Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Happysunshine/Edward

 __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. Courcelles 00:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Happysunshine/Edward
This nomination includes:



These pages should be deleted per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP. WP:UP states that examples of unrelated content to writing an encyclopedia are "[g]ames, roleplaying sessions, secret pages and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia". Such activities are generally frowned upon by the community, and where the games involve people who are not active participants in the project such pages are routinely deleted at MfD." (mine emphasized) WP:NOTMYSPACE says, "The focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration."

The following is an argument from for deleting secret pages: WP:MYSPACE, as you know, is a longstanding part of a core Wikipedia policy, WP:NOT. It states: "Wikipedia is not a social network like MySpace or Facebook. You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia. [U]ser pages...may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. ... The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration."

Some secret pages are in the userspaces of active editors who did not register a Wikipedia account for the purpose of social networking. However, this policy is clearly applicable to all Wikipedia users, not just users who have registered accounts solely for the purpose of social networking. Therefore, all users must avoid creating material in or adding content to their userspace that is used solely for social networking, instead utilizing their userspace to provide "a foundation for effective collaboration." Some userspace content that is borderline social networking is protected by this "foundation for collaboration" clause:
 * a) Userboxes Although userboxes are often not related to the construction of the encyclopedia, they allow editors to get to know other editors better. By learning about other editors' interests, hobbies, views and biases, etc., a "foundation for collaboration" is built.
 * b) Barnstars Barnstars are usually related, directly or tangentially, to the construction of the encyclopedia. They also allow editors to commend other editors for their work. Although some barnstars are irrelevant to the construction of the encyclopedia, most are sufficiently relevant to building a "foundation for collaboration."
 * c) Signature pages Although I personally dislike signature pages, they do allow editors to expand their contacts in the Wikipedia community by meeting other editors, thus assisting in building a "foundation for collaboration."

However, secret pages and other games are not only completely irrelevant to the encyclopedia – they also do not and cannot serve any purpose with regards to "providing a foundation for effective collaboration." They might be acceptable on a site designed for such social networking, such as Facebook or MySpace, but not on Wikipedia. While it is true that, in general, these pages are not described by their creators as "social networking" or "games," I argue that de facto that's what they are. In the long run, it will be helpful to draw a line in the sand here, so WP:MYSPACE will be taken more seriously in the future.

Are secret pages directly harmful? No, they are fairly innocuous. However, we have to keep in mind that most users who have secret pages are not very productive editors in the mainspace or in project maintenance/administration. Let's not lose sight of the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost, and therefore we have no obligation to allow those who are not contributing much to use Wikipedia as a playground for social networking. Wikipedia is a community, but it's not a community in the traditional sense where members spend nearly all of their time. If someone wants to social network, they can do so on numerous websites – just not on Wikipedia. That's the essence of WP:MYSPACE. To the creator: 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) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This boilerplate rationale gets longer month on month, and there are no fewer than eleven occurrences of it on the MFD listings as a whole at the time of writing this. Is there any chance of your doing something such as making a sub-page and simply saying "per long-standing rationale at User:Cunard/Rationale for deleting secret pages"? Uncle G (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Creating User:Cunard/Rationale for deleting secret pages will be too much of a temptation for disgruntled users who will start Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cunard/Rationale for deleting secret pages. I will limit my MfD nominations of secret pages to no more than ten a week so that the page is not too clogged with secret page MfDs. Cunard (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "per the rationale that I gave at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Happysunshine/Edward", then? Uncle G (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, but users generally don't follow links to other pages. In future MfDs, to cut down on the length of the rationale, I will include 's argument for deletion only as a link to Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 7 instead of as a quote. That will cut the length by more than a half; will that suffice? Cunard (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why exactly are you worried about some trying to MfD User:Cunard/Rationale for deleting secret pages, if it was created? That seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and if anyone was crazy enough to try and get it deleted, the nomination would be shot down immediately.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 01:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * True. I have given this some more thought and have created an essay in the Wikipedia namespace: Why secret pages should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Since consensus appears to be against these.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 01:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cunard. BTW, the page creator hasn't been active since May 2009. This seems like a sign the "WP = Myspace/Facebook" bandwagon-hopping editors have all gone the way of the dodo. Kimchi.sg (talk) 13:02, 4 September 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.