Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:MFD)
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Module:, Topic:, and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
  • Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own personal userpage deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}}. If you wish your user talk page (or user talk page archives) to be deleted, this is the correct location to request that.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers - sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Administrator instructions[edit]

Administrator instructions for closing discussions can be found here.


Current discussions[edit]

Pages currently being considered are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

Purge server cache

October 22, 2014[edit]

October 21, 2014[edit]


User:Claireislovely/templates/taakatism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Claireislovely/templates/turasism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Claireislovely/templates/takatism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Claireislovely/templates/tanakism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused templates about a variety of new-age-type religions, creator inactive for four years. As articles, Taakatism was deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Taakatism and salted after several re-creations; Turasism was deleted in 2009 as a redirect to the article deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Turas faith; the other two have never had articles. JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


User:Jessiex23 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a web host for fantasy versions of Bad Girls Club. This is not Bad Girls Club (season 11) as implied by the table title, or any other season. Whpq (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

User:ResidentAnthropologist/Almine Barton[edit]

User:ResidentAnthropologist/Almine Barton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned draft under account that seems to have retired. Shows up in Google, so it's being used by the subject or her associates to insert highly promotional material. There's no point on trying to control POV edits to a draft. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


User:SaucyJimmy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another WP:FAKEARTICLE. No evidence the person actually existed. It's the only Google hit for either full name in quotes, and the first Google hit for either full name. Editor also makes fictional comments in articles about real people, living or dead. User page was previously deleted as a future fakearticle. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


User:SubSkript (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE. User page masquerading as an article (and in one case, even used as a citation in another article (probably gone by the time you read this). Purely promotional. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

October 20, 2014[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Piracy[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Piracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This delsort list was created seven years ago. In all that time it has had only a dozen discussions listed. It is unclear whether this is intended to list pirates, as in guys in boats who board other boats and steal their stuff, or "internet piracy" and in fact there are examples of both. This simply is not providing a valuable service to the community. If not deleted outright I believe it should be considered deprecated. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Golden Financial Services Corp./sandbox[edit]

User:Golden Financial Services Corp./sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT Whpq (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

October 19, 2014[edit]

User:Miriam Morante[edit]

User:Miriam Morante (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE Whpq (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Blank it is basically a CV. No need to delete the whole thing. But the first sentence could be appropriate for a user page, so just blank most of it. No one even discussed with the user first, to let them know what user pages are for. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment - The user name is "Miriam Morante", but the article is about "Maria Costa Ferrer", and the user previously had an abandoned AFC entry at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maria Costa Ferrer. I don't see that this material is actually about this particular user. -- Whpq (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


User:Positiveplastics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT Whpq (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


User:ShipwireForumTeam/ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT Whpq (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


User:Matt-84/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT Whpq (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


User:Xpc2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE. A draft exists at Draft:XOTIC PC. Whpq (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete, arguably G11. I rather doubt even User:Xpc2014 could explain what being "one of the nation’s largest System Integrators of custom built solutions" means, much less provide a third-party source for that claim. Huon (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


User:Philipcaolan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Philipcaolan/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT, probably used in the creation of Uni Baggage. Whpq (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

October 18, 2014[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject High Resolution Tags[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject High Resolution Tags (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is not a WikiProject; it's one users idea "to begin tagging articles with very general categories" whilst not deleting "the current more specific tags" (which is incompatible with existing wp guidance e.g. WP:SUBCAT). Edits made "per" this "project" were reverted (e.g. [1]). DexDor (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - Was not really ever a wikiproject so not even worthwhile to mark as historical. -- Whpq (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Burn it with fire - We don't need users thinking this is a legit project. This pag literally advocates going against so many policies I lost count. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Health in Norway[edit]

Draft:Health in Norway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a copy and paste of and is thus a WP:POVFORK. No consensus exists to create this at this stage Fiddle Faddle 17:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Move to mainspace We do not need prior consensus to create or split an article. The material is substantial enough for an article, and articles of this type are customary for major countries. I propose to resolve the situation by accepting the draft as it stands, and using WP:Summary style to put a summary in the main article to replace the text there, making attributions in the customary manner. This is the normal way in which articles grow. Timtrent, have you any reason why this would not be suitable as a separate article? (the existing article Healthcare in Norway is a very much briefer article, that probably then should be merged). DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The thing against it is lack of consensus. I have no opinion either way on the text. I believe some sort of history needs to go with any split out article. Fiddle Faddle 20:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The current health section in the Norway was added relatively recently (September). I remember I thought at the time that is was massive undue in that article and should be split out. Then I forgot about it and nobody else has reacted, but I doubt there will be any opposition to shortening the health section in the Norway article substantially and have a spin-off article instead. The user who inserted the section in the Norway article first started working with a draft, so it's probably the same person (or group of persons) who has submitted the current draft. The question is more whether there is too much of an overlap between this "health in Norway" draft and the "healthcare in Norway" article, but the content in the draft and the current article is pretty different. Iselilja (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


