Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wilsonbiggs excessive unrelated content




 * 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 all. Tim Song (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Wilsonbiggs excessive unrelated content
Fails WP:UP and WP:NOTWEBHOST. We've got 2 pages (User:Wilsonbiggs/The Central Atlantic Islands and User:Wilsonbiggs/The St Timothy Isles) which appear to be video game-related (he even added a category linking it to Jennifer Government: NationStates), 4 pages (User:Wilsonbiggs/UWIL Flame Dogz, User:Wilsonbiggs/2014 UWIL Flame Dogz season, User:Wilsonbiggs/Template: Flame Dogz Roster, and User:Wilsonbiggs/UWIL Flame Dogz/Travis Taylor) that appear to be fantasy football-related, and 1 page (User:Wilsonbiggs/EWTV) that I have no idea about but certainly isn't encyclopedic. There are also a couple of userboxes which are fine. Wyatt Riot (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ask User Seems clear that most of the stuff is intended as sandbox material. See asserting that the Flame Dogs stuff is a test.  Delete categories on your own. Main user page is absolutely within reason to Keep.  Collect (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From his statements on WP:NOT talk and below, it appears that these pages are being used for more than testing out wiki code. User content is rarely a problem and I don't recall ever taking material like this to MfD--I'm all for assuming good faith--but when users try to connect their user content with mainspace content (through linking or categorization) it becomes problematic.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What do I do then? If it's a user page, I should do what I want with it. Maybe wikipedia should put up an article and subarticles just for stuff like this. It would help:
 * Suggestions

• Gamers

• Creativity

• RPing (Roleplaying)

• Fun!

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it shouldn't have to be a non-creative encyclopedia. All of my last posts that were bad (like Weird-O) were stupid. Tis is all RP stuff. It just could be better that way, and people would love it. Wilsonbiggs (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:USER has its limitations. Wikipedia is not a webhost and your user space is not supposed to be used for Excessive unrelated content.  Like I said above, this probably wouldn't be an issue if you weren't trying to tie your material with mainspace (encyclopedic) content.  After all, the main goal of Wikipedia is create an encyclopedia based on principles like notability and verifiability, not for things made up one day or other creative endeavors.  We do have a place (Village pump (policy)) where you can suggest making changes to these policies, however.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It is encyclopedic content on fake stuff. It's called RPing. Is it okay? Wilsonbiggs (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I roleplay myself, but I find appropriate hosting. Again, Wikipedia is not a webhost. Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete all Inappropriate use of userspace. WP:FAKEARTICLE says, "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." (mine emphasized) If there were one or two pages with "fake stuff", this could be viewed as a valid use of userspace as a sandbox for testing code. However, there are numerous user subpages that are being used to store false information. If viewed by others, they may be misinformed by the content there and believe that this "fake stuff" is real stuff. Because Wikipedia is not a webhost, these pages should be deleted.
 * This deletion discussion includes the following subpages:

Cunard (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Pretty clear-cut example of WP:FAKEARTICLEs. I don't suppose we need WP:NOTLARP just yet, do we? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete all per Thumperward, blatant WP:FAKEARTICLE violation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is about as damn near close to an infringement of WP:USER guidelines as we can get, to the point where the editor even admits that it's a violation.--WaltCip (talk) 06:04, 24 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.