Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vintei/shop

User:Vintei/shop and User:Runewiki777/shop

I am nominating this and all related subpages. As per discussion here and here, there's no real purpose for these other than to encourage social networking and increase the bureaucracy of building user pages, templates, and other non-encyclopedia related materials. I say delete this shop and all related subpages as serving no purpose for the encyclopedia. Metros (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have also added User:Runewiki777/shop to this nomination which is the same in principle and practice as far as I can tell. Metros (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Hmm, I have a barnstar for my shop. Please check my awards page.-- Vintei  Talk  03:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

But that seems to be irrevelant. Marlith ^T/C 00:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's totally irrelevant. I could write an article on my cat and you could give me a barnstar for it because you really like my article. But it can still be deleted at AFD for not being notable/useful for Wikipedia. Metros (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now. If they start criticizing each other's "shops", do not delete. Instead, have the shops fully protected. —BoL @ 03:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • On what merits do you think this should be kept? Metros (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I've responded on ChampionMart's MFD. —BoL @ 05:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Answer here. Also, actually answer why you think this has merit. What about it makes it worth keeping? Metros (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the same reasons I give at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gp75motorsports/ChampionMart. Xoloz (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per my comments below regarding ChampionMart. Sirkad_talk^sign 06:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see any comments below about ChampionMart from you. If you made comments in another MfD you feel are germaine to this one, could you please make them here? —dgies^t_c 19:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • If you dont see any of my comments on that page you must be blind because i have more comments there then anyone else. Sirkad_talk^sign 22:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. Constructive encyclopedic contributions come first then a fancy userpage, not the other way round. My comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gp75motorsports/ChampionMart also apply. MER-C 08:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; not related to encyclopedia building. [1] is illustrative. BLACKKITE 12:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Extremely strong keep This page is designed to help new users that do not understand source codings and the such be able to have good signatures and familiarise themselves more with wikipedia, it is not a waste of space, just like User:Gp75motorsports/ChampionMart is also not a waste of space, which is also up for MfD.  Sunderland06  14:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If Gp75motorsports's shop is "a waste of space", then how come you just !voted to keep it? Metros (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • comment, this was a typo.

• Strongest possible keep with the strength of Superman It helps teach HTML without spending three days and three nights reading the article. Not only that, but the staff and shop are amongst the site's most welcoming users. It's warm and useful, qualities Wikipedia could use more of. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 14:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What good does HTML do us for articles on Wikipedia? Aside from tables in an occasional article, where we do you see HTML? Knowing how to make something a certain font color, a certain font size, or a particular font is not useful for anything but user space things. We already have Help:editing to help newcomers learn how to properly use wiki-formatting like wikilinks. HTML is of no use here. Metros (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • (edconx3)Templates. Templates are critical to Wikipedia and its articles. What if someone needs a template that doesn't exist? Granted, the need for new templates is getting smaller and smaller by the minute, but without HTML, what would one do to create a template?
      • They could always look at Help:Template or they can look at the formatting of templates used in other articles. Metros (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
        • They could do that, but that is exactly like throwing someone a manual and telling them to figure it out on their own. not only does no one want to do that, but it is EASIER for them to ask someone with further knowledge of that subject. Sirkad_talk^sign 17:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
          • We already have pages where users can ask for help: Wikipedia:Requested templates and Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). Using these instead of a private "shop" increases the odds that the question has been asked before or that it will be seen by someone with a strong technical answer. —dgies^t_c 19:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Templates generally do not use any HTML elements or attributes, especially templates that relatively new users deal with. –Pomte 20:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

        • • So why is a "shop" up for deletion if it contributes to wikipedia just as much as Wikipedia:Requested templates and Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). I dont see the point you are trying to make. Sirkad_talk^sign 21:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

