Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dr. Blofeld/Blofeld's Angels of Death


 * 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 Inclement weather (NAC). // roux   11:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld/Blofeld's Angels of Death
Meets MfD criteria as per WP:USER: "A user page being used as a personal web page". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Gallery of Commons images is not out of bounds for userspace as far as I can tell. One may not like his choices, but I know of no specific number which becomes a violation. Collect (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:UP, I think this falls under 8. "Other non-encyclopedic related material" as well as a couple other points. It's not the number, it's that these images are not contributing to the encyclopedia in any way. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 23:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that is is userspace, not mainspace, hence "encyclopedic content" is not required. Collect (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

keep Part of me wants to delete this since it has an a a picture of Jenny McCarthy. Joking aside, galleries of commons images are acceptable. Editors who are in good standing have leeway about whats in their userspace and Blofeld is an extremely productive editor. This falls within that discretion giving to productive editors. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete Certainly leeway exists, but this is outside of that range. I can't see any argument for this contributing to the building of an encyclopedia.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is this all about? This isn't an encyclopedia article that is subject to debate. It is my own gallery page in my own user page. If you don't like it stay away from it. I cannot believe that a fuddy duddy like David Fuchs would come along and try to delete something in my own user space. Since when are user pages which are never part of the encyclopedia anyway supposes to be "encyclopedic". This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard on here. Are you suggesting we delete everybodys barnstar pages and personal gallery pages too because "they don't contribute to the encyclopedia". What about all the essay crap like User:Heimstern/Wikipedia is going to suck sometimes which are eactually offensive to wikipedia and clearly not helping "build wikipedia". I am astounded in all honestly. How dare you list a page I;ve created in my user space at MFD. I put in the largest contribution to wikipedia than anybody in the history of this site and I am not permitted to keep just one page as a break despite having like 30 other building pages in my user page. You've let me down big time. I'm so disgusted by this I am refraining from constructively editing wikipedia until this ridiculous request is over. User:Dr. Blofeld| The Bald One ]]     White cat 10:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete - it's a collection of hot girls. Not really sure how this relates to anything involving the project, other than "This is a list of hot girls." // roux   11:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep: Silly nomination. Kensplanet TC 11:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I can't see anything wrong here that other user pages on wiki have I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but if User:Jeanne boleyn can post pictures of herself and family and use it as chatroom without drawing a deletion debate on them is beyond me. BigDunc  Talk 11:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Very silly nomination. Isnt there better business to do here at WP ? What next ? User:Jimbo Wales/Funny pictures, User:Jimbo Wales/Facebook User:Jimbo Wales/These Are the Voyages ...  User:Jimbo Wales/WikiProject Wikipedians for Jimbo's beard ....etc ......--  Tinu  Cherian  - 11:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Productive editors like Blofeld are allowed some fun here and there. It doesn't damage the encyclopedia, so why delete it? ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 12:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now redirected to User:Dr. Blofeld/Missing article directory. Keep. Stifle (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am highly suspicious of admin misconduct here. David Fuchs shortly before the page was nominated has come into disagreement with User talk:Carlossuarez46 who has people may know has created a lot of articles on villages. Has David Fuchs has nominated a page of mine for deletion, seemingly as a case of sour grapes for articles I've created on villages or for whatver reason? If he is purely innocent of this it is an extreme coincidence that he would come into contact so shortly afterwards, in fact within 6 minutes. Not only that but we all know that some humor pages and "some fun" is permitted in private space User:Jimbo Wales/Funny pictures is not exactly a shining example of encyclopedic content is it? I find this nomination highly concerning that Mr. Fuchs as an administrator is not the fair minded individula you;d expect to be representing us and Fuchs has even threatened to even block editors who are trying in good faith to developing wikipedia like Carlos. Encyclopedic content is of prime importance to me something I find highly ironic that an "unencyclopedic" user page of mine is being brought to attention.  The Bald One       White cat 12:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep process wonkery at its best.  Majorly  talk  13:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm tempted to quote William Grant Still and to say "Quit dat foolnish"... --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 14:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Wikipedia is a volunteer effort. I don't give a Fuch what one of the self-made-ever-changing rules Blofeld's images may have broken, he is one of, if not the most productive editors here. Any rational application of the "rules" takes reality into consideration in their interpretation. Allowing him some room to play and keep his interest up in the face of daily doses of bat-shit craziness, such as this nomination, is simply good for the whole of the project. Dekkappai (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think Blofeld should be allowed to keep this because it doesn't do much harm, though I have always thought that this page was in somewhat tacky/in poor taste. I may be the only woman commenting here, and I don't think that this nomination is so frivolous it should be dismissed out of hand. I don't think it does much good in terms of creating an environment that is welcoming to women to have pages like this. That being said, I don't think it's bad enough to be worth deleting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree actually, its probably a little too tacky for the typical studious editor on here, particularly for a female editor but it seemed a good idea at the time and just a break from editing. I would not be broken-hearted if I deleted the page but that should be my decision what I do within my user space, not those of others. Incidentally some people have said that it is the best page I've ever created on wikipedia, not sure what that says about my editing or whether they just loved the page! What I don't like is having a personal page up here in front of everyone like this and of course one editor trying to dictate beyond normal boundaries. People may find it hard to believe but in the same way I have a gallery of landscapes and images I consider beautiful I find visual images actually help my mind to be creative and helps me in editing. This is partly why I upload and distribute a lot of images in bare articles as images are what makes my mind tick and help me to think creatively. (aside from being encyclopedic and helping other editors of course)  The Bald One       White cat 16:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Come on! Its just a harmless subpage... Yeah but so many hot women on one single page is "highly radioactive"... Don't we all have a little personal space in our userspace! -- KnowledgeHegemony talk 18:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and let's get back to the encyclopaedia - what a waste of time and indignation all round. Paxse (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong snowball keep WP:UP item 8? I don't see anything on that page that is "non-encyclopedic related material". Every single one of those images is either used in an article of from Commons, and as such is non "non-encyclopedic related material". The use of such material may not be entirely encyclopedic, but that isn't covered by UP#NOT, even when there may be concerns over the "tackiness" of the page. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with keeping a userspace page like this that is a gallery of pictures used in articles, any more than there is in keeping a page that contains links to articles. The User:Jimmy Wales sub-page listed above is a shining example of this and - WP:OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding, is a very strong precedent, given the identity of its creator. This is a silly nomination. Grutness...wha?  22:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. How does this harm the encyclopedia? How would deleting this improve the encyclopedia? I don't see any reason to delete this. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Good user. Harmless.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It really annoys me that people keep mentioning how useful the editor is. That's completely irrelevant. We are supposed to be evaluating this article based on the merits and suitability of this article.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is true, but it's long been the case that editors who have proven themselves in terms of large amounts of work on the project are allowed more leeway on their user pages than those who do less. Which makes some sense - an editor who's done 100 edits, 50 of them to user space, is less likely to have used that user space as a mere pressure valve from the effort of productive work than one who has made tens of thousands of edits. Grutness...wha?  06:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Productive users are given more leeway in userspace including material that isn't strictly speaking encyclopedic. Hell, even Jimmy Wales has such a page. It's a pressure valve that keeps productive editors from having a nervous breakdown and is thus beneficial to the project. - Mgm|(talk) 10:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can someone 'uninvolved' close this per WP:SNOW ? --  Tinu  Cherian  - 11:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I thought I'd already seen the bottom of the barrel when it comes to deletion requests, but come on :D -Yupik (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC) (And Calliopejen1, you're not the only woman commenting here)


 * 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.