User:DTyda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE Whpq (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


User:Kidpoem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE Whpq (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User: Yamaguchi[edit]

User: Yamaguchi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft for Yuko Yamaguchi. No need for a history merge. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


User:PSATang/hielo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned stale draft. Whpq (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

October 17, 2014[edit]

Book:Jjbernardiscool's stuff[edit]

Book:Jjbernardiscool's stuff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure what exactly this is, but if it's going to exist I don't see how it's appropriate anywhere but userspace.  Mogism (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


User:InUdhay/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT Whpq (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Orlwriter/ABC Liquors, Inc.[edit]

User:Orlwriter/ABC Liquors, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT Whpq (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Somewhat promotional with a tone that resembles a company portfolio. ///EuroCarGT 02:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


User:Faseer/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT and somewhat promotional. Whpq (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Jun Kondo/sandbox[edit]

User:Jun Kondo/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a resume host Whpq (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


User:Gwhdpi/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT for a non-notable individual Whpq (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Viznut/Deletionist attacks against demoscene articles[edit]

User:Viznut/Deletionist attacks against demoscene articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As WP:POLEMIC puts it, this is a "laundry lists of wrongs", with an intro vilifying other editors in some pretty strong language, and no stated constructive purpose. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems a clear violation of WP:POLEMIC.CombatWombat42 (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Stephanie Michell[edit]

User:Stephanie Michell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not Facebook Whpq (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Information Coded Biofeedback[edit]

Draft:Information Coded Biofeedback (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The following is an extract from my review comment on the draft:

BEGINS This is a copy and paste move of a section of Biofeedback and cannot be accepted since it is, currently, a WP:POVFORK.

It may be that your intention is to produce a WP:SPINOFF, which would be valid. However I suggest most strongly that you do this by discussion at Talk:Biofeedback where you make your case and gain consensus.

Copy and paste moves also remove the edit history of a section and are not to be undertaken lightly. The edit history is essential in order to attribute changes correctly. My view is that this draft should not proceed further, and that you should be concentrating your attention on Talk:Biofeedback. ENDS

My rationale for deletion is encompassed in the comment above. To summarise:

  • POV Fork
  • Copy and paste move
  • An action such as this requires consensus, something not present at Talk:Biofeedback

Fiddle Faddle 11:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • According to what rule does splitting an article require prior consensus? I quote from WP:SPLIT If an article meets the criteria for splitting, editors can be bold and carry out the split. the way to challenge it is to either discuss on the talk page, or revert and then discuss. What objection is there? In what way is the split a POV split? That it is a copy and paste move is not a reason for deletion--we have established means of providing attribution. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


User:Ankinapalliadithya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:UP#COPIES Whpq (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Pages with prefix User:Mr Taz[edit]

User:Mr Taz/Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Mr Taz/Sandbox/2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Mr Taz/Sandbox/3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Mr Taz/Sandbox/4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Mr Taz/Sandbox/5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Mr Taz/Sandbox/6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Mr Taz/Sandbox/6/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Mr Taz/Sandbox/7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Mr Taz/Sandbox/8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Mr Taz/Sandbox/9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Mr Taz/Sandbox/10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Mr Taz/Sandbox/englishandbritish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Mr Taz/englishandbritish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Subpages of an indefinitely blocked user that are either blanked by the user, exact duplicates of each other or unused. Harrymph (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Jorge Luis Rojas - Rojitas[edit]

User:Jorge Luis Rojas - Rojitas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale user space draft. Unsourced BLP. This page constitutes the only two edits by the user, made back in April 2014. Appears to be an autobiography. Safiel (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Language of page is Spanish. Safiel (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

October 16, 2014[edit]


User:Haraldkorn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not LinkedIn Whpq (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Bengt Ramberg[edit]

User:Bengt Ramberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Whpq (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


User:Contactsmc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unrefrenced stale draft. There is already an inventory management article. Whpq (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


User:Estrelladelcosmos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a soap box Whpq (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


User:Bdukes10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE Whpq (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Olakunbi Olasubomi Labinjo[edit]

User:Olakunbi Olasubomi Labinjo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not LinkedIn Whpq (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


