Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Supuhstar/Simpedia


 * 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 debate was  No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Supuhstar/Simpedia
I'm not sure this is under csd so i've mfd'd it. The user originally had a link to this site in their signature, and it was replaced by this after a user raised it on their talk page. I feel that this page is now doing the same thing and advertising another site. Apologies if is not suitable for MfD.  B  G  7even   10:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree; this is nothing more than a page set up to game the system to get around the external link limitation. Metros (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please reference specifically what you mean by "the external link limitation". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is what I mean: Signatures. He originally had the link as an external link in his signature (see this, for example), and after I pointed him to the signature guidelines, he changed it to this subpage.  Metros (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree that the external link in the signature is definately not OK.  I think he has now found an acceptable compromise.  The single external link is not per se problematic.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Extremely strong Keep I checked. As long as it's a subpage my userpage, it's perfectly fine. &mdash; Supuhstar  *   §  17:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This discussion was never listed in the MFD log on the 19th. I have added it now, Metros (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - It would be completely acceptable to have this information on a userpage as part of the whole personification/community building/get-to-know-ya type of content, but as a stand alone subpage which is linked as part of a signature it seems spammy with a dash of COI on the side.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Metros. It's especially bad since it's linked to from his signature. seresin ( ¡? )  05:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, userspace is not advertspace. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonable leeway for a productive editor.  Whether the external link is on the userpage or subpage seems irrelevent.  The signature link to the subpage doesn't hurt, it's little different to a link to the userpage, it's no as if the signature links directly to somewhere external.  Even if there is a signature problem (please cite the policy), deletion of the subpage is not the answer.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether the link is on a userpage or subpage does make a difference (unless its the only thing on the userpage). If it just linked to the userpage, the "advert"-ness would be lost in the totality of the user get-to-know-ya information; as a stand alone subpage the information stands out and is spammy.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference seems petty to me. He is not posting external links with his signature.  I see no violation of External link or Signatures.  If the general issue bothers you, take it up at Wikipedia talk:Signatures.  If this particular case is special, explain it to the user, and take it up at WP:RFC if you have no joy.  MfD is not the proper forum to make new policy.  The spamminess of the subpage is reasonable given the user's productivity.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Metros has set out the issue with the signature -- I personally do not have an opinion if links are acceptable in a signature, but the community does and it does not allow it. My issue does deal with the whole gameing of the system to get around the community concensus.  It all flows back to my comment around location, location, location; a link in a "get to know me" user page is different then a link to a link to get around a "rule".--Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My take is that external links are not allowed in signatures because everytime the signature is used the external link will be posted yet again, leading to the external link being littered all over wikipedia, and this is what we don't want. In this case, there is only one external link.  Is there some larger gaming I'm not seeing?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not really passionate one way or the other in relation to this user or links in signatures generally; I think our different view point simply comes down to a believe in "the letter of the law" verse "the spirit of the law"; that line is part of what WP:GAME deals with. Most of the guidelines here are couched in soft language, for example "usually", "not recommended", "can be", very few commands from above.  It would be interesting to ask the user why have the info on a subpage rather then just as part of his main userpage.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. User:Supuhstar, why did you choose to link your signature to the subpage, instead of putting the same information prominently on your user page?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak delete or redirect. Yes, we give leeway for a userpage, but userspace is for working and should at most store technical stuff used for the user pages. Having a separate page for linking isn't appropriate comes across not only as spam but also as as gaming the rules.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I understand the gaming concern here, and I see it as overstated and looking too much like harassment of a user who previously breached a guideline. I don’t see him gaming, but complying.  We don’t want external links spammed acrossed wikipedia, but this user is no longer doing that.  You seem to be referring to a limitation on userspace that I can’t find in WP:UP.  As above, I see no violation of External link or Signatures, or even a violation of the spirit of these rules.  Whether a user should have subpages specicially for linking (eg. from a signature), is a fair question, but it should be discussed and perhaps formalised as policy (as above, I suggest Wikipedia talk:Signatures).  WP:MfD should not be used to extend unwritten policy.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the user mentions on their user page that they are an admin on simpedia and that is fine. I was referring to UP that gives on one hand examples of uses of subpages as work space and indicates on the other hand that it is also for those parts of the user page that are better separated off for technical or size reasons. Splitting off the simpedia part into a separate page does not seem to meet the spirit of this guideline and rather appears to cross the line towards organizational or self promotion per points 6 and 7 of UP but that is of courses a judgment call about how to interpret the guideline but not really an extension. In any case, the the issue is rather minor and I don't want to appear harassing anyone, so I'll amend this to a a weak delete or redirect to the user page. To adress also a question by the nominator: It is certainly a case where the existing discussion about the sig could have been continued before bringing it here.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The subpage itself doesn't violate any policy or guideline. Currently we don't comment on this kind of situation with our sig guidelines, so if we wish to change/add a rule then we can do so, but for now he's not doing anything wrong. Personally, I have no problem with it. While the site itself seems off-line right now, it's looks like it's just some harmless wiki about the Sims. He's not getting a boost in page rankings from this (nofollow settings) and I doubt it's a profitable business. He's linking to a wiki project he works on in his Wikipedia signature. That seems fine to me. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 6 November 2008 (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.