            So these shops are helping users to learn HTML and CSS for use in templates? I see this more as an excuse to save the page. Templates will never be prettyful with lots and lots of pretty colours and lots and lots of pretty colours that hurt people's eyes when they are editing at 3am in the morning. I don't see how new users need to come in contact with templates immediately when they become new. Requests on Requested templates are for completely valid, necessary templates – these templates and signatures etc requested on these shops aren't for use in the encyclopedia, and looking at some of the items in Vintei's shop, will never be used in the encyclopedia, due to the fact that all readers aren't all children who have a like for pretty colours, and readers don't all have high-tech monitors with high speed computers, et cetera (hence why Wikipedia:Accessibility is in place, and is not a guideline that should be ignored easily). The stuff Vintei sells here and everyone else who operates a shop "sell" stuff that won't be used in the encyclopedia, and help new users understand irrelevant HTML prettyfying code. These shops are pointless, and don't help the encyclopedia at all. Spebi 00:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

            • Shops can make completely valid and usefull templates, it is not solely for userpages or signatures, it is for almost every aspect of wikipedia. Sirkad_talk^sign 02:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Encyclopedia first; my comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gp75motorsports/ChampionMart also apply. Keilana 15:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this and all other shops and admonish these users to do something useful. Avruchtalk 15:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Shop owners will not get admonished: would you like to get admonished? Wikipedia is not a battleground. Macy's123 19:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral, but maybe transwiki -- this and the other shops nominated are at worst harmless. However, getting groups together to experiment with wikicode and page layouts would be perfectly appropriate on Wikiversity, and most wikicode that works there will work here as well (some of Wikiversity's extensions are not enabled here, but not a huge issue), so if people want to use them on their pages they can just grab a copy and leave a link to the source. It doesn't remind me of Esparanza by the way: Esparanza was a pseudo-political organization, these shops are more akin to hobbyist groups. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The Transhumanist already has a rather large selection of userpage design elements, and we also have a whole project already for this, at Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help. For non-specific requests, there are a multitude of resources already in place, Wikipedia:Reward board, Wikipedia:Bounty board, Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance), and the various Wikipedia:Requests pages that editors can request things like barnstars, or other items. I feel this "shop" is redundant and ultimately unnecessary. While I don't deny that many users like custom userpages, there are already two excellent resources available to them, as well as many editors who, with a simple request, are more than happy to create someone elements for userpages, create custom banners or barnstars, or do a complete design overhaul. Ariel♥Gold 16:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If they are going to delete the shop, delete ALL of them, and, please remember that shops are created to help users, not to earn money. Macy's123 19:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Private social groups like this distract from Wikipedia's core mission: building an encyclopedia. While help pages are a good idea, they should be centralized to places like Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help. When help efforts get fragmented into private spaces like this, users waste time answering frequently-asked questions, and bad advice can persist because of the lack of broader exposure provided by pages in the project namespace. —dgies^t_c 19:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Everyone knows that the goal is to build an encyclopedia, and shops were created to help users, not to earn money. Please listen to me: Wikipedia is not a web hosting service, nor a shopping mall. Macy's123 19:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • again i dont see the point being made here, it is like a wikiproject, we are trying to help people become more interested and familiar with wikipedia. It is not a "private social group". Sirkad_talk^sign
• Delete This will make Wikipedia a MySpace page, disrupt Wikipedia, most(if not all) poeple come to Wikipedia for info, not good looking user pages...That is my opinion--Looktothis (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - Wikipedia is not MySpace and doing unsightly modifications to userpages and ugly cluttering "custom signatures" should be discouraged whenever possible. This page does not help the encyclopaedia in any way and, at worst, hinders it. -Halo (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - It helps users (specially newcomers) to familiarize with the encyclopedia. Macy's123 21:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • No. No it doesn't. It makes newcomers believe that all there is to Wikipedia is spinning barnstars, excessive signatures, and gaudy user pages. Metros (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Like i said above. "So why is a "shop" up for deletion if it contributes to wikipedia just as much as Wikipedia:Requested templates and Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). I dont see the point you are trying to make." its just an easier way for them to do it. Sirkad_talk^sign 22:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Shops don't help contribute to Wikipedia. Many claim that it "helps new users get used to Wikipedia", but it doesn't. Wikipedia isn't solely about excessively colourful signatures, or about pretty user pages – it's an encyclopedia. I'm not going to play the "Britannica doesn't have spinning barnstars and colourful signatures" because other encyclopedias are different. Wikipedia is different, but not different to the extent where the whole idea of an encyclopedia is defeated. Shops and all those other things you and your friends make up to make the whole site look like MySpace are completely different to the village pump and requested templates – firstly, the village pump helps out users with their queries and questions about Wikipedia processes (not necessarily for new users, there are other outlets), and Requested templates is a place to request a particular template to be created by users who know what they're doing with them, and templates aren't made through these processes if they aren't appropriate for the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, it's an encyclopedia, and shops aren't helping new users to adjusting to Wikipedia – instead, they are getting new users involved in the whole excessively pretty signatures and flashy user pages. If there is a point to these, I don't see it. Spebi 00:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't believe that such needless customisation is part of the encyclopaedia since it doesn't have any practical article-space purpose, and too often detract from it with unnecessarily gaudy signatures and user/talk pages. This is in contrast with WP:RT and WP:VPA which can result in an improved article-space. -Halo (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
      • The idea of a "shop" is not to make friends so i dont see how making one is starting a "social network"; you can stop using that point now because quite frankly it doesnt work. Sirkad_talk^sign 02:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh it is working, you see, because you are missing the point of the term social network. Many users join Wikipedia, not to contribute, but to hang with WikiFriends and make their user pages colourful, claiming that it is good for the encyclopedia because they are teaching newbies how to use irrelvant-to-Wikipedia HTML and CSS code. They spend more time "social networking" than they do "editing the encyclopedia" – this is why many users consider this page and a lot of other pages to be encouraging extensive social networking, and not enough encyclopedia contributing. Many believe that these shops encourage such extensive social networking. And that's why the term still works. Spebi 21:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Transwiki. I say that we should be able to keep shops in some way or form, whether it be a wikiproject or hosted on someone's userpage. I don't know why there are so many delete votes when something like this passes. I mean look at their keep rationale, all of their rational apply to shops as well, if not more. If you think shops are a waste of disk space, what do you have to say to the huge lists of userboxes we have up? Although shops will probably be deleted anyways, I would like permission to have a wikiproject or a WP: page, where there is no competition. Thanks -- penubag  23:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest possible delete, and all other "shops", and give everyone involved a firm message informing them of the fact that we are not a social network. This is an encyclopedia, and I fail to see why these sorts of things where users can "buy" little codes for their user pages are actually contributing to the encyclopedia. Everyone knows you can just view the source and copy the code. Wikipedia = encyclopedia. Wikipedia != "shop" for little items to decorate pages. Spebi 00:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete We already have places, in projectspace, for requesting templates and user scripts. Custom made signatures and userpages are not necessary and we definitely don't need an organized system to produce them at the expense of more important things. Mr.Z-man 00:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Well, people who buy from these shops have more time to contribute to the encyclopedia while some other guy does their userpage for them. Marlith ^T/C 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • How noble of those users to sacrifice working on writing the encyclopedia so that others can instead. Metros (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I would also like to note that User:Phaedriel and User:Dfrg.msc offered Userpage designs at one occasion. Marlith ^T/C 01:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify, User:Phaedriel offered userpage designs (it is rumored that she left Wikipedia), and also left this note: "I take great pleasure in helping other users in need, and I simply love to design Wiki pages. So please, if you want me to lend you a hand with your own user page, just give me a call and I'll see what I can do." This message clarifies that shops are created to help users, not to earn money. Macy's123 03:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
      • On only one occasion? Vintei and everyone else who have these "shops" offer on multiple occasions, and dragging unnecessary users into this dispute so they can share some of the blame isn't right. I know for a fact that Phaedriel hardly edits here anymore, and that requests for user page design were made via requests on her talk page and not another page to add the bureaucracy. I must note that both Phaedriel and Dfrg.msc didn't spend all of their time offering people designs (and a lot of time declined requests to their talk pages), instead they edited the encyclopedia a majority of the time. These shops offer specific little items that users can "buy" little items to dress up their user pages and signatures with little unnecessary things that half the time affect users with low vision, colour blindness, or other impairments, and don't comply with Wikipedia:Accessibility – we are not a shop, we are not a social networking site, we are an encyclopedia, and these don't help build an encyclopedia (rather, hinder other contributions with potential from editing and getting them involved in these things). Spebi 03:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

