Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

Administrator instructions

Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

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

June 3, 2015[edit]

June 2, 2015[edit]

Draft:Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP[edit]

Draft:Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article currently at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP. Seems to be a copy and paste job somewhere. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Copy-paste job somewhere implies an attribution failure and a WP:Copyrights issue. MfDing the draft will hide the issue, not solve it. Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves is what you want. If there is no actually attribution problem, redirect is the optimum fix, which is what there would be if the page was moved in the first place. These pages should not be listed at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox2[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox2 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an old test sandbox. It's not an actual article for creation so it wouldn't likely qualify under G13 and I don't see the need to keep another sandbox that probably isn't being watched. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/template:green party users[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/template:green party users (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

This is not an article for creation. It's a template, a userspace template, and can be created in the user's userspace without AFC. The editor seems to have moved onto other matters. This will never be put into article space and there is no policy reason to keep this around for another six months other than as a bureaucratic matter. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bosnian mujahideen/sandbox002[edit]

Talk:Bosnian mujahideen/sandbox002 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT, untouched for over seven years. The article Bosnian mujahideen, which presumably used to be more of a general article, now redirects to El Mudžahid, a specific paramilitary group from the Bosnian War. I don't think this page has much of a future anymore. BDD (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Atelier 801[edit]

Draft:Atelier 801 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT. Not seeing enough info to warrant a stand alone article on the subject. GamerPro64 15:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Rana Tarakji[edit]

Draft:Rana Tarakji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft which started as an article in talk space exactly duplicates the article Rana Tarakji‎ and has been constructed by the same editor, possibly as insurance in case the article is deleted.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Ironically, if Velella had left the page where it was created, as a talk page, I would have deleted it as the talk page of a deleted article. However, Velella has moved it to draft space, and it is far less clear that it should be deleted, since creating a draft so that it can be worked on if the article is deleted seems to me to be perfectly legitimate. However, it is not at all clear to me that the editor who created the page intends it as a draft article to be worked on, so deletion may be reasonable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have now looked further at the history. I find that the editor has created at least seven copies of this self-promotional content, as a articles, user pages, an article talk page, and a user talk page, using at least two accounts to do so. It is clear that it is an attempt to spam, and all copies should be deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Whatever its origins, it is now a legitimate article draft. It is unlikely to be improved, at which point it can be deleted through WP:CSD#G13 when it becomes stale. But it does no harm as a draft article until that time. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment Up to a point I agree with WikiDan61, which is why I didn't say "delete" in my first comment. However, I don't agree that it is "a legitimate article draft". It is spam, and as such is not legitimate, and qualifies for speedy deletion. We normally allow leeway in draft articles, and don't immediately delete good faith drafts which would be deleted as articles, to allow a chance for their authors to improve them, but there is no good reason for making an exception when there is no evidence at all that the author has any intention of doing anything of the sort: she appears to have only the intention of using Wikipedia for promotion. The editor who moved it to draft space wants it deleted, so it is difficult really to justify keeping what would otherwise be speedily-deleted on the grounds that it is in draft space. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have given this some more thought. If the creator of the article shows any sign of interest in improving the page, either by editing it or by commenting in this discussion, then it will be reasonable to give him or her more of a chance, so my "delete" comment above may be regarded as void, and replaced by a "keep". However, if this discussion remains open for a week and the editor has still shown no sign of interest in working to bring the page into line with Wikipedia standards, then my comment above stands. It is not 100% true to say that such a page "does no harm", because experience over the years has taught me that a significant proportion of editors whose only purpose is to use Wikipedia to host a self-promotional page are happy as long as the page stays, no matter whether it has "Draft" at the beginning of the title or not, and allowing such an inappropriate page to remain encourages them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Jax 0677/Cornerstone (Danish band)[edit]

User:Jax 0677/Cornerstone (Danish band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE. Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host deleted content. (afd). No meaningful edits in over two years. Also nominating the bands albums.

