cremepuff222/Puzzles Header
 * User:Cremepuff222/Sandbox
 * User:Cremepuff222/Sandbox Header
 * User:Cremepuff222/SecretBackup
 * User:Cremepuff222/Signature
 * User:Cremepuff222/Signature Book
 * User:Cremepuff222/Signature Header
 * User:Cremepuff222/Talk Header
 * User:Cremepuff222/Useful Things
 * User:Cremepuff222/User Cheifsfan
 * User:Cremepuff222/User Computernurd
 * User:Cremepuff222/User Gotnos
 * User:Cremepuff222/User InkyNinja
 * User:Cremepuff222/User JazzyTrumpeteer
 * User:Cremepuff222/User Kamope
 * User:Cremepuff222/User Page
 * User:Cremepuff222/User SBL
 * User:Cremepuff222/User Steptrip
 * User:Cremepuff222/User Xiner
 * User:Cremepuff222/Userboxes
 * User:Cremepuff222/Userboxes Header
 * User:Cremepuff222/Vandalism
 * User:Cremepuff222/statuschanger.js
 * Addendum: Having seen the user understands the problem and has db-authored the more frivolous stuff, I am withdrawing nomination on a number which seem to fall within community standards for what is generally allowed in user space. I am keeping the nominations for a few pages:
 * User:Cremepuff222/Autograph Book (and related)- Has been widely spammed on talk pages
 * User:Cremepuff222/Gag - Disruptive
 * User:Cremepuff222/Signature - Transcluded onto talk pages, which is forbidden by WP:SIG.


 * Keep for now. User has just been advised for the first time there is an issue, and is entitled to a reasonable time to address the concerns. Certainly the main userpage is unobjectionable and should be kept. There is also evidence (not set forth here for privacy reasons) that the user knows at least one more experienced Wikipedian, who can help him address these concerns (update, and this seems to be happening, see below). Newyorkbrad 01:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sort them out some of those are just userboxes that have been moved out of template space and are perfectly fine. Many others are templates for the userspace and are also acceptable. We can't just delete everything because some pages violate various policies. I say speedy close this and then you pick the pages that actually are violations. Koweja 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I support the comment of speedy closing this, there is a lot of pages here being nominated all at once. If any of them are actually worthy of being deleted then only those ones should be nominated. Mathmo Talk 03:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - These are all similar to things we generally allow in userspace, but the creation and improvement of them seems to be the only reason this editor is a member of the project. For a productive editor I would not have made the nom, but it seems all he's here for is free web hosting.  &mdash;dgies tc 02:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I cannot cast an opinion in this discussion due to WP:CANVASS. I would like to point out, however, that I enjoyed having Cremepuff222 as an adoptee vis-a-vis his technical abilities. He has also been a diligent student in completing my assignments to adoptees. He is obviously a quick learner, or you wouldn't have had to sit here and look at his pages. I failed as an adopter, however, when I hesitated to discuss his Wikipedia activities with him. I hinted at him a few times, but it wasn't enough. I would thus like to propose the following remedies: let Cremepuff222 keep his pages for now, but if he does not start contributing to the articles, which is what we're here for ultimately, then ask him to move his pages over to Wikia.com. Xiner (talk, email) 02:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite spending the vast majority of time on his userspace he does edit outside of it. 83 edits is actually high for this type of nom - most only have 2 or 3. He's also been editing outside his space regularly. I say delete the games, puzzles, gag, and autograph book, but keep the rest. Koweja 02:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The gag I'd say is ok, and the autograph book is ok so long as it is not being endlessly promoted. And then even if it is the way to deal with that should be by warning and then a block. Mathmo Talk 03:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep All. Most of these like fine, and I'm not going to bother looking through every single one of them to work out which ones really should be deleted (if any). Mathmo Talk 03:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So you really think pages like this & this & this should be kept? Come on, better subpages have been deleted.... Spawn Man 03:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Read what I said again carefully, I said most not all are fine. And that there were too many listed to bother looking through them all to find ones that could be deleted. As it would seem you done. Plus I feel the best way to deal with this is to first ask the user, they might be quite willing to let the worst be deleted and hence completely avoid MfD entirely in the process. Mathmo Talk 04:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt this is the case. The editor is a younger user, & still has the concept that editing a bit more will allow him to keep 46 subpages. May I ask, in the most diplomatic way possible, why you voted keep all, if you haven't looked through all the links? If everyone couldn't be bothered reading all Xfd links, then we'd have a very crowded site... Spawn Man 04:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I voted keep all partly because we shouldn't not support such careless nominations. By default we should send them back and then vote on them again when ones that actually need to be deleted come back. Lets presume for a moment that this is a young user, do we want to give them a bad experience and drive them away or show more kindness towards them so that in another year when they have more experience and maturity they will be a productive wikipedian. Mathmo Talk 07:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assessment of "careless". I specifically included a large swath of inoffensive material because I didn't want to split hairs about which pages were only slightly a waste of resources and which ones were clearly a waste of resources.  