Forum:TC:User:XXLVenom998/Workbench/Savage Opress's body armor

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or, if the page was deleted, in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus. 1358 ^(Talk) 14:45, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

User:XXLVenom998/Workbench/Savage Opress's body armor ([[Talk:User:XXLVenom998/Workbench/Savage_Opress's_body_armor|talk]] - history - links - logs)

From Wookieepedia:User page and profile policy#Rules for user page use, item 5: "User subpages not containing fan fiction may be kept, subject to the user image policy and some usefulness to the project" (emphasis mine). This page exists solely as a copy of a page that was deleted via consensus in the trash compactor, and therefore I argue that it has no usefulness to Wookieepedia and that it thus violates the policy that Wookieepedia is not a free host or webpage provider. Additionally, at the bottom of the page, the author states his intent to continue maintaining the page as if it were a real article, and thus its continued existence could be seen as circumventing the previous TC consensus. —MJ— _Comlink 22:39, December 14, 2012 (UTC)

Delete

1. As nominator. —MJ— _Comlink 22:39, December 14, 2012 (UTC)
2. Indeed. This is nothing more than a way to get past consensus.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 22:41, December 14, 2012 (UTC)
3. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:43, December 14, 2012 (UTC)
4. Supreme Emperor 22:58, December 14, 2012 (UTC)
5. DarthRevan1173 (Long live Lord Revan) 22:13, December 15, 2012 (UTC)
6. He falsely claims to be updating the page, but it's still a way to bypass consensus as Cal said. Cade Calrayn 22:50, December 15, 2012 (UTC)
7. The fact that the page contains an explicit admission of an intent to circumvent a trash compaction makes it subject to a speedy deletion, but I'll humor this TC since the snowball is now rolling. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 18:57, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

Keep

1. We've allowed users to maintain userpages that were similar to deleted pages in the past, and I don't see how that hurts anything. It's not fanon; it contains real SW information. I think a little latitude here is warranted. jSarek (talk) 11:24, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
2. Given the vague wording of the policy, and the overall lack of enforcement of it so far, I disagree with the interpretation of "some usefulness to the project." In general, user pages seem to be given leeway when it comes to deletion, particularly for workbenches like this one—under the same argument, I could argue that my workbench isn't useful to the wiki and is therefore also subject to trash compaction. The added fact that the subject article was trash compacted doesn't appear to be cause for deleting this user page. Even though it's part of the site, it's not in the mainspace, and it therefore isn't doing any harm; viewers know that it's not an actual mainspace article. I recognize the point being made about bypassing consensus, but I feel that enforcing WP:USER this strictly here isn't prudent when it hasn't been enforced in this manner before. (The only TCed user page that I could dig up from the archives was from 2007, and that was an entirely different issue; just linking it for reference.) If community consensus was to more strictly enforce WP:USER in this manner, I would be for deleting this page, but not right now. CC7567 ^(talk) 02:46, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

   I would counter on two points: First, your workbench is useful to the wiki because it's a draft of an article presumably intended to be copied into mainspace and nominated for FA eventually. Therefore, it serves a purpose toward improving the encyclopedia. Secondly, perhaps the reason that we haven't had a user page TCed since 2007 is not lack of enforcement but rather lack of any need to enforce. In the absence of evidence that there are user pages floating around out there that violate policy but on which policy has never been enforced, I would simply believe that this is the first such page in several years to warrant a TC discussion. That's plausible given the relatively small community we have compared to Wikipedia (where there are 43 user pages nominated for deletion right now). And even if there is evidence that we've been lax in enforcing it, that's not a reason to continue not enforcing it; on the contrary, perhaps we should use this instance to start cracking down on violations. Otherwise, if we're not going to enforce it at all, then the policy should be changed to reflect that. —MJ— ^{Training Room} 18:51, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

   As I've said before, I'm not opposed to enforcing WP:USER if the community decides how it should be enforced, but I don't feel that this is the proper way to do it given the way the policy is worded. "Some usefulness" was probably intentionally worded to leave room for interpretation, but I don't agree with this interpretation of it or see it as cause for deleting the page. I'm still seeing it as a "personal sandbox" that isn't doing any harm. The user in question could be planning to change it to reflect policy in the future, instead of simply unilaterally bypassing consensus, as seems to be the argument for deleting it. Instead of TCing the user page, I think that a better route would be to send him a message explaining that he should be using the page to help the wiki, instead of simply keeping it in its current pre-TC state. If there's disagreement there, then it can be put into the TC or CSDed, but the user should be contacted first, seeing as it's his user page. The policy needs to be more clearly worded before we start considering pages like these for deletion; enforcing the policy starting here doesn't strike me as appropriate. CC7567 ^(talk) 21:10, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

3. Giving it some thought, and reading what Xd had to say, I don't think we should dictate what users should keep or shouldn't in their own userpages, unless, of course, it goes against policy. Even if XXL is upset at the original deletion of the article, I don't think he wants to recreate it outside his userpage. If that is the case, then I could see it being a problem. However, at the moment, it appears that he wants to keep the article as a way to preserve it for his own use. We could also talk to him if he is going to recreate it. I talked to him recently, via his talk page, and he does seem very cooperative, so it shouldn't be a problem. Besides this, I find it highly odd that we are TC'ing a user's subpage. JangFett ^(Talk) 19:15, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
4. 501st dogma^(talk) 21:16, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
5. 'm going to have to echo CC and Jang here. Corellian Premier^{The Force will be with you always} 23:34, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
6. Rokkur Shen (talk) 12:00, December 18, 2012 (UTC)
7. Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 23:44, December 18, 2012 (UTC)
8. Per my words below. 1358 ^(Talk) 11:25, December 20, 2012 (UTC)
9. It took me a while to decide on this one. If Venom wants to do this out of personal interest, I see no harm. He's added a warning and isn't trying to pass it off as a mainspace article. I would also hate to see the preclusion of a potential Jean-Luc Picard subpage made by someone out of personal interest (the Captain was TC'd way back when). Menkooroo (talk) 13:15, December 20, 2012 (UTC)
10. Per Xd. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 16:29, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
11. If my rarely-used workbenches can stick around, then I see no harm in XXL's sticking around. Besides, his has more use than mine—mine are image projects that went no where and something that Naru is using. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 06:03, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
12. Cumulonimbus Cloud ^{(ℳeeting ℛoom)} 21:22, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
13. While as a rule I think articles for individual-specific gear is dumb (and thus, I'm fully supportive of the original article going bye-bye), I just can't see the harm in this. At the very least, it gives XXL a draft on which to come up with stuff which may improve the actual Savage article. And even if s/he doesn't end up porting the information over, if it's good enough material there's no reason why someone else wouldn't be able to. — DigiFluid^{(Whine here)} 17:42, January 3, 2013 (UTC)
14. Per CC, Xd and Jang. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 11:53, January 4, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

You know what, deleting user subpages in the TC doesn't strike me as a particularly good idea. I know there's been some sort of TCs that did this in the past, but I think it's up to the admins to deem what is a violation of policy or consensus. Does the nominated user subpage really harm the Wook in some way? As long as XXLVenom998 stays a productive member of the community, and understands that the user namespace is not his primary contribution, I really don't see any point in deleting this subpage. 1358 ^(Talk) 11:36, December 16, 2012 (UTC)