User:Jax 0677/Out of the Blue (Cornerstone album)
User:Jax 0677/In Concert (Cornerstone album)
User:Jax 0677/Human Stain (album)
User:Jax 0677/Arrival (Cornerstone album)
User:Jax 0677/Once Upon Our Yesterdays
User:Jax 0677/Two Tales of One Tomorrow
duffbeerforme (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Jax 0677/Back from Ashes[edit]

User:Jax 0677/Back from Ashes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE. Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host deleted content. (afd). No meaningful edits in over a year. Recreaction (without attribution) of User:Jax 0677/Back From Ashes which was deleted after Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jax 0677/Back From Ashes duffbeerforme (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Jax 0677/The Sammus Theory[edit]

User:Jax 0677/The Sammus Theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE. Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host deleted content. (afd). No meaningful edits since userfication nearly two years ago. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


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

WP:STALEDRAFT. Abandoned draft of now deleted content. (afd). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Fresnelle/G-Marl Jamal[edit]

User:Fresnelle/G-Marl Jamal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE. Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host deleted content. (afd). Created with a copy paste userfication to avoid the deletion process. No meaningful edits in over 6 months. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

June 1, 2015[edit]

User talk:Dr pda/persondata.js[edit]

User talk:Dr pda/persondata.js (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Persondata has been deprecated by this RfC. It should no longer be added to articles. [Note: I've tagged the script's talk page, not the script itself, lest I break something.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • keep Deprecating persondata doesn't mean that all references to it should be consigned to the memory hole.Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
    • If anyone needs a copy of it/its history for the record, it can be userfied. But it should not be available for use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Modify The script could just be changed to comment out the last addPortletLink near the end, prefixing it with "//". -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason supplied for why we should delete someones userpage. No reason sufficient for deletion supplied. If there is *any* problem, no reason to not blank the page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The reason is that this script adds something to pages, which the community has decided must no longer be added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't understand the problem. Is it being added? To an article? Why not fix as per WOSlinker? Why do you suggest userfying when it is already a userspace page? The decision to deprecate was contentious. It obviously could have historical significance at least to the user. Deleting history is rarely a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Gabriel Kent/archive:Philosophical Perspective on the Spirit of Christmas[edit]

User:Gabriel Kent/archive:Philosophical Perspective on the Spirit of Christmas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. User's creative writing which was previously added to the Christmas article as a copy/paste from Gabriel Kent's personal website.[1] The user created an article for it, but the article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophical Perspective on the Spirit of Christmas. The user assumed responsibility for developing the material in userspace, but there is no hope for it as an article. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. Reasonable leeway for a Wikipedian. Page view stats provide no indication of any NOTWEBHOST issue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Gabriel Kent/archive:RubNub for YubNub[edit]

User:Gabriel Kent/archive:RubNub for YubNub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT, the material previously deleted at the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RubNub for YubNub. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, but not because its stale. Delete because it is an unused copy of deleted material. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Gabriel Kent/archive:Biography of Nikola Tesla[edit]

User:Gabriel Kent/archive:Biography of Nikola Tesla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The text on the page says "This article contains additional biographical information about Nikola Tesla that is not on the main page." Its intent is clearly to serve as a WP:FAKEARTICLE. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

May 31, 2015[edit]

Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Undelete[edit]

Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Undelete (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As far as I can tell, this page is some relic from a no-longer active process. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Tag {{historical}}. Deleting history is unproductive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I concur with SmokeyJoe. A historical relic. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

May 30, 2015[edit]

User:Village Malli Kiroli[edit]

User:Village Malli Kiroli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article in userspace that would likely not survive as an article after being moved. See below. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Close. WP:Bitey nomination. Talk to the user instead. Disagree with the nomination statement, if it implies deletion, as a smerge & redirect to Dwarahat would be appropriate. Obviously a lot of the content is trivia, such as the five nearest beaches that are not near, but some information belongs at Dwarahat and new contributors should not be rebuffed like this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to Draft:Malli Kiroli. Shouldn't be a userpage but give the user some leeway in terms of drafting the article. Username could be considered a problematic implied shared account. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Move Given SmokeyJoe's concerns about biteyness, I agree with Ricky81682 that a move to draft space would be best. Not sure if this can be processed as a withdraw, or should be allowed to continue for a bit longer. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd think a withdraw would be a withdraw and letting it be. Proposing the move to draftspace is another matter. I'm reporting the name to UAA as it's iffy on the implication on being a shared account (if blocked for the named reason, I think the draft proposal will simplify the matter). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User:AchedDamiman/Denise Milani[edit]

