Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Best User Page Contest (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Delete. While Walton offers an excellent, principled defense of the page, it is clear that the community's feeling on this page has shifted (and, according to that consensus, the page has become more of a distraction since the last AfD.) I hope no one would ever argue against the importance of the Wikipedian community to the project: that importance does justify keeping pages that the community finds helpful, funny, or entertaining, even if the purposes of those pages is somewhat tangential. However, the community must actually find the page useful, funny, or entertaining: the consensus below clearly demonstrates that the community has few kind words for this page. Thus, the only argument offered for keeping the page is an argument susceptible to failure in the face of overwhelming opposition to a particular page. The community wishes to see this page deleted, so its will be done. Xoloz 15:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Best User Page Contest
MfDs for this article: Related MfD: 

AFAIK this sort of stuff is why we got rid of Esperanza. Detracts from focus on the encyclopedia: we're here to write good stuff, not to build pretty userpages. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, nor is it MySpace. Moreschi Talk 15:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per G4 as recreation of deleted material (here)  ^ demon [omg plz]  15:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm, it isn't actually a recreation of that page in terms of content. The current version has survived an MfD nomination here. With that in mind, speedy is clearly inappropriate, as there's no established consensus to delete. WaltonOne 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia's main purpose is building an encyclopedia, not a community. The community's purpose is to build the encyclopedia; while I do believe that user pages do serve a purpose, I think that this sort of thing is too much like the old Esperanza, as ^demon said. Veinor (talk to me) 15:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's main purpose is building an encyclopedia, not a community - but who do you think builds the encyclopedia? We need the community, because we need to recruit and retain contributors. Allowing people to have a bit of fun is a good way to do that. WaltonOne 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No purpose whatsoever. Could we wait until Episode 1 is finished though as I want to win! --Pheonix15 15:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Obvious delete per this nomination --Deskana (apples) 15:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That nomination didn't even reach consensus. Doesn't look so obvious to me. Also, the page nominated in that MfD is not the same as the current incarnation; there have been some changes to attempt to rectify complaints from proponents of deletion. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 21:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You've totally missed what I was saying. I want the page deleted per my nomination of the last MfD. --Deskana (apples) 14:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: I believe this page can be speedily deleted under CSD criteria CSD-G4 as it is a recreation of previously deleted material. I'm not at all averse to editors giving and receiving barnstars and other awards for good solid editing on the encyclopedia, whatever form that may take, but awards for userpages are misplaced. Nobody should be here just to give or receive barnstars, that's really not what we're about. Nick 15:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody should be here just to give or receive barnstars, that's really not what we're about - that may be true in principle, but in practice the most important Wikipedia resource is our community of hardworking editors. Given that we're a voluntary project, we have to focus on recruiting and retaining contributors. If they're only here to be given barnstars, then at least they're editing. It doesn't matter what motivates a Wikipedian, as long as they're contributing, and if some people enjoy being given awards for their userpage, then stopping this is only likely to drive them away. WaltonOne 13:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: There's basis for a speedy delete. This page is a clone of Esperanza/User Page Award, which was overwhelmingly deleted in November of 2006 via an MfD (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award). In the Esperanza MfD, user page awards were noted as being a negative aspect of Esperanza. The Department of Fun would be well advised to carefully consider what happened with Esperanza. If the DoF is to survive, they're better off avoiding thin ice like this. Also, this idea of "attacking" and "defending" userpages is absurd. Those who think this page should stay, consider WP:ILIKEIT. Per User page "It is a mistake to think of (your userpage) as a homepage". Userpages are to facilitate communication on the project and managing your work. This is not myspace. This is Wikipedia. --Durin 15:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There might have been an overwhelming consensus for deletion of the Esperanza page, but the recent MfD on this page closed as a no consensus. Consensus can change. WaltonOne 18:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. We are building an encyclopedia, not MySpace. Raystorm   (¿Sí?)  15:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete but Do not speedy. Although a recreation of deleted content in a meaningful sense, deletion does not salt the earth against recreation - G4 is meant to defend against immediate recreation. In any case, a second MfD that this page survived mitigates against a G4 deletion. That said, kill this with a stick. Phil Sandifer 15:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not Myspace/Bebo etc. Best Article Award would be nicer.  