Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:User page design center (2nd nomination)

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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:  keep. The keep case is as reasonable as the delete case but more numerously stated. I'll mark this also as historical since some people support this and there is no clear opposition. If vandalism or people mistaking it for a sandbox are an issue, WP:RFPP is thereaway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User page design center

 * and all subpages and shortcuts

Delete No evidence that anyone uses this. "Historical" tag, resulting from the last MfD, was removed without discussion or substantive comment. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete long history of attracting editors that treat it like a sandbox. No obvious value to the project generally. Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not sure what this is meant to be, but that is a reason why it doesn't belong in Wikipedia space, or in any other namespace. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No opinion either way, but does this nomination also include the subpages? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes please of course. I've added that to the nom. statement as I believe that was implied. Legacypac (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was correct. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or Tag Historical - We currently have a good number of pages in the Wikipedia namespace to do with user pages, such as the ones that contain all the userboxes, the barnstars, or those service awards, and I would say the content of this page is very much in the same boat as those. I also do think that such content is not completely un-relevant, since people do like to use them, and should not all be deleted. It also seems the page averages about 100 hits a day and I've seen some of this stuff on some editors pages, so I don't think it's totally unused either. Meszzy2  (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Tag historical. Nothing has changed since Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:User page design center.  I accuse UnitedStatesian, Legacypac, and Robert McClenon of project disruption by policy-violating deletion support under cover the current MfD disrupion by their MfD Portal spamming.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What does this nomination have to do with the Portal space? I would appreciate being given the benefit of the assumption of good faith. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The most important point is that every non-delete rationale at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:User page design center remains valid. The lesser Portal point is that MfD is disrupted by excessive Portal spam and these WP:ATD-violating nominations are not receiving sufficient scrutiny.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ATD-R, which you are proposing here, applies only to articles. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It applies even more strongly to project space work pages, because there isn't the concern about the title being a plausible redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I don't understand why it uses the word "articles." UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Because, the authors of that documentation were primarily concerned with articles. The documentation was written before it became fashionable to clean up old things by sending them to MfD.  The principle is exactly the same.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you propose such a wording change to the WP:ATD-R guideline. It is frustrating to be told so frequently "the actual guideline is different than the one you are reading."  UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There you go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - No, User:SmokeyJoe, take the allegation of disruptive editing to WP:ANI, or leave it alone. I still don't know what this user page design center is or what it has to do with user page design, and I still don't see why it belongs in Wikipedia space, or in any other space that is within the remit of this forum.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you review its history, and associated activities, which takes time, more than it should due to the terse nomination, you may see that it has a history of being useful. I did not go so far as to investigate whether it remains useful, as "once useful" is already sufficient to !vote "keep and at worst archive".  I think the onus should be on the nominator to make the case for why it should not be archived in projectspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies, here you go: if an MfD closes as "tag as historical", and almost immediately thereafter a participant in that MfD removes the resulting historical tag, I believe that is evidence that the "tag as historical" is not going to be a tenable result to that or any subsequent MfD for the page, and that delete is the only other option. My nom above was shorthand for that. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies back for my grumpiness. To tag or not to tag is not a clear decision, I think on re-reading it all.  Noting the non-zero talk page activity, I think there is a good case for not tagging historical.  I think the MfD conclusion should be: "Keep", and leave the taggery for discussion on its talk page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or mark as Historical I hate to see this page go, it's where new editors get their userpage designs, and it's also where I sometimes get templates and designs for my userpage, I think this page should be kept and marked as historical, as many new editors use this page, plus it gives new editors a chance to learn what a Wikipedia userpage is, without misusing it at the first time. Thegooduser   Life Begins With a Smile :)  🍁 01:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Thegooduser and Kudpung (prev. mfd). Neutral on whether it should be marked historical. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 21:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as historical per above and last discussion. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I have some responses to a few statements: ¨No evidence that anyone uses this.¨ -UnitedStatesian Here is some: I used it to design much of my page. ¨I still don't know what this user page design center is or what it has to do with user page design...¨ -Robert McClenon Then you obviously have not actually looked into the topic being discussed, and I believe that you should probably do that before making your decision. Another thing, I saw this MfD because I went to the Design Center to use it, and I would not keep coming back to it if it was not useful. Rorix the White (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral:
 * Not sure what this is meant to be, but ....
 * The problem appears to be that it fails to document itself, and it needs to explain what it is, and to have an icon to click for instructions and explanation.
 * I take exception to User:SmokeyJoe's comments, which I consider insulting to the Delete !votes.
 * I accept his apology for having been rude.
 * I will note that this has been open for 19 days, which amounts to a side-door Relist, which illustrates that the closure of MFDs is backlogged. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Neutral on historical tag because frankly I'm not entirely sure what that entails. I for one just found this page and I literally made an audible gasp because it was just what I was looking for. Wikipedia is facing an editor shortage problem and anything we can do to make life easier for incoming editors is worth it. Wikipedia has a VERY steep learning curve. The main page gets plenty of views, in the range of 3000/month. I have seen and worked on literally hundreds of pages that get a tenth of that. Prometheus720 (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or mark historical. I've been on Wikipedia for many years and I still find this MASSIVELY important and useful. It helps with learning formatting in ways that are atypical of regular page editing which can help increase participation and syntax familiarity, I visit this page very often and I believe it's an important place for newcomers. Yes we have lists of userboxes but those are not places that give total overview or formatting. This would be a major loss to me and that is why this is the first deletion discussion I've ever weighed in on. LopezJayLo98 (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2019 (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.