Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:HuuhManFui


 * 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 debate was blank. It's impossible to determine what is or isn't the political content, so I will blank all but the "First President of Wikipedia" infobox. --Core desat 05:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:HuuhManFui
As a 12-year-old back in pre-personal computer days, I kept a three-ring binder in which I'd created a fictional country. This user has done the modern equivalent on his userpage. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service, and original fiction doesn't belong on a userpage. I approached the user to discuss the issue, but it appears that this MfD will be necessary.  Acroterion  (talk)  17:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I really wish we could keep this, as I do find it both amusing and clever. However, delete, as this isn't what Wikipedia is designed for. I urge the user, however, to transfer the content to another site, as it would be a shame for all this great work to be lost. WaltonOne 17:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S: One criticism - the female counterpart of a Lord is a Lady (for spouses of peers) or a Baroness (for suo jure peeresses), not a "Lordess". WaltonOne 17:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My version, written inkily in Bic, was much heavier on explosions and rockets and way lighter on politics, but was similarly naive. There's a lot of work here for a 13-year-old, and I debated blanking it, but thought it would be best discussed here.   Acroterion  (talk)  18:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * blank - blank it citing policy. Like WaltonOne I think its funny but its on the wrong site - should be on a blog or a personal site - the WP user space is just not for this-- Cailil   talk 17:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blank per Cailil. Explain to him why it is inappropriate.--Victor falk 21:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: if this (or any other content) gets deleted, and he (or anybody else) requests it, it has to be provided, since it is copyleft?--Victor falk 21:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The GFDL doesn't require it, but as common courtesy, we generally do provide it. --Carnildo 05:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep It looks like a somewhat borderline case. If this user did nothing but edit their own page, then I would be more inclined to say delete, but they have some other contributions, so it seems more along the lines of just your typical user page stuff rather than someone solely trying to take advantage of our web server space, and my thought is we should just leave it. I pretty much say, if GMail can give everyone >1 GB free for making no contributions to Google, then we can give users (especially contributors of other content) a few MB of space here. On the other hand, we're not subjecting people to advertising like most of these webmail services. And what are the implications if we decide whether to delete userpage content based on subjective judgments on how worthwhile a user's contributions are? The nuances and potential unintended consequences are mind-blowing. Ah, I guess this is not the place to discuss policy. User_pages Captain Zyrain 20:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep per Capt. Zyrain's excellent arguments, and per my reasoning in the essay Editors matter. This user is making genuine and useful contributions, e.g. ; deleting their hard work is likely to drive them away, which is bad for Wikipedia. Editors are a far more valuable resource than server space (and deleting content doesn't free up space anyway, since it stays in the archives). Having one slightly unnecessary userpage is, IMO, a small price to pay for recruiting a contributor. It would be different if the user had made no contribs outside of their userspace. WaltonOne 08:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Side point: I love his motto. "Be Conservative or GET OUT, you big pussy libs!" Sounds like a man after my own heart... :-) WaltonOne 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blank per policy. Not a web hosting service. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Or, rather than just citing trite catchphrases, you could consider giving a reasoned argument for why this page's continued existence is detrimental to Wikipedia. In particular, you could try explaining why it's necessary to delete this, and therefore risk driving the user away, and how such a deletion will actually benefit Wikipedia in any way (particularly considering that deletions don't even free up server space). WaltonOne 17:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blank the political content, leave the rest (such as the "1st President of Wikipedia" infobox). Policy is fairly clear on this point ("not a webhost"), so the issue is whether this case should be an exception. It's important that the user has made good-faith contributions outside of userspace, but it's equally important that some of the userpage content is potentially controversial (e.g. the parts about the Mayor of Chicago, the cowardly yet malicious Democrat Speaker of the House, the outlawing of abortion, and so on). I'll admit that I liked the idea of dubbing a scandal "Bitchgate II", but... . Still, there's no reason to delete the page, in case the user wants to preserve the content off-wiki. – Black Falcon (Talk) 23:04, 19 October 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.