Nominating it all lays bare the scale of the problem.  &mdash;dgies tc 07:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete selectively - Most of the users I know manage to keep their templates & other things on a couple of subpages. This user has 46!!!! Me thinks maybe a tad too much wouldn't you say? Most of the pages only have a single template on them. Others have complete unused nonsense such as User:Cremepuff222/Vandalism. If the editor in qustion had more mainspace edits instead of wasting them on talk pages, then I'd let him keep the pages. However, this user has not earned the right to keep this many, if any subpages on Wikipedia. He has hardly contributed to this site other than with the huge amount of space this is all taking up. Oviously the nom was a bit too bold in nominating the user's user page, but the rest have to be compressed. I think the user should be allowed a couple of subpages to place tempaltes & the such, but no more until he actually contributes to the 'pedia. He may choose what is to be deleted, or someone can choose for him. Whatever the case, the number of 46 needs to come down, way down. Spawn Man 03:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. Many of the subpages can be merged - archive template on the actual talk page; user boxes on the user page or a single subpage, autograph book also on the user page etc etc. The suer could even hold any script or templates off site on a word doc...
 * Um, who are you to decide which users have rights and which don't? Exactly how many edits does a user need before we grace them with equality? How many pages do these types of users get? Also, the pages aren't taking up a huge amount of space - pages take up virtually no space, and even 30 or 40 pages isn't that much. Koweja 23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would recommend that User:Cremepuff222 spend more time worrying about articles and less time worrying about his user page... that being said I think most of it should stay. A few of the worst ones like the puzzle page and vandalism should be deleted. Otherwise... there realy isn't anything wrong the the shear number of sub-pages.  The problem is where the user dedicates his time.  If creampuff had 2000 mainspace edits this MFD would have never been filed.  Lets address the real issue. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 06:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep according to Xiner Solution. Or file seperately. Ab e g92 contribs 13:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all I see no problem with the pages, his/her userpage does not seem to violate WP:USERPAGE and is perfectly suitable.Regards - Telly  addict  16:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all, but delete User:Cremepuff222/Vandalism, since that page was not created by Cremepuff222. &gt;Kamope&lt;   Talk  ·  Contribs  22:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all Why does it matter how a user expresses themselves (unless it is vulgar, which this is not and equally not a violation of WP:USERPAGE) and the number of subpages they have?!   '~'  St ep  tr ip  01:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all. There's no reason to delete any of this. It isn't disruptive, vulgar or offensive, and doesn't violate any specific provisions in WP:USERPAGE, as there's no official limit on how many user subpages one can have. Criticising the user's mainspace editcount, as the nominator does, is tantamount to a personal attack, and doesn't constitute an argument for deletion. Also see my comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Walter Humala, a similarly pointless nomination. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  20:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - I think this is where consensus should step in, rather than voting: the argument against these signature books, etc.., are much greater than for it. Most of the !votes for keeping the latest-trend guestbooks, fake messages box, etc.. is mostly made by the same type of user who has one of their own, and creates a circle of links and "I'd be honoured if you signed my sig book" comments, rather than an upstanding and long-standing contributor to beneficial projects and collaborations, rather than a pretty collection of WP:SIG-violating comments and invitations to continue the circle of non-encyclopedic/WP:NOT-violating Wikipedia pages. anthony cfc  [ talk] 01:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mostly resolved, and follow overall policy for remaining items. Most of the issues seem to have been resolved by the comments above, deletion of some of the objectionable pages, and withdrawal of the nomination for some others. The remaining pages can be governed by overall policy, e.g. there is an MfD on all autograph pages right now, so I believe continuing this MfD for this specific user's one is not needed. Newyorkbrad 01:28, 10 March 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.