Majorly  (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The creator, User:Marlith has likely never heard much of Esperenza, he's only been here since the first months of this year, and when I asked about Esperenza earlier in the year, he said "I don't know that much about Esperenza, but I think it..." when I asked him why it colapsed.  I doubt he ever heard of Esperenza at the time he had the idea.--Kkrouni 17:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep While Wikipedia is not myspace, this contest specifically states/stated that you "must have made 200 edits in the past month with the majority to the mainspace" nowhere does it say something like "you must have made 200 edits to you're userspace". Why not just delete everyone's userpage so Wikipeida:Cannot physicially be Myspace?  Personally, mabey I don't pay enough attention, but I haven't seen WP:NOFUN or Wikipedia: Fun is outlawed. --Kkrouni
 * Strong Keep per my arguments in the previous MfD. I firmly believe that there is nothing wrong with expansion in the metapedian, community-oriented side of Wikipedia. Plenty of editors will not contribute if they are expected to become faceless edit machines. That's why we have community-building content such as Template:Smile, WP:MOTD, and WP:FUN. It encourages users (particularly younger users, though I'm wary of stereotypes) to stick around and contribute constructively, when they might not otherwise do so. Furthermore, other users on the previous MfD brought up a number of valid points, which I urge everyone to take into account:
 * Working on userpages has helped people to understand wikicode better and use such in articles at least a little bit. Wikipedia is a community, not just an encyclopaedia and user pages are an integral part of what makes us what we are. A little competition about it all isn't problematic and it encourages people to stay here when they might otherwise become disillusioned. That benefits the project.
 * It's just a way to get away from a conflict, create a nice, informative userpage, which ultimately helps Wikipedia, and then go back to editing instead of fighting, attacking, vandalizing, and leaving Wikipedia because of the stress.
 * Editing is not a zero-sum game. If someone makes fewer edits to userspace, they will not necessarily make that many more other edits. So, it's just a bit of fun.
 * On the basis of building a community, therefore, we should keep this page. Allowing people to have a bit of fun will not prevent them from editing; in fact, it will help to attract and retain contributors, who are our encyclopedia's most important resource. WaltonOne 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This page has survived a recent MfD nomination: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Best User Page Contest. I remind everyone that per WP:CCC, consensus can change; the more recent MfD result overrides the older Esperanza one. WaltonOne 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And consensus can change again. --Durin 18:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just about to say that. Harrumph. Nick 18:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep According to Wikipedia is a community You should not argue that WP is not myspace. Wikipedia is a community--Pheonix15 19:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. If you want to have a spiffy looking homepage and give out awards to people for having shiny pages, go to myspace. This isn't the place for it. --Durin 19:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Much of Wikipedia's content, and all of the day to day functions are overseen by a small core of the most dedicated contributors. These users are the most valuable resource Wikipedia has" - Raul654--Pheonix15 19:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:WIAC is an essay started on Aug 19, 2007. WP:NOT is much, much older than that and has a "policy" tag above it. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a community is an ESSAY. It carries no weight of any kind. It's just the opinions of a handful of editors. Citing it as support for giving out userpage awards is fraught with problems. User page is a core guideline. There's a dramatic difference. --Durin 19:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not a question of how old something is. First an fore most wikipedia is an encyclopedia but it is also a community. see the top Pheonix15 19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment According to WP:COMMUNITY Wikipedia Is a Community. Plus, Where Would Wikipedia be without the community? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheonix15 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 28 August 2007