These shops offer specific little items that users can "buy" little items to dress up their user pages

Huh? You dont buy anything, you request something and its made for you thats why calling it a "shop" isnt literal it is simply metaphorical. 76.104.254.42 (talk) 06:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep - Reminds me of Pokemon. Delete - Oh come on, the last thing we need is to "buy" HTML - a free coding language. I also reject Marlith's statement - it takes time to request something at the shop (it's taken me five minutes to work out what the heck it is, and I really should be working on my FAC), so you're still not contributing to the encyclopedia. And besides, it's a heck of a lot more rewarding to develop your own userpage... — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 00:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. First, it does seem to me that Wikipedia is getting an increasing puritan outlook. "Huh, that guy is having fun. Delete it". We should remember that we are all volunteers and telling people to get back to writing the encyclopedia does not help. However, I did look at this users contributions. They are:

Image talk: 5
Image: 46
Mainspace 230
Talk: 38
User talk: 355
User: 519
Wikipedia talk: 2
Wikipedia: 27
avg edits per page 3.23
earliest 21:58, 30 July 2006
number of unique pages 378
total 1222

It also looks like just over 400 edits are to his user page and its sub pages. Most of his time is on user pages. Nevertheless he has made over 200 main space edits. Deleting these sub pages is just going to piss him off and he will leave. I come down to sayinga weak keep for this. --Bduke (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

