Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Penubag/Secret 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. This was definitely a close case, however, I feel that counting the nominator, consensus was on the side of deletion. --Killiondude (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Penubag/Secret page
Useless to the encyclopedia.  Zoo Fari  01:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. You should bring these things here without first asking the user in question to request db-user.  If he doesn't want to, I support allowing him to keep a small quantity of these playthings, according to reasonable leeway for a productive editor.  Note that the original version was improperly deleted, and deleted revisions should be undeleted on a request by the user.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Social networking in blatant violation of WP:NOT  Triplestop  x3  01:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. According to its own content, it is a recreation of a page that has been deleted twice previously, so it should be subject to speedy deletion per WP:CSD G4. --RL0919 (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Except the deletion was totally out of process, and I think the admin may have been hauled before the ArbCom to explain his reckless deletions. I know it was at least part of a huge drama fest on ANI. So, not subject to G4. Icewedge (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, one of those. In that case, delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UP. --RL0919 (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm not a fan of these, but at the end of the day "secret pages" really do no harm. I tend to be especially tolerant of such pages belonging to established contributors. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Admins deleted this 2 times already, but soon after it's always recreated by other folks. Go ahead and delete it, I don't use it anymore, but chances are, someone will recreate it within a month or so. -- penubag  (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on it's history, perhaps a bit of WP:SALT is in order. --RL0919 (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But then you have to get consensus for that as well. I think you're wasting more time then it's worth. -- penubag  (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * These MfD's are more time than the concern they worry about, but are worth defending because authoritative control of committed wikipedians' userspace is bad for the community. Users should, and should be left to, look after their own userspace. Penubag is more than competent to decide how to look after his userspace.  He can keep, blank, redirect, revert, request deletion, request protection, or whatever, but there is no case that he needs our supervision.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete WP:UP \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, concur with SmokeyJoe. Icewedge (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, Per SmokeyJoe and Juliancolton.--UltraMagnus (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia at heart is an encyclopedia; we allow userpages to discuss issues related to en.wikipedia, not random and pointless games. You want to play games - use google. Skinny87 (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Active editor, and active editors need to be encouraged. As long as the gameplay isn't their main activity here, it can be tolerated. Coming here for a combination of reasons is in the net, beneficial to the encyclopedia than if they didn't come here at all.  We should keep on the merits, and then if the user still wants to request deletion, he can of course do so as U1, but considering that it might just be an annoyed response to the questioning, he should have another chance to decide.    DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I keep saying this, I see no reason why established editors should be permitted behaviour that newbies aren't. Equal treatment for all. → ROUX   ₪  23:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this page at it's current state constitutes as a game in anyway. I just simply have a blank page with some random comments on it. If you had a page named blah, and people started writing on it, should it be deleted? -- penubag  (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, of course. I trust I don't have to state the reasons again. → ROUX   ₪  23:31, 28 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.