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 Shave. I sincerely hope that this close reflects consensus and that this controversial beard issue doesn't wind up at Arbcom. (non-admin closure) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a beard!" "That's not a beard!a beard!"

Whoomp there it is!

I think whatever purpose this page served in 2005 is gone and that it is no longer useful or adds any value to the project. Liz Read! Talk! 13:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Until I filed this MFD, there was one edit in 2016, one edit in 2013 and two edits in 2011. I don't consider that to be a very actively edited page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Those aren't listed here. Liz would you consider adding them above and tagging them as part of the same MFD? It seems like it's going to be an all-or-none approach to these and better if the nominator puts them together. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Done The only way I knew how to do this was tag the other two pages and turn the MFDs into redirects here. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete all per nom. It doesn't hurt to clean house a bit now and then. INeverCry 01:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

all per nom. It doesn't hurt to clean house a bit now and then. 01:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Delete per nom. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

per nom. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Keep If there ever was a purpose, it should be kept for the history it represents. Bottom line, reasonable leeway for a productive editor, and absolutely no reason offered to delete, and the notion that Wikipedians should wander around "cleaning" others' userspace is offensive, disruptive, disruption of a harmonious collegiality community of editors. The user may CSD#U1 it at any time, but I don't think he should, and I think no one should be urging him to do so. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

If there ever was a purpose, it should be kept for the history it represents. Bottom line, reasonable leeway for a productive editor, and absolutely no reason offered to delete, and the notion that Wikipedians should wander around "cleaning" others' userspace is offensive, disruptive, disruption of a harmonious collegiality community of editors. The user may CSD#U1 it at any time, but I don't think he should, and I think no one should be urging him to do so. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC) None of our business What possible productive purpose is served by sniffing around in other people's user spaces, looking for pages we don't think are funny? This was userfied out of WP space a couple of months after a deletion discussion 10 years ago, and has been harmlessly sitting in Jimbo's userspace ever since, possibly amusing one or two editors a year if they stumble across it (or maybe not). If you want to put the WP-space redirects to these pages (WP:BEARD for example, and there are a couple of others), up for RFD, I think that's a waste of time too, and would be kind of a killjoy move, but I wouldn't really spend the time to argue against it. But this MFD of a historical humorous page in someone's user space is very poor form. Don't try to decide for other people what is funny and what isn't, or what personal pages they should have in their userspace. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure it's our business. Thia page wasn't created by Jimbo. He relies on volunteers to maintain his user pages. If he wants this kept, I'd change to keep. But if he expresses no opinion here then my vote remains delete. Coretheapple (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Have changed my mind. I don't care either unless Jimbo does. Coretheapple (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

What about our policies?

Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages? says: "Personal writings suitable within the Wikipedia community: Non-article Wikipedia material such as reasonable Wikipedia humor, essays and perspectives, personal philosophy, comments on Wikipedia matters [are allowed]" Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages? says: Nothing that I can see that requires that the page have a purpose or a minimum level of activity as several comments have mentioned. So, what exactly is the policy that is being invoked here to override a user's preferences as to what to have in his userspace? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC) We regularly give active editors a very wide range of leeway as to userspace subpages, as for any of the arguments of this being in Jimbo_Wales's userspace, please keep in mind - he is also an editor - and a statement that he wants to continue to host these pages in his userspace would all but end this in a speedy keep. Should he ignore this MFD, this is basically going to be primarily treated as if it was in project space - due to the special nature of Jimbo's pages. — xaosflux Talk 04:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Jimbo didn't create these pages so I'm not sure why that's relevant. Frankly, I wouldn't even be certain he would be in favor of these pages (or against them). Either way, Category:Wikipedia humor is full of plenty of userspace pages so I'm not sure why this one in particular should matter. It's simply a matter of whether or not people still find it funny that generally decides on humor pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC) The point I'm going for is that users that CHOOSE to host humor pages, etc in their own subpages are given wide latitude, regardless of if they were the original author. What is "special" here is because it is Jimbo - and his page's are "special", in that their could be a community need to keep these pages here rather then have someone else host them. — xaosflux Talk 16:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete It might have been vaguely funny once, but serves no purpose now.TheOverflow (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It might have been vaguely funny once, but serves no purpose now.TheOverflow (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Keep. If this was in Wikipedia space I could perhaps see an argument for userfying it. But as is, why waste everyone's time on this sort of nomination? Ϣere Spiel Chequers 13:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a certain logic to your argument. I'll leave it up to Jimbo but may rethink my delete vote if he remains mute. This page could remain a kind of monument to hero-worship. Coretheapple (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutral, but on the historical importance of the facial hair of prominent public figures, see my (unfortunately timed) letter here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