*Weak-Medium Delete previous comments have swayed me over to deletion. Marlith ^T/C 04:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as comments have swayed me yet again. If we delete this, why don't we prevent our editors from becoming friends with other users. After all WP:NOTMYSPACE. Marlith 05:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep does it matter that they are giving out sigs and userboxes? As long as they contribute and don't charge a price, it's perfectly acceptable. I'm alarmed by the recent trend as to deleting anything too usery, let's delete this subpage, let's delete that BJADON, and "NO YOU MUST NOT TALK TO HIM. I'm going to give you an indef block for another userspace." garbadge. You people are not realizing that it's okay to have a sig, and a good page, on the premisis you at least give a steady trickle of quality edits. They make the newbies feel welcome, and although it'd be a lie if I said the average user learned from sigs, there are uses in them, that we've all discussed before in a round-about way in 600 places. YДмΔќʃʀï^→Г_C← 12-23-2007 • 05:05:45
• Opinionatory comment We as a society [of Wikipedia] are becoming very fickle. If I had put in something funny somewhere I can almost guarantee half of everyone reading this would have laughed, and the other half would have looked like they just ate a bag of warheads. I know too that putting this in my keep statement would have given it alot of controversy. There are times when you can tell a thing should be deleted, and that's the time the inclusionists win, and vice versa with the exclusionists. We should keep this because it's inconcequential (I know there's a spelling error there) and it does more good than harm (if it does harm at all) it's not like bandwidth is an issue, and it's not like having a little niche area keeps people from editing the encyclopedia. I know Wikipedia is not about fun, but about a greater cause of colectiveism. Being this deep into the project probably means you have your own signature from working the weird programming language used here so much, and I can tell you I felt left out by not having a signaure untill I realized the others' were in the same format. And hay! If user_a who can do task_a in x time does a_x thing for user_b who could only do task_a in a_y time where x < 3min and y > 3min; task a = programming and task b = writing then net editing time = up. YДмΔќʃʀï^→Г_C← 12-23-2007 • 05:05:45
• Kill with fire per arguments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gp75motorsports/ChampionMart, mine and others, along with ArielGold's reasoning. The votestackers are advised to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOT and stop posting hyperbole about indefinite blocks, mathematical proofs reminding me of sorting algorithms, and rouge admins. Wikipedia is not your own personal HTML playground, please don't treat it that way. Edit the encyclopedia. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 06:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment where are the votestacks? im not seeing them. Sirkad_talk^sign 06:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Well then, Other stuff exists and Rogue don't benefit the encyclopedia, they seem rather funny, should we delete those? The answer: No. Should we take away your sig? No. This problem is being treated like a hypocritical 16^th century congress would treat it. The way I look at it, there are two ways to solve this: accept the non-harmful, barely-useful scripters; or delete every single userpage along with preference page. Until userspace edits stop counting both sides who are for and against something with this trivial part of the encyclopedia will be at a standstill with never advancing lines. Does such a trivial thing warrant any attention? Does it negatively impact Wikipedia? How does it make us MySpacey besides having colourful signatures? Make friends with a shop keeper? If you ask for 5 things a day, but let's get real: I think people are just here to argue. YДмΔќʃʀï^→Г_C← 12-23-2007 • 18:38:30
      • "accept the non-harmful, barely-useful scripters; or delete every single userpage" - Why do we only have those 2 choices? Why is middle ground impossible? Its been said that there are already places to request the more important things like templates and user scripts. How is it helping new users to have even more forums to request things? I would think it would just cause further confusion, especially when they see the word "shop" and see that it is in someone's userpage. How do new users even find these shops? Are they competing with the village pump and requested templates? Mr.Z-man 18:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Don't be difficult, see WP:DICK. Let the users find the shops, you can just wander onto anything from anywhere. A prime example is one of the games on WP:FUN where you start at one article and find your way to a totaly differrent one. Heck, I've gotten to the AIDS article from the one on cars! Do you suggest we move their shops to "Come here to get signatures, userboxes and other free astetic things"? I don't understand why you have such a zeal for their deletion. YДмΔќʃʀï^→Г_C← 12-23-2007 • 20:03:45