 * WP:COMMUNITY isn't policy. It's just an essay. --Durin 19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said below, we shouldn't do this on the basis of "policy X trumps essay Y, so I win". We should evaluate it on the basis of what's best for the encyclopedia, and it's an indisputable fact that our community is Wikipedia's most valuable resource. WaltonOne 18:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What's your point? essays have some weight if their accepted by the Community. Oh, another point, RFAs are decided by the Community. AFDs are decided by the Community MFDs are Community. You are a member of the Community--Pheonix15 19:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, Policies document what should happen. Essays document how that should happen. You can also see WP:IGNORE Pheonix15 19:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also durin, why was my comment at the top rmvd. You comment below what your commenting on Pheonix15 19:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

*Keep, I have modified it since the previous MfD so it would not be as disruptive. But apparantly it is. We ought to discuss how to modify the contest so it will not  be disruptive. Anyways, I did not create the contest to harm Wikipedia, or create it to detract from the encyclopedia. But as a way to relieve stress that has caused many of our best editors to leave the encyclopedia. Thank you. Marlith  T / C  02:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not overly enamored with the idea of giving out barnstars for spiffy user pages but actually running a competition is completely out of place here. If you want to give a user a barnstar because you like their userpage, please feel free to do so but please don't spend too much time doing it. A competition is just an invitation for users to come along and edit nothing but their userpage, there's usually a needless bureaucracy that goes along with these things, whether it be judging, voting, or some sort of divisive attack and defend format. Editors really should be here because they enjoy editing the project and working with others, not because they have some need for an award or prize. Nick 20:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your points that a competition is not appropriate, and it merely adds unnecessary bureaucratic red tape, are very salient, IMO. To add my opinion, I have no issues with people creating aesthetically-pleasing user pages, or giving barnstars to others for their user spaces, but pitting them together in a contest is not productive and suggests that Wikipedia is a social networking site, which it is not.  I think that this page should be either deleted or historified. --Iamunknown 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Editors really should be here because they enjoy editing the project and working with others, not because they have some need for an award or prize - I was under the impression that we, as a voluntary project, accepted willing contributors regardless of their motivation. If someone contributes to Wikipedia in order to win an award or prize, are their contributions to be rejected just because they weren't here for the pure joy of editing? WaltonOne 20:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, apparently ... (I didn't like that block, for the record) --Iamunknown 20:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Bureaucratic red tape? It's not like the contest is mandatory for anyone. How in the world does it add red tape? GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 21:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's true that WP:COMMUNITY is an essay, but MfD isn't a card game; it isn't a case of "my policy beats your guideline, ha ha I win". We should think about what's best for the encyclopedia. As outlined extensively above, Wikipedia's most valuable resource is its contributors. Allowing those contributors to have a bit of fun with their user page, if they so desire, aids us in the goal of recruiting and retaining contributors. Deleting it makes people less happy - and therefore less likely to contribute. Editing isn't a zero-sum game; just because users work on their user pages doesn't prevent them also contributing to the encyclopedia. WaltonOne 20:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting that editors are not allowed to have fun with their user pages, just that have a centralized competition with lots of tape is not the best thing for the encyclopedia (at least that is my interpretation of others' comments). --Iamunknown 20:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But if some people enjoy it, and it motivates them to continue editing, then stopping it for the sake of cutting red tape is likely to do more harm than good. The BUPC is completely voluntary, so it doesn't create bureaucracy to hinder editors from editing, as no one is forced to participate in it. Seeing as deletion doesn't even free up space (deleted content stays in the database), I can't see what good can come of deleting this page. WaltonOne 13:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment According to WP:COMMUNITY Wikipedia Is a Community. Plus, Where Would Wikipedia be without the community? Also, I'm allowed to comment here--Pheonix15 20:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As per my reasons in the previous MfD and the excellent arguments of Walton One above. We are not editing robots; that is why we have WP:FUN, barnstars, and the like. I also cannot emphasize this previous statement enough: Editing is not a zero-sum game. If someone makes fewer edits to userspace, they will not necessarily make that many more other edits. So, it's just a bit of fun. There are likely thousands of articles that are more worthy of deletion than this. Move on, folks, and go do something that actually contributes to the encyclopedia, as you claim is so important to you. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 21:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Accusing someone of violating a guideline in an attempt to undermine the basis of an MfD is inappropriate. Please withdraw your accusation and consider Assume good faith. Thank you, --Durin 21:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Doesn't make it untrue, though. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 21:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not much of a retraction! --Durin 22:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You asked me to withdraw my accusation. I complied. I see no problem; the rest of my comment is perfectly relevant. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - not a helpful project. This MfD is record enough of what it was. Carcharoth 22:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. If the idea is to have some fun, restart a contest for "most improvement to an unsourced BLP". Fun can be had in ways that don't venerate userpages. As for WP:COMMUNITY, it's an essay and a misguided one in my opinion. — Black Falcon (Talk) 22:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wow! Thanks for the great ideas guys, I never knew you could use WP:NOT#MYSPACE for all disagreements!  Wow, I'll have to keep that in mind!  So does that mean I can just not like something and put it up for deletion with the Not Myspace tag?  Great ideas.  Well a few days ago I saw that someone had a userpage that I thought was better than mine, so I'll just go put it up for deletion in accordance to Not Myspace.  Thanks!  Well, I think that the deletion side's only arguement is "Not Myspace guys, gotta delete it".-- Kkrouni  /こかるに  /Ккроуни  /ΚκρΩυνι  23:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm noted. Was there a point to it? --Durin 23:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. That's the only reason I've ever seen something put up for MfD.  It increaces colaboration, and if we've slowly made our userpages nice looking, and want them judged, well then, why can't we?  You say "WP:NOT#MYSPACE" but I've noticed you all defend things you find fun.  And oh yes, I do see that 1/4 of you're edits are to User, and another 1/4 go to talk pages.--User:Kkrouni 23:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have concerns regarding my editing, you are certainly welcome to start an RfC. Discussing my edits is inappropriate for this forum. --Durin 00:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because I wrote it doesn't mean I was talking about you, no matter how incivil you are.--User:Kkrouni 00:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per durin, nick, iamunknown, carcharoth. Plus the general wierdness of an attack/defense based, repetitive-edit-counting, userpage competition. What's next, a userpage collectable cardgame? All very meaty. --Quiddity 00:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- As a co-creator of WP:COMMUNITY, I must argue that we are a community, and that the encyclopedia would be nothing without it, and that this essay is a truly good reason to keep pages. However, Phoenix15 is wrong in using it here. This page is truly unhelpful. I used to like it, but the "attack/defend" thing is just plain weird. This isn't Yu-Gi-Oh!, people! --Boricua  e ddie  00:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:Kkrouni has now canvassed eight different editors informing them that this is up for MfD (see, edit summaries "BUPC" and "About you're participation in the BUPC"). Though Kkrouni has not specifically asked them to vote in any particular way, all eight are previously affiliated with the page in question. Editors are reminded that MfDs are a consensus building mechanism, not a vote. --Durin 00:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So now it's illegal to tell users the game could be finished up in my sandbox? Like the comment I left to you: I notified those users because they were in the middle of the round.  They were playing the game, and I wanted to let them know that they could finish it up in my sandbox.  It won't be continually played there, but I wanted to let them know so they could finish up.  I told Marlith to vote because he came up with the idea not from Esperenza.  I'm not trying to sway the votes.--User:Kkrouni 00:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And oh yeah, this is my post before informing them.  And I didn't even think of telling them to vote because as you said, I knew it was concensus.  Wow it's almost funny what you will use for leverage.--User:Kkrouni 00:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It doesn't seem to contribute to the encyclopedia in anyway and doesn't offer any other benefits besides ego boosting. Captain panda  00:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't help the project, WP:NOT. ~  Wi ki her mit  01:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that all you people have to say? WP:NOT? Did you even read the discussion? --User:Kkrouni
