Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Guitarherochristopher/My Hidden Page




 * 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 --Killiondude (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Guitarherochristopher/My Hidden Page
Yet another hidden page thing. WP:MYSPACE. → ROUX  ₪  00:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Roux, absolutely no need to keep this junk around. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The argument that these pages are not hurting anything and are just a simple bit of fun is a slippery slope. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, this page has no relevance to working on the encyclopedia, and all manner of "fun pages" can be accessed by typing a few million other URLS into your browser's address bar that are not encyclopedias.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social networking site, this page has no relevance to working on the encyclopedia ok if thats the case then why do we have signiture pages, userboxes, userpage barnstars or even userpages for that matter? after all "they dont have anything to do with wikipedia or contributing to it." No offence but you guys are on some sort of crusade against hidden pages.-- Coldplay   Expert  01:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a continuum along which we can say pages exist in relation to encyclopedic relevance. Obviously articles are at one end of that scale. Then administrative pages. Then talk pages which are often used for relating and discussing information related to articles and administration. User pages are given some leeway, but also are often used for encyclopedia related purposes. Barnstars are usually given for encylcopedia accomplishments. Sure, we have chatter, and we have some non-core material in userspace but to not have that is to deny the fact that we are social creatures; we are human. The farthest from the core end you've listed is userboxes, but they're still relevant. In order to interact some people feel the need to express their individuality and tell something about themselves and userboxes are a part of that purpose (and there was great debate about getting rid of them at one time). But when we start getting into the realm of "this is my game; find this page I have created for the game" we are getting into the totally unrelated and irrelevant. The best you can argue about such a page is tjhat it's related to the encyclopedia because someone who has an account created it and it expresses their creativity. Well, you can say that about any page that a user creates that has no actual relevance to the encyclopedia. So, do you seriously not see the difference between this page and these others you've cited?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This ain't benefiting the encyclopedia.  Zoo Fari  02:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete prior run-ins with the Guitarherochristopher tend to show he may only be here for playing games. Deserted Cities (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Not as bad as some of the other hidden page games (insofar as there appears to be only one such page), but still not an appropriate use of userspace. --RL0919 (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, obviously. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a toy. Wikipedia is not a webhost, and those who want to use it as one would be better off finding a free webhost. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. These playthings, if they are incidental to the users constructive contributions, don't hurt anyone or anything, and even have benefits.  Here, we have a single page, and a wikipedian who regularly contributes.  See Secret Pages for more information.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment here's a quote from that link above ''As of February 26, 2009, there is no policy expressly allowing or forbidding users to have secret page challenges, nor to attempt the challenge or collect a reward. Like most issues on Wikipedia, there are many opinions, some of them conflicting. The whole concept of secret pages was put on trial in April 2008, sparked after a debate on the Administrators' noticeboard: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages, and the discussion yielded no consensus, so no action was taken.'' wouldnt that mean that the secret pages do not come into conflict with any rules. This was taken up before as well.-- Coldplay   Expert  10:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Coldplay expert quotes an individual expressing the opinion that there is no policy against this. However, this opinion is simply mistaken. For example WP:NOTWEBHOST says Wikipedia pages are not: Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. There are plenty of other places in policies and guidelines which also indicate that this is not acceptable; here is just one more example: WP:UP gives, in a list of examples of what is not acceptable, Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia", particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep As per coldplay besides a bit of fun out here is acceptable-- NotedGrant  Talk  14:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Rm comment by sock of banned user. → ROUX   ₪  01:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Could'nt these pages fall under the Department of Fun?-- Coldplay   Expert  00:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fun sites are a few clicks away from this website. The Wikimedia foundation did not create this site for people to play around on paid property. Just like we send vandals to play stupid somewhere else.  Zoo Fari  00:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I thought active users could have a bit of fun out here, we spend our time editing ,hidden pages are fun -- NotedGrant  Talk  16:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Rm comment by sock of banned user. →  ROUX   ₪  01:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment that does not answer my question. and (to JamesBWatson) if all things that fall under "entertainment" and do not contribute to "writing an encyclopedia" should be deleted, then why do we have guestbooks? (I dont care if this is OTHERCPAREXISTS)-- Coldplay   Expert  00:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, that doesn't answer your question but it should give you a pretty good idea to what I'm trying to say. And as response to your followup to JamesBWatson, sign books should not exist as well. People see that Jimbo owns one and automatically assume they are okay regardless of the policy.  Zoo Fari  00:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Jimbo has declared that he alone is allowed to have a guestbook. Why would other users not follow his example? Evil saltine (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I give up. You all win :(-- Coldplay   Expert  01:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing to do with encyclopaedia etc. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete He is not only here for playing games--he seems to have done some good work in the past. But in the last month, all of his considerable efforts have been devoted to elaborate games and elaborate unnecessary graphics, I think we probably do need to delete this to give him the message that we'd really appreciate it if he spent whatever time he wants to spend here on something productive.   DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to my userpage. iGUItARH3R0KHR!ZT0PH3R!  _- =   ₪    16:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * so that he can have ready access to it, his past contributions, at his convenience? Redirecting to your userpage is a reasonable thing to do with any failed experiment.  Recording failed experiments is important, just like we record failed project proposals.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should he have access to something that is an inappropriate use of userspace? It shouldn't be here. That's about as strange as your suggestion that something unacceptable for userspace should be userfied to your userspace. → ROUX   ₪  15:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't a user have access to their past edits? It is harder to learn form the past if it is hidden.  When the user suggests redirecting to their userpage, they are, most likely, in effect, admitting to the wisdom of not continuing that activity, but perhaps there is something, eg technical, possibly worth accessing?  Education is more effective when you let the learner make their own choices.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I find all of SmokeyJoe's arguments here totally specious. For example, "it is harder to learn form the past if it is hidden." The person in question can remember having created a "hidden page" and having been criticised for doing so; why on earth does he need to actually have the page preserved in order to learn? And again, "recording failed experiments is important". Apart from the fact that I would take issue with the word "experiment", this MfD discussion records it; to record the fact that inappropriate use of Wikipedia has taken place is one thing, to preserve that inappropriate use is a very different thing. Just one more example (I could give more): "so that he can have ready access to it ... at his convenience". If the page is a misuse of Wikipedia then he should not have access to it, and to deliberately take action with the purpose of enabling him to have access to inappropriate content is stupid if done in good faith, and vandalism if done in bad faith. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll stop guessing why he wants to keep it. He should say.  I wouldn't keep it.  But I just think we shouldn't delete it until he puts db-user on it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 05:21, 1 October 2009 (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.