• Comment 100% agreement with what Yamakiri is saying. The goal of shops is not to gain friends or become a social hierarchy. "Shops" simply supply users with yet another valuable resource that may make it easier for them to comprehend rather then handing them a "wikimanual" and telling them to figure it out on their own. What is the harm? if users have great userpages it will just make them want to stay on wikipedia to contribute, what is the harm being done? Sirkad_talk^sign 06:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• COMMENT: READ BEFORE POSTING Your arguments about shops being a "social network" are irrelevant, as the goal of "shops" is not to make friends it is simply to help new users of wikipedia. So do not make this argument, as it is not valid. thank you. Sirkad_talk^sign 06:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have moved this from the top of the page to here in its proper time-fixed order. This is your opinion not a statement of truth that everyone needs to be aware of before voting. Metros (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per my concerns about inefficiency/redundancy here. Gracenotes^T § 08:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment without offending anyone, we are just like cats and dogs that can't make a decision. Once more, shops are to help users , not to earn money, or build an emporium. Wikipedia is not Sears.com or Macys.com, and shops don't harm. Macy's123 10:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete both per same reasoning as in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gp75motorsports/ChampionMart. These serve no purpose that isn't served elsewhere. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, nor is it a social network; it is an encyclopedia. --Coredesat 11:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment- We all know that Wikipedia is not a social network, but shops are NOT social network websites. Shops are to help users, not to earn money. Macy's123 21:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per my reasoning in the essay Wikipedia:Editors matter. These pages may be useless; that's irrelevant, as we don't need to worry about server space, and these pages are hosted in userspace and don't purport to be part of the encyclopedia. The key question here is not who can cite the most WP:ABCs, but whether deletion of these pages would be a net benefit to Wikipedia. If the pages are deleted, we risk driving away inexperienced users whose contributions to the project are valuable; thus there is a risk of harming the project through the deletion of these pages, and I can't see any conceivable way in which such deletion could benefit the encyclopedia. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, then let them declare it, rather than trying to drown the opposition in a flood of WP alphabet soup. To those who feel that shops of this nature are a bad idea (for whatever reason), WT:USER is the correct place to raise such concerns; if you want these kind of pages to be prohibited, then get consensus for it. The policy as it stands makes no such indication, and MfD is not an appropriate mechanism for trying to prohibit a class of pages which presently are allowed. Walton^One 14:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Vintei is my Wikifriend and I do not want his pages deleted like vandalism.  iXela  talk  15:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A. The whole "Wikifriend" idea is what sets off the "social networking" aspect that many here are against. B. Deleting is not vandalism if handled through proper channels such as this. Metros (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Neutral I'm staying neutral on this one, although sometimes i do find it occasionally useful getting codes, as it's helping me learn new html coding and by memorizing the scripts on wikipedia and other wiki-sites. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yet Another Comment I think that all delete votes with the reason "wikipedia is not a social network" should be taken out of the count because shops have nothing what so ever to do with a "social network". People who say this do not know the first thing about what they are voting for, also IXella007's vote should be taken out as well because this is not a valid reason for it being kept. (also there is a comment at the top of the page that says to read before posting, obviously people are not reading this page because it specifically says if you come here to vote delete because "wikipedia is not a social network" then dont vote because that is not even relevant to shops.) Sirkad_talk^sign 19:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, about that. I've moved your comment into time order rather than at the top of the page. It is your opinion and not a fact that everyone needs to be aware of. Metros (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • There is no "counting", this isn't a vote. The closing administrator will read every comment and make the final decision based on what they have read. Administrators look for a consensus, and if the consensus is to delete the page, then yes, the page will be deleted, or kept, depending on what the outcome is. It is extremely rude to ask that opinions different to yours be "taken out of the count" – the very reason we have these debates is to come up with an agreement on how to act on the page, not to discount the comments as you see fit simply because you don't agree with them. That's not how we operate. Spebi 21:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• I second Sirkad's comment above about not posting. It makes next to no sense that shops make social networks. If this were true, then how come I can't go into Home Depot or Walmart and make about 70 more friends? It's the same principal. YДмΔќʃʀï^→Г_C← 12-23-2007 • 20:13:21
  • You're kind of missing the point. Social networking doesn't just involve being friendly to each other. These shops are encouraging users to spend more time social networking rather than working on the whole purpose of the site, which is to write and give away a free encyclopedia. Those who spend too much time "working" at these shops, asking others to be their "wikifriends", and to spend more time prettyfying their user pages rather than working on the whole principle is the site, is considered to be an overload of social networking. Spebi 21:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

