Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Orangesodakid/hidden page challenge




 * 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. Evil saltine (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Orangesodakid/hidden page challenge
Nonsense pages with no encyclopedic value.  Triplestop  x3  21:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Also adding


 * User:Orangesodakid/10
 * User:Orangesodakid/11
 * User:Orangesodakid/12
 * User:Orangesodakid/13
 * User:Orangesodakid/14
 * User:Orangesodakid/15
 * User:Orangesodakid/16
 * User:Orangesodakid/17
 * User:Orangesodakid/18
 * User:Orangesodakid/19
 * User:Orangesodakid/20
 * User:Orangesodakid/21
 * User:Orangesodakid/22
 * User:Orangesodakid/23
 * User:Orangesodakid/24
 * User:Orangesodakid/25
 * User:Orangesodakid/4
 * User:Orangesodakid/42
 * User:Orangesodakid/6
 * User:Orangesodakid/7
 * User:Orangesodakid/8
 * User:Orangesodakid/9
 * User:Orangesodakid/Page 1
 * User:Orangesodakid/Page 2
 * User:Orangesodakid/Page 3
 * User:Orangesodakid/Page 5
 * User:Orangesodakid/hidden page challenge

 Triplestop  x3  21:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this is supposed to be a set of sandbox articles can you move them there.-- Coldplay   Expert  23:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC) hay, all I was doing was trying to make a hidden page. If you want a little less links, then I'll make it happen, but you dont have to put this up for deletetion.--Orangesodakid 15:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. These playthings may look silly to experienced wikipedians, like building sandcastles where the waves will return, but they have value for educational and community building purposes.  It is, however, about time that the user began to try making some productive contributions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Silly game. If the user needs this many sandboxes I'd expect to see at least one filled with sandbox-y like work. What is the benefit of having identical sandboxes? What is the educational benefit? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason that I haven't been able to make some productive contributions is for one simple reason. I DON'T HAVE TIME. believe me, I would really love to start on some pages, but I'm only on for like 10 minuets at a time.--Orangesodakid 18:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet you had the time to make eight zillion nonsense hidden pages. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete If the game was related to the encyclopedia in a more direct way, it would be OK. Orangesodakid... don't take it personally.  Gigs (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all per Gigs, wasteful. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * WHAT THE HELL HAS ORANGESODAKID DONE TO YOU tenpoundhammer. This is the first experince I have on wikipedia, some creep bashing on some random dude just because he dosent like his hidden page. that is just not cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurrenlaggan (talk • contribs)
 * Gurrenlaggan has been blocked indefinitely for personal attacks on his first edit. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I apperacait the support/input, but you dont have to be so hard on tenpoundhammer, and, next time, put your sig after you make a comment like that.--Orangesodakid 00:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:USER Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Plenty of latitude for established editors is given, particularly for pages showing particular wisdom or humor, but pages such as those nominated should be removed as they promote an invalid outlook of activity expected here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Burn it with fire - This isn't MySpace.→ ROUX   ₪  04:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors matter, but I do have to agree with the comments of the above editors, this many sandboxes/hidden pages serve no purpose, and do tend to violate our userspace guidelines. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 04:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm in favor of a lot of leeway for user pages, but this is way over the line. -- SPhilbrick  T  18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've seen many users and even administrators have these pages, why do you you delete his but not theirs? Programmer101 (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see these admin secret page challenges. Could you please provide links? → ROUX   ₪  16:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably because amongst his contributions, it is really hard to find anything intended to be a serious contribution to the encyclopedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, he has a total of three article contribs, all reverted as unsourced. → ROUX   ₪  16:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I got an idea, I will delete all the useless pages as long as I can keep page 42 and all the pages that lead to it.--Orangesodakid 17:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Orangesodakid, I don't want to be rude here, but we don't need your ok to delete the pages. That's what MfD is about--finding consensus. And without being mean... you really need to start contributing to the encyclopedia. If you need help, my talkpage is here. → ROUX   ₪  16:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is important to clarify that we do not need Orangesodakid's permission to delete these pages, but do we really need to be so hard on them? Does their view not matter? And now that we do have their permission, do we still need this discussion? If it were not for the MfD nomination, these pages would be eligible for speedy deletion. Brian Jason Drake 10:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It fits the Department of Fun's guidelines however it isn't a part of it.Darkside2000 (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You could find something to fix in Special:Random.  Or see Alternative outlets.  You can have your pages deleted by adding db-user.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't delete anything--it takes an admin to do that. And that's not exactly how this works; all of these pages violate the list of things that Wikipedia is not, and the things that are acceptable in userspace. → ROUX   ₪  18:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

then what should I do to the three people who got the barnstar.--Orangesodakid 18:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's up to them as to what they do with the barnstar. Have you started working through the stuff here? → ROUX   ₪  18:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've want to, but all I really have time to do now is just go around looking at this sutation.--Orangesodakid 16:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I think we should leave a little leeway to the Orangesodakid. There are other perfectly useless pages around to justify some type of social page kept by the kid. His compromise proposal seems reasonable to me. And by the way since we are quoting so many policies (WP:NOT and what not etc.) I think we should also keep in mind WP:BITE. Dr.K. logos 01:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Even one page for a web-based game would be inappropriate, but a whole series of them is way outside of what userpages should be used for. --RL0919 (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is not what Wikipedia is for. I have argued at some length in other similar MfD discussions against the standard "keep" arguments. See here, for example. I will, however, briefly answer one more argument. Tasoskessaris (who signs as "Dr.K." says: There are other perfectly useless pages around to justify some type of social page kept by the kid. This is unfortunately a very common "reason" quoted for keeping stuff. It is dealt with at WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but, in a nut shell, the fact that unfortunately some rubbish exists is not a justification for letting other rubbish exist. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen this "otherstuff exists" argument enough times already. No need for lessons in orthodoxy. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 16:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I don't think you understood the point of my comment. This page kept by the Orangesoda kid is social in its scope. He invites other users to visit his hidden page and they leave friendly messages when they discover it. If we trim the excessive number of pages kept by the kid to only a few, then this is very similar to a guestbook and it promotes goodwill and fun among users of the encyclopedia as Jimbo himself stated. Promoting goodwill among users is a long accepted practice here and is good for the encyclopedia. No? Dr.K. logos 16:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is like a hidden guest book.--Orangesodakid 17:54, 24 September 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.