User:AchedDamiman/Denise Milani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I really don't know what's happening whit this page, but it's nothing good for Wikipedia and it's of no use to AchedDamiman. It's an abandoned subpage, since edited by other users and IPs. Articles about Denise Milani have been deleted tree times: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise milani, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Milani, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Milani (model). The article is frequently used as an attack page, see e.g. my revert and for presenting unsourced information such as being involved with drugs. Speedy deletion reasons A7, G4, U5 might apply, if these can be used for userspace. Sjö (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Question: Is there any way that a meaningful and real page about Denise Milani can finally be made? Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The articles were deleted in 2007 and 2010 due to lack of notability. I've only done a Google search and looked at what seems to be her official pages, but I can't find anything that shows any added notability after 2010. So, probably no. Sjö (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable BLP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

May 29, 2015[edit]

User talk:Jawaid Ahmed Solangi[edit]

User talk:Jawaid Ahmed Solangi (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

See WP:FAKEARTICLE. Stefan2 (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - Granted, this sounds a little like a resume but this is probably something that could've been blanked and the user given advice what Wikipedia is not. I'm open to deleting it but the user could probably use a little advice (that's if this isn't a SPA, note two edits to userpage and this attempt of file uploading). SwisterTwister talk 23:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self promotion. Would be OK for the userpage, but this user has no edits unrelated to himself. Uploading a picture of himself doesn't count. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


User:USER-cacophony/myg0t/s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another myg0t WP:FAKEARTICLE (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:USER-cacophony/myg0t and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Karunamon/myg0t). Wikipedia is not myg0t's webhost. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. re-posting of deleted material. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User:YourBrandRocks/Ryan Arnold[edit]

User:YourBrandRocks/Ryan Arnold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

But it's not the editor's userpage. It's a WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:WEBHOST issue. Plus, if this is purely promotional (and the name implies something), we have to keep watch to make sure it isn't restored. That's not a needed nuisance. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
It is a userspace draft. It even has an attempt at sourcing. It is no more a FAKEARTICLE or a WEBHOST problem than a million other userspace drafts. If you think there is any FAKEARTICLE issue (I disagree), then you can fix it with {{userpage}}, or, given the long period of inactivity, {{inactive userpage blanked}}. Page view statistics indicate that you are wrong about an active WEBHOST abuse. And in either case, you can fix the problem without deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
What fix do you have in mind? Blanking the article now and if the user comes back to restore it to spam it again (a one-line 'social media strategist' biography article is good likely to be just that), blank it again and again? Have you dealt with those kind of people? There's been characters that require as many as five, six different articles and userpages deleted over years. Why should we have to spend our time with their gamesmanship? Would you rather I just move it to articlespace and list it for AFD or CSD and have it deleted then? It wouldn't survive there so why should it stay around in the editor's userspace? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User:YawnDaGuitarholic/new article name here[edit]

User:YawnDaGuitarholic/new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Userspace draft. Article currently at Periphery (band). Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Yomesh shah/Jharola[edit]

User:Yomesh shah/Jharola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Not stale. No reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
It's been over four years. WP:G13 for Articles for Creation pages counts six months as stale. This is four times as long. Besides, if the user comes back, it can always be restored. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
If it can always be restored, that is an excellent reason to use {{Inactive userpage blanked}} instead of deletion. Expecting an old short term Wikipedian to return and navigate to requests for undeletion is a very big ask. The only message he's every been left is your MfD template, which will link to a closed MfD discussion, which will advise no further edits should be made. It's great that you want to clean up these old pages, but you can do it by replacing them with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. There is no need to invoke an MfD page and a community discussion for innocuous old pages, and as a rule you should have a very good reason to delete pages in another's userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Astroiseur/Asia Source 3[edit]

User:Astroiseur/Asia Source 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale usespace draft. There's not much worth adding that isn't already at Asia_Source#Asia_Source_3. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Ashuhsan1/Hassaan Namdar[edit]

User:Ashuhsan1/Hassaan Namdar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. No reliable sources and unlikely to ever be an article in its current state. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Ashraf Elibrachy/Ibrachy Law Firm[edit]