"...subject to a facial challenge." I see what you did there. Jonathunder (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Question: Are there really this may editors who care one way or the other whether this exists or not? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I imagine most of us came here for other reasons. For example, I don't really care about this particular page, but I do rather strongly object to the overall idea of looking for not-really-funny-but-harmless pages in other people's userspace to nominate for deletion. At best - that is, the absolutely best possible outcome - no one cares. At worst, you rile up an editor for zero benefit. Now Jimbo's a big boy, I imagine he doesn't even care, but deleting this will encourage more of this behavior. I could ask a meta-question about your motivation for posting this comment (do you really care whether this many editors comment here?), but I suspect it would lead in an unproductive direction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Do you really care about whether he really cares? :) Seriously, though, I couldn't help noticing that after I asked what policy is being invoked here nobody could come up with a policy that forbids the page to counter the policy that I cited that specifically allows it. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC) You're both making valid points, and have reminded me that this is Jimbo's page. I have asked him on his page if he wants this deleted. I have pinged him. Until then, I've removed my delete vote. Coretheapple (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Actually, Floquenbeam, I agree with you. I considered posting something to the effect of "keep because it does no harm", or something similar to your comment "None of our business What possible productive purpose is served by sniffing around in other people's user spaces, looking for pages we don't think are funny", but I decided those had both been done already, and a comment to the effect that people who think it worth deleting should think about why they worry about such trivial things might add a new point. At the same time, I also didn't feel strongly enough about keeping it to really care, and found it difficult to see why anyone would care much that it should be kept, and I phrased my message to indicate that too. Also, I think that an intelligent reading of my post indicates that I it implicitly says that the page should be kept, since obviously if nobody cared either way it would be kept. However, I really doubt that it will have the desired effect: those people who think that having slightly light-hearted but totally harmless things in user space is some cardinal sin and such pages must be crushed will no doubt go on thinking that. Having thought about it, I have decided that it is worth saying we should keep it, not because this page is valuable and must not be lost, but because it potentially can convey a message to at least a few of those who think such pages should be deleted: "you are free to hold the view that slightly light-hearted but totally harmless things in user space are bad and should not be allowed, but consensus is against you: since in practice attempts to have them deleted are likely to fail, perhaps you should leave these things, and put your efforts into something that actually helps the project." The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep , Jimbo Wales still has a beard, so the page hasn't lost its relevance. Count Iblis (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

, Jimbo Wales still has a beard, so the page hasn't lost its relevance. Count Iblis (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Keep as humor/ stop messing with harmless user pages . Per Floquenbeam. BethNaught (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

as humor/ . Per Floquenbeam. BethNaught (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Keep for the reason I have outlined above, in my message beginning "Actually, Floquenbeam, I agree with you." Why on earth would anyone think this is so harmful that it needs to be deleted? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

for the reason I have outlined above, in my message beginning "Actually, Floquenbeam, I agree with you." Why on earth would anyone think this is so harmful that it needs to be deleted? "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Keep: In my "What about our policies?" comment above I asked what policy is being invoked here nobody could come up with a policy that forbids the page to counter the policy that I cited that specifically allows it. No response, and not a single delete !vote is policy-based. Again, Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages? says: "Personal writings suitable within the Wikipedia community: Non-article Wikipedia material such as reasonable Wikipedia humor , essays and perspectives, personal philosophy, comments on Wikipedia matters [are allowed]" and no Wikipedia policy or guideline requires that the page have a purpose or a minimum level of activity. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

In my "What about our policies?" comment above I asked what policy is being invoked here nobody could come up with a policy that forbids the page to counter the policy that I cited that specifically allows it. No response, and not a single delete !vote is policy-based. Again, Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages? says: "Personal writings suitable within the Wikipedia community: Non-article Wikipedia material such as , essays and perspectives, personal philosophy, comments on Wikipedia matters [are allowed]" and no Wikipedia policy or guideline requires that the page have a purpose or a minimum level of activity. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Keep. Must we suck the joy out of everything on Wikipedia? Gamaliel ( talk ) 17:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

"Joy"? Coretheapple (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC) It's a tiny crater west of the Sea of Serenity. Cheers. Jonathunder (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC) No, I believe he was referring to this.. Coretheapple (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

As for the rude remarks that I was "sniffing around in other people's user spaces", that is not what happened. I came across an edit to one of the pages when I was checking out an editor's contributions and then QuackGuru pointed out the other pages existed and Ricky81682 suggested I add them to this MfD. I don't spend the time I have editing Wikipedia cruising around User space, pouncing on unattended pages and nominating them for deletion. Jimbo Wales didn't create these pages. He has never made an edit to these pages. And yet, editors have created these pages in his user space. And I think you are right that he doesn't care. But I can't believe that if an editor created a page about you in your own user space, you wouldn't think that odd and try to have it deleted. This will probably close with a no consensus and I will have learned how sentimental editors can be about joke pages that were made 10 years ago. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep . I don't care about these pages. I am here because I posted another MfD, and was looking at the surrounding MfD. For this one, what are the so called policies involved ? Two edits in 2011, one edit in 2013, and now it would be urgent to delete a 2005 page without any cause ? Seeing that nobody has been able to assign some letter-soup to the case, the conclusion follows. Pldx1 (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC).

. I don't care about these pages. I am here because I posted another MfD, and was looking at the surrounding MfD. For this one, what are the so called policies involved ? Two edits in 2011, one edit in 2013, and now it would be urgent to delete a 2005 page without any cause ? Seeing that nobody has been able to assign some letter-soup to the case, the conclusion follows. Pldx1 (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC). Keep Silly page but not harming anybody. And let's be honest, "that it is no longer useful or adds any value to the project" applies to a lot of editors here too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)