Talk:0.999.../Arguments (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

This page actively solicits original research and fringe theories about the topic of the article. It is being used as a forum, as at least one of the repeat offenders has acknowledged. Well, there are lots of forums on the Internet that can host this discussion, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Look over the page and its ten archives and imagine all the good article work that could have been done if we had responded to these non-theories the way we respond to evolution deniers showing up on related talk pages: pointed to scientific consensus, the talk page rules, and the Reference Desk if they have a legitimate question, and sent them on their way. Instead we have circular conversations stretching on for years between two sides that will never agree, because one side thinks its truth is bigger than the article's truth and has no interest in listening to or learning from the other (correct) side. I propose that this subpage's contents be archived, the subpage itself blanked save for a notice that the subpage is closed (enforced by protection if necessary), and the link from the top-level talk page removed to eliminate the invitation. Lagrange613 01:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:IAR (focus on what makes for a good encyclopedia, not what scores points in bling rule following). The Arguments page provides a playground where to test the readers (mis)understanding of the article, "taking the temperature" so to say, and signaling ways of improving the article; only yesterday I suggested a proposal for adding a new clarifying graph, that I wouldn't have thought of without the previous conversation I had at this page. Not to mention the benefit of having a place to move long and repetitive conversations that otherwise would happen at the talk page itself.
From the rationale of this MfD we should delete the reference desk as well. This page is a de-facto subthread of the WP:RD specialized on the topic of repeating decimals, and easy to find for readers interested in it. I see no benefit in removing it, and plenty of them in keeping it. Also, nothing has changed since the same argument was made in the previous discussions that decided to keep the page; and the idea that the time spent on this page could somehow magically be turned in article content somewhere else is ludicrous - editor's attention doesn't work that way. Diego (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Did you read the rationale? I specifically mention the Reference Desk as a place to ask valid questions. The encyclopedia should have that. What it shouldn't have is original research and fringe theories wrapped in these endless, circular arguments stretching on for years that you and your friends are hosting on Wikipedia. I don't understand your last comment. When you don't spend your time on one thing, you're spending it on something else. Maybe it's not a one-to-one conversion to time elsewhere on Wikipedia, but it's far from one-to-zero as you seem to be suggesting. Lagrange613 11:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
And if you read what I wrote, the Arguments page can be thought of as a part of the reference desk, which you agree is a needed function of the encyclopedia (btw, original research is not forbidden at talk pages, only articles). If you don't want to see this page you can remove it from your watchlist. Meanwhile, the rest of us can use it to gather feedback of the quality of the article. The day all questions at this page can be answered by saying "read this section of the article, it clarifies all your doubts" will be the day this page is not needed.
As for my last comment, it was meant to signal a fallacy in your argument to delete this page; nothing guarantees that the time spent here would have been devoted to improving Wikipedia instead of, say, playing video games. Editors come here precisely when they don't feel like working on something else. Diego (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
If this were an extension of the Reference Desk, it would solicit questions for experts rather than challenges, and discussions would be monitored for length and productivity. Those two features distinguish the Reference Desk from an unregulated Internet forum, which is what you're running. Lagrange613 03:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. In the absence of this page, Talk:0.999... becomes filled very quickly with exactly the sort of confused and ignorant arguments of bewildered (and sometimes trollish) people. Original research and fringe theories are not exactly invited here; more often, they are moved from the talk page. I suppose they could just be ignored and blanked, over and over and over again, but this has worked pretty well as a fool magnet. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
There's not really a better way to invite arguments on a page than by titling it "Arguments". The ignore-and-blank approach has worked well on the Fermat's Last Theorem talk page. Lagrange613 03:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Weak keep, the page serves its purpose, keeping the talk page in order, rather well and still sees some bouts of traffic. Huon (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep No evidence that anything has changed since the last MfD. I admit that it is a trap for the ignorant and the trolls, but until they are banned from Wikipedia it will keep them off the main talk page. The page serves it purpose. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

October 15, 2014[edit]


User:GEmeritha201006200 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT - ther eis already an article at Ongwediva and this draft appears to be one that is to attract business to the town. Whpq (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


User:Sdnommah-1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT with promotional language. Whpq (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


User:Feruch/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:UP#COPIES - Copy of Cisco article placed into a sandbox and never worked on. Whpq (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

October 14, 2014[edit]

Wikipedia:List of banned users/Banned by the Arbitration Committee[edit]

