Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SlimXero


 * 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 delete. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:HARMLESS are not policy. Riana ⁂ 02:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User:SlimXero
User may be aware that he has a plethora of userboxes, but has not edited since April 23, and has under 100 edits in a span of about two years. The user's page, on the other hand, has altered article infoboxes, and as mentioned, quite a few userboxes, which is an issue that has not been addressed by the user. Wikipedia is not Myspace, especially for more or less non-contributors. MSJapan 14:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Shalom Hello 16:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - I don't see any reason. Yeah, his page is cluttered, but he's not hurting anyone, is he? --DodgerOfZion 16:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DodgerOfZion  MAJ5  (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: User:MAJ5 has no article space edits, and the account is less than a week old, and most of the edits have to do with username reporting and MfDs.  That might explain his lack of knowledge regarding why this item is a problem. MSJapan 19:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Again, the question must be answered:  "Who does this hurt?" --DodgerOfZion 19:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Who? Good question, mainly because it's not a personal issue at all.  WP policy regards this as an abuse of the resources WP provides.  See the exact same MfD for User:Nforbes, particularly the total deletion support. MSJapan 19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Exactly, and I put a keep vote there too.  There are a LOT of bigger things we should be worrying about on this website than someone's bedroom mess of a userpage.  This is trivial. --DodgerOfZion 19:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is part of the overall website. I'm not going to debate larger issues, but the fact is that somebody's got to do it, and plenty of people do do it.  This seems more like a "Keep it because I don't think this is important enough to deal with" argument, which isn't really valid  Moreover, policy violations aren't trivial.  If you don't enforce small policies, why enforce the larger ones? MSJapan 20:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The big question hasn't been answered:  Who in the name of Kevin Smith does this bloody userpage hurt!?  I don't see how it harms Wiki in any way at all.  Sock puppets and vandals hurt the encyclopedia's credibility.  Userboxes, however, don't.  Is the userbox set-up a little ridiculous?  Admittedly, it looks a mess.  However, it's not hurting anybody, and unless the user is an unconstructive and/or destructive member of the community, I don't see why we should bother his page at all.  It's actually trivial matters like these that have my peers laughing at Wikipedia.--DodgerOfZion 20:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thats not what I meant. I was agreeing with Dodger.  MAJ5  (talk) (contribs) 16:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean yeah a mess but is it honestly so bad that it needs to be deleted. We don't just tear people down here. Why bring me into the subject? I am new. So were you MSJapan and I deserve chance just like you and my vote is Speedy Keep!  MAJ5  (talk) (contribs) 16:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't vote twice in a nom, sir.--WaltCip 14:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you can, since it's not a straightforward vote - the closing admin will evaluate based on the strength of the arguments, and anyone can put forward as many arguments as they choose. Waltontalk 14:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep -- he seems to have taken some care picking the userboxes: it's not blatant abuse like Nforbes.--SarekOfVulcan 20:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT. He has less than 50 mainspace contributions and yet he has a very extensive userspace. ^ demon [omg plz] 22:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, since when are we forcing people to make sufficient mainspace contributions in order to keep a userpage? It is not meant as abuse, so I see no need to delete it.  Sala Skan  11:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Force"? It's kind of the whole point of the exercise, isn't? You know, assisting in the actual editing/creating of an encyclopedia and all that, not as a vehicle for personal self-expression. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:NOT trumps WP:HARMLESS and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--WaltCip 14:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BITE. OK, this user hasn't made a lot of edits, but s/he is doing nothing disruptive and should not be driven away by such an aggressive and hostile act as deleting their userpage. My argument isn't based on WP:HARMLESS - rather, deleting this page could be positively harmful to the encyclopedia, in driving away a potential contributor, and making an inexperienced user feel as if s/he's done something wrong. Waltontalk 14:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are considerable points, but they involve common sense. As we all know, common sense does not have greater strength than a policy.--WaltCip 16:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So your argument is that we should ignore common sense in favour of policy? FYI, one of our most important policies is WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community...Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Basically, we don't make decisions on the basis of who can quote the most WP:ABCs; we make decisions on the basis of what will actually improve the encyclopedia. Waltontalk 14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also take into account, from WP:USER: Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia.--WaltCip 19:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:BITE? The guy's been here for two years. Oh, and common sense says that 40 edits over two years is NOT a serious contributor, so that argument cuts both ways. --Calton | Talk 00:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's see, the guy has four times as many userboxes (~180) as he does mainspace edits (40) -- and that's over two years. Delete, with a note that it'll be restored if and when he begins actually contributing regularly. MySpace? Not here. --Calton | Talk 00:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Calton above. If he starts to edit regularly, then he can have it restored. You don't have the right to a user page if that's all you do. ~   Wi ki  her mit  01:01, 2 July 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.