Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezkag72/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  no consensus. There was no clear consensus to delete these pages. --Killiondude (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Tezkag72/Secret Page
WP:NOTMYSPACE, nothing to do with the encyclopaedia etc. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Tezkag72/Map 1
 * User:Tezkag72/Map 2
 * User:Tezkag72/Map 3
 * User:Tezkag72/Map 4
 * Delete per nom.  Zoo Fari  01:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep per everything I said on other MFD's-- Coldplay   Expert  01:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, along with other users' secret pages. It's not hurting the encyclopedia; if you don't want to try to look for it, don't. Tezkag72 (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UP. --RL0919 (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well within reasonable leeway for a valued wikipedian.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Colossal waste of other people's time.  Triplestop  x3  15:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per SmokeyJoe --UltraMagnus (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason to destroy this. There's no mandate that user pages must be exclusively related to encyclopedic studies is there?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is: see WP:UP: "Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project." JohnCD (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Evil saltine (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Very active editor, and active editors need to be encouraged. The gameplay isn't their main activity here, so it can be tolerated. Coming here for a combination of reasons is on balance, more beneficial to the encyclopedia than if they didn't come here at all. We need to encourage good editors, even if only 90% of what they do is actually positive  & the rest irrelevant but not harmful.   DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not myspace, etc. Established editors must be held to the same standards as newbs, if not higher. → ROUX   ₪  23:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * certainly held to the same standards when they are doing harm, but they can be encouraged a little when the problem is not actually harmful.   DGG ( talk ) 14:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But that's hardly welcoming to new contributors, is it? Newbs are told to put their nose to the grindstone, while 'established' (whatever that means) editors are free to do stuff the new ones are explicitly disallowed. And I don't just mean these bloody stupid userspace games, obviously, but it's part of the problem. → ROUX   ₪  16:00, 29 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.