Wikipedia:List of banned users/Banned by the Arbitration Committee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The same policy-based reasons for the deletion of Wikipedia:List of banned users apply to this page also. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete The Arbitration Committee is the group which should maintain such a list, and it is worth noting that since mid-2012, no one has been added to this list, which is heavily populated with names from 2010 and before. Note also that this list has not been well-maintained at all, with some now-unbanned users being still on the list. Collect (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: essentially a stale draft of the same information present in the "Banned by the Arbitration Committee" section of the recently deleted list of banned users. Since consensus was to delete that whole list, it follows that old copies of sections of that list should go too. Virtually nothing links to it, so it's likely no one is using it in any case. 28bytes (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I have also taken a copy just in case the community might end up negatively impacted by the lack of any of this information being publicly available. (That was me using the page for a few seconds just now, and I've finished doing so.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, or preferably, move to a subpage of Wikipedia:Arbitration, and let the arbs delete it. Arb actions should be recorded by the arbs or their clerks on their own pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it's the Arbitration Committee that should decide whether the page is to be deleted or retained, and that it should occur at a more appropriate venue. Iaritmioawp (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
It appears to have been created by some guy User:Scott though (who he?), with no indication such creation was carried out under the authority of arbcom or their clerks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/Video gaming/2006 December 10[edit]

Portal:Current events/Video gaming/2006 December 10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

pointless page, no inlinks DexDor (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Gabriel Andrijausco/sandbox[edit]

User:Gabriel Andrijausco/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Gabriel Andrijausco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Gabriel Andrijausco (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikipedia is not a web host for writing up fake TV programs. Whpq (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


User:Bloodxxxx/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a web host for fake TV music competitions shows. A review of the history shows multiple uses for fantasy material. Whpq (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


User:Bloodxxxx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a web host for made-up music information Whpq (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft:List of ski areas in Quebec[edit]

Draft:List of ski areas in Quebec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplicate list - topic is covered by List of ski areas and resorts in Canada#Quebec. This draft list has not been edited in over six months. PKT(alk) 13:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought so too, but couldn't find defined criteria to support a Speedy tag. PKT(alk) 13:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Criteria G13, I understand it gets added automatically to an abandoned draft after 6 months. Sionk (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I nearly went that route, until I realized that this particular draft appears to have nothing to do with the WP:AFC process. Do you think it would still qualify? PKT(alk) 18:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Guitar Hero & Rock Band series[edit]

User:Guitar Hero & Rock Band series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user page has the appearance of a WPO:FAKEARTICLE, and all the content is already in list articles for the various editions of the games. Whpq (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Lil T Records and Lil T[edit]

User:Lil T Records and Lil T (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE Whpq (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


User:Mattyenman345 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a web host for fantasy versions of reality tv competitions. Whpq (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Book:Gandhi, Toffler and the 21st Century Future?[edit]

Book:Gandhi, Toffler and the 21st Century Future? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Book:Gandhi, Toffler and the 21st Century Future? ver 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Book of unclear scope. I would have moved to User:Vipenm9/Books/Gandhi, Toffler and the 21st Century Future? but that already exists. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

October 11, 2014[edit]

Draft:Princess Marie Luise Charlotte of Hesse-Kassel[edit]

Draft:Princess Marie Luise Charlotte of Hesse-Kassel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Recreation of a page that was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Marie Luise Charlotte of Hesse-Kassel. The draft appears to be identical to the deleted version, with the removal of some trivial material about her ancestry. DrKiernan (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone please explain to me how this doesn't meet WP:G4?--Launchballer 23:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand that discussion. He has not added a reference: it's one of the two that was in the old deleted article. So the statement "Adding a ref to an unreferenced article" doesn't make any sense, when we're actually one reference down on the old version. DrKiernan (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • We very rarely apply G4 to a bona fide attempt to improve an article in draft space or user space. The vesions in the other language WPs have extensive addityional material, & if I can find more, I will. If not, I'll simply delete it. This is what draft is for. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why you're trying to reinvent the wheel. The other language versions are merely translations of the old deleted version. The draft version is merely a duplicate of material from the old deleted version. Why put effort into translating the pages from other places when you can just drag it all out of the archives already made? This is a deliberate circumvention of policy: the contributors to the version you are trying to recreate (myself included) are no longer credited with the edits they made. If you are going to recreate that article then you should have undeleted the old version or merged the histories of the old version and the draft. A new draft should only be created if it is substantially different from the old version. The old history can only remain deleted if the new article is totally different from it. DrKiernan (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

October 6, 2014[edit]


Portal:Oaxaca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

stale portal, nearly 3 years old, with only 1 selected article, 1 biography, 1 image. the "topics" box is generic for Mexico, not Oaxaca, and the news section is labelled inactive. Since it seems to be trivial to create portals, whereas not to trivial to build them up to useful status, i think this should be deleted, with the 3 (thats right, 3) links from articles removed. (I will add mexican portal right now to those) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

October 5, 2014[edit]

Portal:Aztec mythology[edit]

Portal:Aztec mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

nonstandard portal, created the day that a previous template was deleted Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 8, along with the problematic article it links to, List of Aztec deities. editor is retired, and had a history of edits w/o sourcing, and tendentious editing. this portal is not needed, not linked to, and the subject is better serviced by a navbox. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.