User:Ashraf Elibrachy/Ibrachy Law Firm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Article was created at Ibrachy Law Firm by someone else so I don't know if a history merge is needed. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

May 27, 2015[edit]


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

User page is basically a string of unsupported, overwrought assertions about a real person who has a long history of, well, cranky additions to wikipedia. Richfife (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It is opinion of some crank...than you should examine this before making any such attempt. I would like to know why it is marked for deletion. It is anarchy and should be not done on this public profile. I can write about myself on my user page, as others do. nilaish (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Indigo children/For Indigos[edit]

Talk:Indigo children/For Indigos (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I found this page linked from the article talk page. It is specifically directed at a particular class of believer and attempts to dissuade the reader from the belief. Clearly this is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. Skyerise (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Page is meant to deal with the regular POV-pushers we get on the talk page on this WP:FRINGE topic. It is about as appropriate as having something on Talk:Vaccination explaining why we don't give credence to anti-vaccers. This isn't article content, it's effectively a talk page post. Do you have a policy-based reason for deleting this talk page post that you did not write?
If I were to copy the contents to my computer and post that boilerplate response every time someone came along arguing that we should give equal validity between the works of shysters and scientists, it would be perfectly fine. I could make a template out of it. This was just the most efficient option. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Ian.Thompson. We don't delete talk page discussions unless there is a clear BLP violation. Sundayclose (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
This isn't discussion. All that takes is a link into the talk archives. This is a small number of Wikipedia editors taking a position, intentionally created in the talk space even though it is not discussion. Skyerise (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Once again, Skyerise, you're creating your own policies. This is a subpage of the article's talk page. It could easily be moved to the main talk page, but is separate for organization and clarity. Any editor can express any opinion on a talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
No, that's what WP:ESSAYS are for. We'll see: I doubt editors not in the "crush pseudoscience" clique will buy that argument. Skyerise (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we'll see. I don't recall ever seeing an essay about one article. Sundayclose (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
By 'the "crush pseudoscience" clique', you mean any editor who follows and understands WP:NPOV and actual science? Wikipedia does not give equal validity to WP:FRINGE topics. That is policy as written and as intended. Wikipedia is almost required to dismiss pseudoscience by not giving it article space unless it is adequately covered by mainstream science. If mainstream science is dismissive of the topic, so are we. It is a perfectly legitimate use of a talk page to discourage editors from trying to promote the works of WP:Lunatic charlatans. It is not appropriate to try and censor the talk page posts of others because they discourage delusional advocates from filling the article with their superstitious fantasies. It is not appropriate to 'creatively interpret' existing guidelines or even cite non-existent guidelines to try and accomplish that either. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - article talk pages are to be used as an aid in the development of the article. For a topic on fringe topic such as Indigo children, a sub-page to head off article objections from true believers seems to be a perfectly reasonable approach. If you have specific objections to the way it is worded, then that should be worked out through discussion, but the purpose of the subpage is in line with policy for article talk pages. -- Whpq (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Mostly Ghostly Have you met my ghoul friend?[edit]

Draft:Mostly Ghostly Have you met my ghoul friend? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned draft, possible hoax Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Redirected to Mostly Ghostly: Have You Met My Ghoulfriend?. This does not belong at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - The draft appears to be abandoned and never used int he creation of the mainspace article. As such, it is redundant and not needed. I see no reason for a redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Just as there is no need for keeping, there is no need for deletion. The page is no different to any stub version overwritten by improved versions. It was not a hoax. Reasons for keeping include: (1) The author, who should be assumed to return one day, may want to review his contributions, and finding it deleted as a "hoax" is quite unwelcoming; (2) deletion requires the creation of an MfD page and the time of multiple Wikipedians, and so the act of deletion is obviously a net negative to the project; (3) Deletion rewards the nomination which will encourage more net-negative busywork nominations further burdening MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


User:Sunnyyl6j (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Content added to this page by the user and anon is entirely promotional. A search on google reveals that it seems to be used as such. (unrelated: first time requesting a deletion, please provide feedback.) -- Jinbobo (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a web host. This editor has only ever editted this user page. Google translate reveals a mish mash of stuff. Not sure what it is but it clearly unrelated to the development of Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

May 26, 2015[edit]


