Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yamla/Awards


 * 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 speedy keep, perfectly acceptable userpage, no real deletion reason given. Kusma (討論) 15:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Yamla/Awards
Not Wikipedia needed, there should not be a page for awards as it is simply uneeded, if this is allowed to continue wikipedia will be wasted ful of awards pages. There is no use to boast about awards, there are simpily tokens of appreciation. A page is not needed for them. -- Thala 13:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is definitely not a blogspace or myspace. Arsene Wenger 13:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (I think the date of your entry must be on the 4th of Jan) — Arsene Wenger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: moved from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Editor19841/Denver 2008 MER-C 13:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep bad faith nomination ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (note: wow, check out all the Prin sockpuppets coming out of the woordwork) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, almost speedily - doesn't run afoul of User page. In fact, this is explicitly stated in that guideline. Wikipedians often display their awards on their user page and this subpage, like many others are merely "[s]ections of the main page that are big enough to require their own page, i.e. a page of awards you have received or pictures you have taken". Almost going to say bad faith nomination, since I reverted the prod and speedy tag. MER-C 13:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. He's not boasting about them, he's moving them to a sub-page so as not to have his user page cluttered up with them. See here. Bad faith nom. yandman  13:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong (even speedy) Keep. This kind of subpage is a perfectly normal way of organizing comments recieved from other users.  See for example User:Jimbo Wales/Barnstars.  This is ultimately just a form or archiving by topic and as such clearly apropriate.  There is also no need to single out User:Yamla.  If you wanted to ban the use of such pages it would be better start a discussion at Village pump or a similar page rather than nominating just one, out of many, for deletion.  Eluchil404 13:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Speedy DELETE What has become of wikipedia if we to allow an awards page to everyone, just take a moment to think. Its the quality of important articles we must care about and spend time editting, not these waste awards pages. Andyroddick 13:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC) — Andyroddick (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The irony is that people get these awards for being good editors... MER-C 13:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete - wikipedians must learn to spend more time on articles than these Cobra Kanna 13:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC) — Cobra Kanna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong keep. As long as giving awards (barnstars and so on) to other users is allowed, it should be allowed to group them somewhere as well. If you don't want people to have a page with awards, propose to forbid the giving of awards instead of focusing on the receiver of them. Fram 13:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Deletion - Awards must definately not be idolised as a order of staus within wikipedia Kadavul 13:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Bad faith nom -- the nominator, and the other non-SPA saying "strong deletion" were both blocked by User:Yamla for copy vio issues. Dina 14:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Completely WP-related, completely viable as a user subpage... there's nothing at all wrong here. I'm not a fan of awards pages (nor am I even a fan of the barnstar system as a whole), but that doesn't mean other people should not be able to display the recognition others have given them. -- Kicking222 14:41, 4 January 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.