 * Yup, I read the dicussion. And I agree with Majorly. Handing out awards for a pretty userpage does nothing to help our goal of a free content encyclopedia. Awarding users for great contributions makes sense, because it's inline with the goal. ~  <font color="#0DC4F2">Wi <font color="#3DD0F5">ki <font color="#6EDCF7">her <font color="#9EE8FA">mit  01:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why not just create a WP:Great contribution challange or something and say whopee. If it'll make all of you happy then I'll make it myself, but that's only partially relevant to the discussion.-- Kkrouni  /こかるに  /Ккроуни  /ΚκρΩυνι  01:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because we aren't talking about that, we're talking about a contest for pretty userpages. The whole point of wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. Making a contest for a pretty user page does nothing to help that goal. <font color="#0A9DC2">~  <font color="#0DC4F2">Wi <font color="#3DD0F5">ki <font color="#6EDCF7">her <font color="#9EE8FA">mit  01:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, I just had a great thought that will benifit all of us, why do we even care about this? It doesn't harm anyone so that means it doesn't affect us!  Well I'm going to forget about this now, because we're fussing about a very simple thing that doesn't do anything negative and the only positive is joy, so who cares.-- Kkrouni  /こかるに  /Ккроуни  /ΚκρΩυνι  01:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are tens of thousands of edits every day to Wikipedia, the last thing we need is a competition for great contributions. If you see a really useful contribution, please do feel free to drop a note or an award on their page, but we really don't need yet another bureaucracy involved in nominating contributions, voting for awards, then these awards being handed out. We value every edit equally, having some form of award system just seems to me like we would value some edits more than others, which isn't the ideal message we want to send out to contributors. Nick 18:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I saw this page a while back and wondered why on earth it hadn't been deleted yet. Sure it's nice, and could vaguely build community. However, it encourages focus on our userpages, which is very not what we're doing here. It's also a contest, which can create problems if users who didn't win get angry. Also, look at the way they vote: you "attack" pages you dislike. Attack? That is a problem. Comments like these make it all the more worse. i <font color="Black">said 03:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Is this a joke? Ranking wikipedia user pages according to who likes them best? Definently a delete.-- Sef rin gle Talk 04:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This isn't what donors should be paying for. The DoF should probably go too.  We might be able to give a reasonable explanation to donors for all of the non-encyclopedic work (ANI, user pages themselves, etc), but an actual game is going way too far.  The Behnam 15:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The donors gave their money charitably, Wikipeida does not have stock, unless there was some change in policy that happened overnight. Also the donors don't pay for this, they gave too it.  And may I ask, did you donate?-- Kkrouni  /こかるに  /Ккроуни  /ΚκρΩυνι  17:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That they 'gave their money away' does not justify wasting it. The charitable purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a free source of information (an encyclopedia, if you will).  The charitable purpose is not to have user page contests.  The Behnam 20:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This page is not a waste of donors' money, for two reasons. Firstly, deleted material is stored in the database anyway, so deleting this page doesn't save the donors any money whatsoever. Secondly, as I keep saying, it helps us recruit and retain editors by giving them an opportunity for fun. Contributors are our most valuable resource. WaltonOne 13:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware that it is still stored on the system, but this is a matter of appearance to donors and potential donors. A particular person or group that cares about how they give their money may see that it is used to maintain an online game and decide not to donate because they may feel that their money would be used towards an irresponsible divergence from the goal of building a free encyclopedia.  We need to be serious if we want to be taken seriously.  