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

Stale userspace draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • This does not sound like much of a reason, we do not have any article on this topic Mezzo Marketing, is there any significant reason to delete? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a violation of WP:WEBHOST. If this was an article for submission draft, after six months, it would be permitted under WP:G13. Is there any evidence that an article would stay? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
If you check the page view statistics you'll see there is no basis to your NOTWEBHOST allegation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:WEBHOST is a policy reason. I don't think anyone really looks at each page's views to determine whether or not it's a webhosting issue. Either way, why is there is so much interest in saving some potential article on a marketing company? If someone thinks it could be a real article, userify it yourself, take it to draftspace or just take it live. What is gained by keeping it sitting there within some inactive user's space? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Why? If someone thinks it's a viable draft, they can adopt it themselves or move it to draftspace or whatever. It's been two years since that editor was last here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The "why delete" is a much bigger question. Why not blank, when blanking is a complete solution to any concerns about the content being live, and doesn't involved creating an MfD nomination and wasting valuable forum time on it. Or, even better than blanking, redirect to Mezzo Marketing. We really need a "Options to consider before MfDing" list don't we? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
A cross-space redirect to a red link? Why? Because it's a draft that's been around for years and no one is working on it? Because we should delete it and focus on the ones that could actually be created? Any particular reason that this one should be saved rather than any of the other 900 or so at Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard from March 2010? I'm constantly clearing out older ones to make them either (a) published; (b) sent to draftspace for later publication or (c) deleted. There's 47k out there so that would just be a giant backlog that goes nowhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Whoops. I composed that comment in edit mode, misread Graeme's comment, and didn't realise it was red-linked. Absolutely nothing wrong with a userspace -> mainspace redirect, but no point redirecting to a redlink, that would be silly.
Do I read that you are on a path to listing up to 47k pages at MfD? Why can't you blank everything that you don't think has a future, instead of listing at MfD? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I do not support auto-deletion of any userpages, and was not alone at WT:CSD when this was excluded from CSG#G13. Better to shut done the article creation wizard if it creating so much junk. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
If even 1% of those pages are useful that's over 450 new articles for here, work that's probably pretty obscure stuff. A lot of it is people just not correcting merging histories as they copy and paste versions so that's fairly quick. I'd rather list them at MFD and get more eyes on them. A few have had someone else volunteer to take it on (or to take it live) which is much better than me just unilaterally blanking someone else's work based on my personal views. I used to list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts#Articles but those went no where either. And again I've personally restored drafts when editors have returned (more than once, it's someone who's created a draft here that's here rather on their personal website or blog and they've poppped back when/just after being listed at MFD) which I think is fairly normal. Again, why is there such interest in saving an potential article in an inactive user's userspace? No one else will find it, it won't become an article and it's just sitting there for no reason. If someone sees potential, move it to draftspace. It'll at least come up to someone else every few months rather than just lie dormant there. What is gained by having a potential article that never moves forward to either fruition or to deletion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


User:Pikachu2568/customblock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For some reason this user maintains a whole pile of their own "custom" warning and blocking templates. I have already speedy deleted a number of them that blatantly misrepresented policy. I am now nominating the rest here. Why? Because they are crappy versions of the templates we already have that work perfectly well and enjoy broad support from the community. They should not be used to warn anyone, and this user is not an admin so I don't even know why they have their own blocking templates, so these are useless templates, that I don't think should ever be used. Since the user who created them is apparently refusing to discuss the matter deletion seems in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

And here's the rest of the bundle:

Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this user apparently refuses to talk to me, they have talked to others, but this is so far their only response to being informed of this discussion, suggesting they don't know why they have all these either and don't really care. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Electronic cigarette[edit]

Draft:Electronic cigarette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete. This draft is no longer being used to update the article. The protection was lifted a long time ago. User:MSGJ was helping out with the edit protected requests for the mainspace page. QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Were edits in this draft added to the article? In that case it should be kept for history attribution purposes. Bosstopher (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • History merge if easy, or do whatever is required to retain a complete author list for the mainspace article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The author list of the draft is a subset of the author list of the mainspace article. Redirect to Electronic cigarette. No further action for attribution required. No reason for deletion, reference to the draft is as reasonable as reference to any previous version of the mainspace article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


