Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Politics rule/U.S Senators


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 No consensus, default to keep. Users in favor of deleting and those in favor of keeping both had reasoned arguments. Most deleters were concerned of the page violating parts of WP:NOT, while some users saying to keep believed that due to the page's contradiction regarding the politicians being of different political parties that it was unlikely it was a soapbox. Other deleters were worried about userspace abuse, while other keepers said that Politics rule is an active contributor to the mainspace rather than userspace. Due to these arguments, no consensus is logical. Acalamari 20:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Politics rule/U.S Senators
This page serves no collaberative purpose whatsoever. As stated in the opening line of the page, it is here for to express his support for the leaders, we are here as an encyclopedia, not to campaign for a political standpoint. Users are more than entitled to put information about them in their userspace - this just isn't about PR and is more of a political soapbox.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  12:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a perfect example of why I'm writing the essay Editors matter. It's true that WP:NOT a soapbox, or a free webhost; that's fair enough. But this user is not abusing his userspace; he's an active contributor who's made numerous mainspace contribs. I hope that participants in this discussion, rather than citing Wikipedia-is-not-isms, will actually think about the potential impact of deleting this page. There are only two points which matter:
 * Will it do any good to delete this page? No, because deletions don't even free up server space, as deleted material stays in the archives. Further, userspace is not part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic content, and isn't generally treated as such.
 * Will it do any harm to delete this page? Potentially yes, because it could drive the editor away. Even if it doesn't, it's likely to make him less happy, and less likely to contribute.
 * Therefore, we can conclude that there is no possible benefit to Wikipedia from deleting this page, and that potential harm could be caused. I beg everyone to consider this, rather than just citing WP:ABCs. WaltonOne 13:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree Walton, content like this in userspace gives the impression that we're like myspace. We're here to create an encyclopedia, and pages like this cheapen the image. If someone came here from a google search and saw a 'shrine' to these politicians, it would most probably discredit the encyclopedia. Throughout the encyclopedia we should give the impression of NPOV - even out of article space, if our contributors are shown to favour one person over another it can lead to a lack of credability.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  14:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion, but the fact remains that NPOV has never fully applied to userspace, and the line between legitimate self-expression and soapboxing on one's userpage has never been clearly defined. I agree that we should make it clear that we are not MySpace, but I think the danger of driving away active contributors by deleting their user subpages outweighs the peril of non-neutrality. WaltonOne 13:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I make lots of mainsapce contributions about Politics. I am not abusing my userspace. I can see that it would be put up for deletion if I put all my edits here, but I don't. Thank you.  Pat Politics rule!  13:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, WP:NOT and WP:UP apply to all user pages regardless of whether you use your account to contribute.  Sebi  [talk] 09:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps we could apply some good sense, rather than inflexibly applying WP:ABC and WP:XYZ. This user is actually doing something for the encyclopedia. If he is allowed to use his userspace as he prefers, he is more likely to be happy, and therefore to contribute to the encyclopedia. Where rules conflict with the good of the encyclopedia, we should, as a community, be prepared to do what's good for the encyclopedia, or to change the rules. WaltonOne 13:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We have guidlines for a reasons and WP:USER applies to all users, we don't just ignore it for good contributors.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  13:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But applying the guideline inflexibly in this case could drive a very good editor away from Wikipedia. Please use common sense, rather than just quoting rules. WaltonOne 14:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep User is an active contributor, and has not knowingly abused his userspace to the point where policy action is required.--WaltCip 17:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether he is an active contributor or not does has no effect in this, if he's abused his userspace (whether on purpose or not) then this page should be deleted.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  10:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Walton. Assuming all images there are PD. GDonato (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * delete This is appropriate to a personal website only. Mainstream or not mainstream, this is a soapbox.DGG (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, political soapboxes have no place on Wikipedia. If PR wants to have his own political views on the Internet, fine, but not on Wikipedia.  Sebi  [talk] 09:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It is a violation of WP:NOT because he is using his userspace as a soapbox. Even if he had the largest amount of edits out of all the editors at wikipedia, WP:NOT would still apply to him. Just because he has other edits is no reason to keep this.--†Sir James Paul† 12:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If this is a SOAPBOX, it is the weirdest one I've ever seen. I'm not sure what the user is doing, but any page that highlights arch-Republican Ted Stevens and arch-Democrat Ted Kennedy cannot be said by anyone knowledgeable about the subject to be espousing any known, divisive political position.  As best as I can make out, the point of this page is to express admiration for the US Senate itself.  I suppose some non-Americans might find that a little offensive, but really... expressing admiration for the form of one's government, rather than its policies, is hardly soapboxing.  