The Behnam 06:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Really, having this page is no big deal. It doesn't distract users from editing the pedia. Its all for fun. <font color="#6495ED" face="Comic Sans Ms">Ru<font color="#007FFF">n<font color="#1560BD">eW<font color="#0000FF">i<font color= "#00008B">ki      777 18:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As a self-defined typo-fixer, you should probably fix the spelling and capitalization in your "virgina tech" userbox... --Quiddity 18:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How is that statement relevant to this MfD? Acalamari 21:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OOh god I feel so retarted! <font color="#6495ED" face="Comic Sans Ms">Ru<font color="#007FFF">n<font color="#1560BD">eW<font color="#0000FF">i<font color= "#00008B">ki     777 21:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's relevant because Runewiki777 is one of the 8 current userpage contestants, and yet noone had even pointed this problem out to him, or corrected it themselves, so the contest isn't even providing any kind of useful feedback on said userpages (which could hypothetically/weakly justify it a little). I'll refrain from commenting on his reply... --Quiddity 00:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, recreation. Essentially the same as the Esperanza subpage.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  07:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Essential similarity is not the same as being "substantially identical." The word "identical" there is key - this is a different page with the same problems, not the same page come back again. Phil Sandifer 15:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not useful to the project.  &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 23:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. It helps strengthen the community, which keeps editors contributing rather than driving them away. Editors, not webspace, are Wikipedia's most valuable resource. WaltonOne 13:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would argue that it distances the "community" from the encyclopedia by directing focus away from articles. A one-time humour page or activity that is then left alone (or tagged as 'historical') is fine, I think, but a continuing process like this is a different thing entirely. – Black Falcon (Talk) 15:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, in regards to giving awards for attractive user pages, what about this and its gif equalivent - Image:Userpage barnstar.svg? It may be something that may need to be discussed in a future nomination elsewhere, I wish to bring this to the attention of this MfD nomination. --tgheretford (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Forget all my comments - I'm gonna withdraw from this MFD. I can't find all of them though-- Pheonix15 12:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've removed the novote template at the top of the page. I don't see that there's any problem with SPAs or canvassing so far on this MfD, and it just clutters the page up and makes the discussion harder to read. WaltonOne 13:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it does seem a bit too much like Esperanza, but it must be limited so it will not detract from the encyclopedia. <font color="Blue">Marlith  T / C  02:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

*Delete, After reading about Esperanza, it seems impossible to make the BUPC not disrupt the encyclopedia. <font color="Blue">Marlith  T / C  02:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep After considering the arguements presented above, I must agree to keeping it. I will raise the bar on edits so the players will contribute to the encyclopedia. I also would like to note that many of the players of the BUPC are editors who have contributed much to the encyclopedia. <font color="Blue">Marlith  T / C  03:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Nowhere did I see that editors should not take pride in thier userpages and compare them to each other. I do not see how any of the comments above are related to WP:MYSPACE exept for the link. <font color="Blue">Marlith  T / C  03:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * By this I don't see how a userpage contest turns Wikipedia into a social networking site. For it isn't mentioned in WP:MYSPACE <font color="Blue">Marlith  T / C  04:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep and Reconstruct - per WP:IAR and by WP:UCS in my point. While it might be not MySpace, it's still about Wikipedia. And it's extremely unlikely to have something like this to work outside Wikipedia, because it is related to Wikipedia Userspaces after all. However, what do I agree on that the "Attack/Defense" system doesn't really encourage nothing but signatures without a valid point. (And multiple signatures to a same page!) This page is like a Wikipedia game - something for Wikipedians to entertain themselves while editing, and games like this for example, are good for a little break if you feel you want to do something great as a collaboration. As soon the previous MFD got closed, the "Attack/Defense" system got upon, possibly because the page survived from deletion. This is a bad idea, because the contest looks like a sandbox because of mass-attack of signatures. And what's worse - It is entirely about attacking and defensing now - A bad idea as a game. What I say, that the contest should be turn into something like this, if it is to retain it's value, if that's not possible, then deleting the page might be the best option left. ~Iceshark7 11:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Black Falcon and others. "Fun" can be had in different ways and the "Wiki Way of Fun" is to work on an online encyclopedia, WP:NOT. Also, if anyone wants to "officially" compliment another user over their user page, why not simply award them the excellent user page barnstar without the fuzz? —AldeBaer 15:12, 2 September 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.