A history merge is better than a redirect IMO. I don't see a benefit for a redirect. After an editor is done with a sandbox it is usually deleted rather than requesting for a history merge. QuackGuru (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

  • A benefit of redirecting is that it makes a very simple statement that everything is now located and ongoing atthe target, and it avoids the silly busywork of creating a useless page to delete a once useful page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
    • A redirect is used for mainspace articles. There are no useful links to the draft for a redirect. QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
      • A redirect happens by default when a Draft article is moved to mainspace. That is all that is called for here. Redirects are cheap and have many small benefits. There is no reason for deletion here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
        • It is easier for an admin to just delete it and I don't see any benefits for a redirect or keeping an old draft. QuackGuru (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
          • You're just wasting peoples time, creating an MfD nomination, asking for a community discussion, expecting an admin to act, all for an innocuous page that should have been redirected previously. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
            • I got reverted after I blanked/tagged the page by an admin. QuackGuru (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
              • You didn't blank it, you applied an inappropriate CSD template. WP:CSD is one of the most firmly worded policies there is, abuse of it is taken very seriously. You should not delete things "because they are no longer needed". You delete things that should never have been created. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
                • I created Draft:Ayurveda. Now I'm done with it. What tag should I use instead? I should of created a sandbox not a draft. A draft is for potential new articles. QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
                  • If it were completely your creation, you could have tagged it {{db-g7}}. I see there are other authors, did any contribute creatively? If you had copied it to your userspace, you could tag it {{db-u1}}. You should not have forked it to Draft space. If edits were needed, request edit while protected, or request unprotection. Forking of content is a menace to WP:Copyrights compliance, it complicates attribution. In future, I recommend that you only sandbox in your own userspace, and then {{db-u1}} when done. In this case, if it was not used at all, you can request its deletion, otherwise, just redirect, checking that all its substantive authors are authors of the mainspace article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
                    • I made the edit request a while ago and now Draft:Ayurveda is no longer needed. A redirect will be a revert. A MFD will get more community input. QuackGuru (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
                      • User:Noteswork is an author of the draft, and not an author of the mainspace article. That makes it complicated. Deletion is not an option becuase it will violate Noteswork's rights. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
                  • Ask User:MSGJ to sort out the mess. He seems to know what is going on. I am definitely not a supportive of creating forks to sidestep article protection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
                    • I think a history merge is necessary for Draft:Ayurveda to not violate ediotrs' rights. QuackGuru (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

May 26, 2015[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2/FuelWagonTalkPageSnapshot[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2/FuelWagonTalkPageSnapshot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This isn't an appropriate namespace for talk space contents. This should either be deleted, or moved somewhere in the user's namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

May 25, 2015[edit]

Draft:Eyes of Things[edit]

Draft:Eyes of Things (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as requested by author. The IP requesting deletion is not the same IP that created the article, so CSD G7 is not applicable, but it seems likely that the different IP's are the same person. Also, the subject, at least for the time being, appears to fail WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. I agree with Safiel that the IPs appear to be the same, and we don't need a weeklong community discussion to anticipate draft-deletion by a few weeks. I'm posting here instead of just deleting it just in order to make sure I haven't overlooked something. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete but not a speedy delete, as that was already declined. Leave a note with deletion that it could be retrieved on request in case this is not the same person. Perhaps the content could be merged to another article at some point. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Cjhanley/Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre[edit]

User:Cjhanley/Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:POLEMIC. Not really much more to say here. ― Padenton|   19:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

