Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Spider1224/SandboxOWL




 * 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. The main difference with other similar pages (which were deleted) is that this user is inactive and have too many edits in the userspace. There seems to be a consensus at this point in favor of deletion. In addition, this user was inactive since 2008—for a very long by wikipedia standards. Ruslik_ Zero 19:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Spider1224/SandboxOWL
Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. There has been a longstanding consensus to delete secret pages. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezero/Secret Page and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vinsfan368/^^ for two examples. Cunard (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following page:

Cunard (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep This user seems to have a decent amount of good edits, (393), which would make me lean toward All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, but there is fully a 3rd of this users edits are in Userspace... They seem not to be active lately,(last edit Nov 2008) so the point may be moot. Also, keep in mind consensus can change. Avic enna sis @ 22:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT, a policy on Wikipedia, applies to all users, whether they are seasoned or are new. Editors with a "decent amount of good edits" are not given the license to violate policy. I strongly agree with 's comments at another MfD, particularly this one. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, so the user can "play" on MySpace or Facebook instead of using Wikipedia as a game. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete all: "Secret" pages are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Has any encyclopedia before us ever had the ability to have such things? I suspect not. How, then, can our predecessors teach us about a practice that they have never tried? Certainly not well enough to be grounds for stopping one. The entire wiki was built on trying out radical new concepts, and seeing how they fit its exceptional nature. And if this is more about our dignity... well. If being beneath our dignity is grounds for deletion on a website with this many editors and this many different opinions on what our dignity is and where it lies, we should save everyone some time by blowing up the encyclopedia and going home. --Kiz o r  01:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - one-third edits and a teensy weensy bit more are spent in userspace, and user is inactive.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 12:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Secret page games are not a benefit to the encyclopedia, and the most reasonable arguments in defense of them don't apply when the user hasn't edited in years. --RL0919 (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Secret pages conflict with WP:USERPAGE and inadvertently promote a MYSPACE attitude that is not helpful for the encyclopedia. Such pages should be removed because they promote an anything-goes outlook to users. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems unlikely that such a small thing could cause any significant change in outlook... --Kiz o r  01:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Now that we have built the largest reference work of all time, the easy part is over. To maintain it, we must maintain a stable, functional community, one that's entirely online, and made of the sort of people whose idea of fun is picking nits off an encyclopedia. If this doesn't scare you, it should. Wikipedia had a sort of beginner's bonus in its frontier days, but the cooperative spirit fostered by tangible progress and the shared excitement at this mad endeavor must inevitably diminish as the nature of editing changes and there are ever more things to disagree on.

Though I have no interest in secret pages myself, I'm unconvinced that they count as social networking, games or any other thing forbidden by The Rules. The longstanding consensus to delete secret pages is neither longstanding nor a consensus. The previous times large amounts of noise were made on secret pages were a MfD on them as a whole, which gave no consensus, and an arbitration case on their improper mass deletion attempt, which found that there is no policy or precedent, and there are reasonable arguments for both sides. I find the pages valuable as one of the few ways editors can connect positively, and where they can be reminded that one does not always have to worry about rules and conflicts while editing Wikipedia. You know that that's all too valuable.

If you find this effect insignificant, there is another: it is very much significant that we do not become a community where even such small deviations from The Complex And Proper Order Of Things are set upon and crushed. --Kiz o r  01:40, 12 April 2010 (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.