“ RE:Your arguments about shops being a social network are irrelevant, as the goal of shops is not to make friends it is simply to help new users of wikipedia. So do not make this argument, as it is not valid. thank you. --Sirkad) ”

• • • No, you are wrong, by going to "shops" people are having other, ESTABLISHED USERS, make their userpage for them, these established users already have the code, they just have to put in the right colors and text, there for, by going to these "shops" it is SAVING time that they can spend editing wikipedia. Also, i never have, nor will i EVER ask ANYONE to be my "wikifriend", i dont know where you got that idea from. As such, you can please...Like i said 10 times before this stop saying that they are "social networks" as they are not, the only thing we say to the "customer" is "okay, and Here you go" so stop using that point. (I am going to change my signature so you dont have to warn me, just havnt gotten to it yet.) Sirkad_talk^sign 22:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral "Confused" I'm sorry that i have posted the previous comment, it was not my intention to cause an argument, in the future I'll be quiet about such votes on deletions. SKYNET (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I've responded on the user's talk page, he didn't do anything wrong as far as I can tell. YДмΔќʃʀï^→Г_C← 12-23-2007 • 21:15:42

• Strong Keep- It's a big shop develouped userspace. It that case this "shop" is a great move for Wikipedia and is very fair. I suggest it be kept.--Angel David (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)