Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza/Userpage

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. seresin ( ¡? )  03:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza/Userpage[edit]

This is one of the strangest things I've ever seen in userspace. The page I've nommed is only the tip of the iceberg, the "guide" to a whole nest of weird essays and gibberish that seem mostly to be this person having an elaborate, very private joke with themselves. There are at least 50 pages in this user's space, and I can't find a one that seems like it will ever be part of a useful contribution to the project. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP: It's used for my subpages. And they are for fun. I don't just wanna be serious. Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza 23:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but your subpages mostly don't have any real content and many of them are not related at all to Wikipedia. Read WP:NOTWEBHOST,and WP:USER this isn't what userspace is for. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My wikipedia games are kinda related. Like a high school about wikipedia, or a wiki city, and wiki court, and I ahve parody of the wiki. And I have some user atricles that were turned into redirects in main space. Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza 23:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chat is beacaue no other users will edit. Mock comics are made up. Ace Bio is in my universe. Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza 23:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. And they have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia, correct? —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep While some are indeed "useless" there is no specific requirement of utility in userspace. Some of the pages, in fact, appear potentially useful for referencing pages, or adding to some pages, and may even have "utility" even though it is not required. The issue devolves into whther the editor is actually doing useful edits on WP, and it appears that such is, in fact, the case. And there is no requirement of "being related to Wikipedia" in userspace. While there are several I am sure the editor would gladly blank, I see no reason for any wholesale deletion. No attack. No harm. No spam. No improper links. And I would vastly prefer to keep a potentially useful editor than to deter him or her. Collect (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I believe you are mistaken in your assertion that " there is no specific requirement of utility in userspace." WP:UP#NOT would seem to contradict this statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said -- no general requirement for utility, WP:UP#NOT is nice and lengthy and says a userpage should not be :A weblog recording your non-Wikipedia activities - does not apply to these pages
Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia - does not apply ("extensive" is quite a vague term indeed)
Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia - not found here
Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc. -- does not seem to apply generally to these pages
Personal information of other persons without their consent -- clearly not applicable here
Advertising or promotion of a business or organization unrelated to Wikipedia (such as purely commercial sites or referral links) -- did not find any here
Extensive self-promotional material that is unrelated to your activities as a Wikipedian -- does not applear to apply here
Other non-encyclopedic related material -- one of the vaguest terms since most userspace use is not encyclopedic in the first place
Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia; in particular, statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive. -- did you find any such?
Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason.

Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia", particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project. (cite as WP:UP#Games) (compare Category:Wikipedia games and Category:Wikipedia Word Association.) -- did you find this applicable?

Communications with people uninvolved with the project or related work -- I do not know precisely how this would apply here
Images which you are not free to use (usually fair use images; see below) -- does not apply
ategories and templates intended for other usage, in particular those for articles and guidelines

User talk pages should not redirect unless the user is indefinitely blocked. -- can not see that applying here.

Thanks for citing WP:UP#NOT] but as I find no single part thereof directly related to the case at hand, I wit not what to do. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, thanks for reprinting the entire page. You glossed over the section that applies here: "Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia"" User has clearly stated that these pages are made up stuff for their own entertainment. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, nothing offensive, but User:Raiku Lucifer should clean up a little, try to have everything (or at least most stuff) justifiable for the project in some way, and not try to find the limit "generous lattitude" in userspace for serious contributors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You already have an entire website to monkey around on, [1] can't you just do this over there instead of using Wikipedia server space to create stuff not related to Wikipedia? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, I can't take the stuff using infoboxes there, because I can't figure it out with problems. Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza 20:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All those pages on which you are "having fun on the way" amount to treating Wikipedia as a personal web host. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What in the world is all that junk? Get a Geocities account or something. GlassCobra 21:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This junk isn't bad. Besides, I mostly do mainspace stuff. Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza 21:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to this, of your last 500 edits, 200 were to your userspace, while only 120 were to article space. So I would say, no, you don't "mostly do mainspace stuff." GlassCobra 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's only 320 edits total. Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza 21:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course, because you also made edits to pages that were in neither article space nor your user space. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all irrelevant to this discussion anyway. We're not here to talk about your other contributions, we're discussing this massive wasteland of junk you've created in your userspace. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the user's other wiki can be used to host all this (the problems with the infoboxes can be fixed by copying the relevant infobox template over to an appropriate page on your wiki), Wikipedia is not the place for it. Richard0612 18:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Wikipedia is not this user's webhost. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why can Wikipedia not be this users webhost but it can be this users, this users and this users? (To just mention but a few) Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The first one is an article draft, the second is borderline and the third.. yeah, that should probably be deleted. I'll leave a message on the guy's talkpage. Ironholds (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you've seen someone beat someone else in the street, does that mean it was OK for him to do it and that it's therefore OK for you to do the same thing? See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Soundvisions has a valid point, some people seem to have argued at MfD that if a user is more active, they have more of a "right" to waste Wikipedia server space. I don't think that sort of selective application of policy is a good idea, and he is certainly right that the list of someone's favorite TV shows has no relation to building an encyclopedia. On the other hand, the case we are discussing here is the most bizarre and blatant one I've ever seen. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin Raiku has "cleaned up" the main page by removing a lot of the links, but the subpages themselves appear to still be there, and links should be in the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Raiku_Lucifer_Samiyaza/Userpage&oldid=1138554191"