I don't think WP would delete a "God Save the Queen" page. Xoloz 14:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Keep. This isn't even close to WP:MYSPACE. If this has gotta go, about 1/2 of the userspace does, too. Also a GREAT point above. How would deleting this page help the project?. I can't help, but wonder, if we'd even be having this discussion, had the user not disclosed his political beliefs, which, is very disturbing, to me at least. SQL(Query Me!) 18:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've explained above how it harms the project - and we have guidlines for a reason. I now ask, what good is it doing?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  19:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And, I disagreed with you. Sorry. SQL(Query Me!) 19:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: per what are we trying to do? Drive away good editors? Also per Xoloz. How about, instead of wasting time digging through a good contributor's user space, we spend time referencing some of the 50,000+ unreferenced, tagged articles, or other work improving the encyclopedia.IvoShandor 19:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, sadly, per WP:UP. Jimbo, supreme god-king of Wikipedia, said "using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea". This page serves no purpose, and Wikipdia is not the user's personal webpage for posting his political ideals. Pat, you should focus on continuing to do the great work you do instead of creating and maintaining pages like this. -- Boricu æ  ddie  19:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because Jimbo said something does not make it right. We, the community, are the supreme authority on Wikipedia, not Jimbo; we should think for ourselves. WaltonOne 16:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. I agree with him. The only purpose of the page is to promote political figures; Wikipedia is not the place for that. --Boricuaeddie is now  Ag ü  eybaná  21:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It does not do any good to the encyclopedia to delete this, and if I'm not mistaken, he has every senator from all of the states alphabetically through Massachusetts, Republicans and Democrats. That seems to me like more of a directory. Ne ra n e i   (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT. -- Boricu æ  ddie  20:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * True. I still stand by my opinion that it would do more harm than good. Love, Ne ra n e i   (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but strongly try to encourage the user to voluntarily remove it. I'm seriously troubled by the general idea that we reward productive editors by letting them treat Wikipedia more like MySpace than other people can.  Surely it is our good, productive editors who are most likely to understand that Wikipedia is not MySpace?  And that this sort of thing is really inappropriate?  I mean yes, we don't want to drive someone away, but saying "oh, as a reward for your good behavior, you get to engage in some bad behavior" seems a bit hypocritical.  At the very least, we're sending mixed messages.  And this isn't about the politics—I'm perfectly happy that the guy should be proud of his country and its government.  I just don't think we should have double-standards when it comes to using Wikipedia resources for personal ends.  Xtifr tälk 08:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepIf he has a point I'm not sure what to make of it. It's harmless. . .this MfD on the other hand. . . R. Baley 18:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I agree with User:Xtifr in that I do not like this attitude saying that if you contribute to the encyclopedia, we will be more lenient on your userpage subpages. Though I seriously doubt that it does any good, it does not seem very partisan or harmful. Captain   panda  20:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that I should also note that when I first came to Wikipedia, I was more interested in a cool userpage than I am now. It was only later that I spent more and more time on other, more useful, things. If some of my subpages were deleted, I may have left Wikipedia. Perhaps it is a good idea to not delete too many of these subpages as it may drive off editors. Captain   panda  20:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Comment: Since a lot of deletes are per WP:USER, I think this part of that guideline, which is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense, is applicable:The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption. I don't see this activity as disruptive and deletion would certainly be disruptive.IvoShandor 20:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How does this help build the community? --Boricuaeddie is now  Ag ü  eybaná  21:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, by not pushing this editor out of the project, how's that for starters. Good editors are meant to be given leeway. And if this is a soapbox, it's the weirdest one I have ever seen. It's not like this editor goes around the wiki, edits these pages disruptively and then refers people to this page with the edit summary Vote Bush! or Vote Kerry! That would be soapboxing. This MfD is out of line. IvoShandor 11:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete most of the photos but otherwise Keep - Since the page does not deliver an informal speech, an appeal, or political harangue about any of the candidates, the page does not seem to be a soapbox. The only WP:UP issue I see is whether this is excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia. The photos make it excessive. A few might be fine, but not one for every name. You have links to the articles so people can click those if they want to see their faces. Also, you might want to rearrange the text from being one long list to several list of politicians having things in common that garner your support of them. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 22:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not a soapbox, but doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia nither Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 01:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sorry Pat, but this really does more harm then good...if someone strongly against US Senators (and there are many people who are) was to see it...well...think of it this way, there's already enough edit warring going around. Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - While I have no problem with most userspace content, I think this goes a bit far. It serves to add no value to this project.  IF you would like to keep a record for yourself, you can write it down or store it somewhere else.  I resepct your opinions but disagree that this is the place to display them. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per nomination. Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 00:33, 14 September 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.