Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Domthedude001/Vandalism

User:Domthedude001/Vandalism

A total waste of time, similar to this. Wikipedia is not MySpace!. This is the same junk as cabals and secret pages. Enough with this MySpace stuff. It was filled with huge images and completely useless stuff not needed to build an encyclopedia. You can do a lot with your userspace; I think sandboxes are great, however, this is just another timewasting distraction... mono 02:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MYSPACE. Pages like this send the wrong message about vandalism, when the correct approach is WP:DENY. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per being a type of Guestbook (that both Jimbo and WikiAngela have already endorsed) that allows users to sign the page and use whatever type of uncensored Wikisyntax that they want. --Domthedude001 19:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Requesting WP:U1. --Domthedude001 21:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per not doing any harm and per not actually being myspacey. This neither encourages established users to spend time looking for secret pages, or joining useless, cabals. Letting some anons vandalize safely isn't bad, and there is no evidence that it encourages vandalism. —fetch·comms 23:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, and pretty strongly at that. Vandalism pages give Wikipedia a very bad view as I see it. Looking at several vandalism pages, I've come across homophobic attacks, racial slang terms, anti-Islam remarks, sexual references/descriptions, and more similar remarks that fall in the same line. These highly-offensive and hurtful comments are something no one wants to see and I'm sure that there are people out there who may be hurt by them, if they haven't been already; but of all places, where are these remarks and careless insults appearing? Wikipedia. Is that what we want Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, to be viewed as? "I was on Wikipedia the other day, and by golly, you won't believe what I found on the page of an editor..." I don't want to sound harsh nor do I want to insult anyone, but in my eyes, keeping these pages is supporting the presence of these attacks on Wikipedia, plain and simple. In addition, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we are here to build one. In absolutely no way do I see these pages doing such. One could argue, "How about userpages, or guestbooks, or other pages in the likes?" In essense, these pages do help build an encyclopedia, as it encourages cooperation among editors (which is what Wikipedia thrives on) and creates a good atmosphere. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete first as a matter of fair application of principle, and only secondarily per SuperHamster and the other delete !votes on NerdyScienceDude's page's MfD. I wish this could have been a mass MfD along the lines of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages since it seems that all of these pages are exactly the same in a way that articles are not. —Soap— 12:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This is not a "secret page". It is blatantly visible on my userpage. It's almost like a guestbook. --Domthedude001 13:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I didnt say it was a secret page, I just said that I think all of these sandboxes should be mass-MfD'd in the way that the secret pages were. 3 ¢ soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per the outcome of my vandalism space. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 18:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, per my rationale in the linked MfD on similar pages in the nomination statement. --Taelus (Talk) 19:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Requesting deletion (WP:U1). --Domthedude001 21:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)