What could possibly be wrong with maintaining documentation of damaging edits to a very important article? As I recall, this was put together as evidence in an effort via ANI or some other forum to have some action taken to restrain WeldNeck's extremely disruptive behavior. This may have been the point at which one admin threw up his hands and said, "I'm in over my head." It's a difficult subject and WeldNeck is a very difficult user. Are you an admin who's up to dealing with hard cases? If so, how about looking at this horrible WeldNeck record, and at a more recent one, for which there's now a link at my comment in the ANI section where he's trying to have me banned? Charles J. Hanley 23:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)
  1. I'm not an admin.
  2. I don't care about however important you think this article is, you have an obvious conflict of interest where it is concerned.
  3. The correct location to present evidence against WeldNeck's conduct is at a noticeboard, such as at WP:ANI. The correct location is never to leave it up on your user space where it can be advertised at User:Cjhanley indefinitely. This is already explained at WP:POLEMIC which I already linked above. "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." You have not used it in a timely manner. It's been there since Nov. 2013, left up indefinitely. As far as I can tell, you've never used it nor shown any intention of using it outside of pointing to it on your user page. ― Padenton|   23:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you truly an undergraduate math major, as your user page says? Are you truly not a WP admin? What is going on? Who are you? I am trying to make Wikipedia as truthful as possible about a war crime from half a century ago, and you think you have some standing and right to stop that? No wonder the world thinks what it does of WP. (Meantime, please answer my questions: Who are you? Who I am is clear to everyone. I know, you can simply say (ludicrously), who I am is unimportant. Or you can be real. Up to you.) Charles J. Hanley 01:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Cjhanley: That would be undergraduate Computer science major, not maths. It seems you are new to Wikipedia, so I will Assume good faith. Though you allege yourself an expert on a subject, it does not give you higher privileges in that article nor elsewhere. Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, and edits must be supported by reliable sources. Your expertise is a valuable help in making the article and giving different aspects of it due weight, but when you start being uncivil, harass and demean other editors, or claim ownership of articles, it becomes more disruptive than helpful. Wikipedia:Expert_editors goes more in-depth on these and other policies and how they relate to subject matter experts, so I recommend you take a quick read-through on that.
I haven't looked thoroughly into your long-term dispute with WeldNeck, but it doesn't really matter for the purposes of this MfD discussion. What matters is this is an attack page meant to shame another editor for long-past actions and has been left unused for a year and a half. Such pages should only exist for a short period and only in cases where you are attempting to gather and organize facts before presenting it to WP:ANI or a similar dispute resolution location, and should be removed shortly after. ― Padenton|   17:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. Per per WP:POLEMIC, " The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner". User:Cjhanley attempted to post this to Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre, but it was deleted (inappropriately, in my opinion, see [2]). User:Cjhanley is attempting to resolve this dispute, and should be assisted by the community, letting the chips fall where they may. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@JoeSperrazza: It has not been used in a timely manner. It has been left up, untouched, for a year and a half. ― Padenton|   15:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Let me clarify: The page in question here was, indeed, created in November 2013 and WAS used in a timely manner, in a futile effort to get some admin attention paid to the dreadful things going on at No Gun Ri Massacre. It was then forgotten. (I would delete it myself, but the warning atop the page says I can't or, I suppose, I'd be brought up on some arcane WP charges.) On the other hand, the "compilation of factual evidence (diffs)" that JoeSperrazza refers to is an entirely new bill of particulars, with all new outrages committed by WeldNeck, that was posted at Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre yesterday (May 25) and deleted by WeldNeck within minutes. Padenton, may I ask you, what appropriate punishment/action would you take against such seizing of ownership of a Talk page? Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 12:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)
  • Delete per WP:POLEMIC, there's not a lot else to say. SPACKlick (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per POLEMICs above. Agree with above - Encourage User:Cjhanley to take this to ANI before it's deleted. Widefox; talk 23:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's evidence in the form of diffs, but it hasn't been used in a timely manner. @Cjhanley: If this is needed for some purpose, such as a complaint at a noticeboard, an admin can restore it by user request (or you could simply paste it into a text file on your personal computer right now before it's deleted). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per POLEMIC. The material here is not a collection of bare diffs being compiled for a report. It is instead a very divisive rant. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume the good faith assumption that everyone has the assumption of everyone assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming the assumption of good faith[edit]

Wikipedia:Assume the good faith assumption that everyone has the assumption of everyone assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming the assumption of good faith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page should be in user space or draft space. It was created by a new editor, trying to make a humorous page and it shouldn't be in Wikipedia space. Liz Read! Talk! 16:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Userfy or delete. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy. Relates to the author with little anticipated use by others. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy or delete The user who created this has clearly failed to assume that others assume the good faith assumption that everyone has the assumption of everyone assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming the assumption of good faith, in good faith.Bosstopher (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Either Delete as borderline to CSD G3 or Userfy. This chain has gone waaay too far. --TL22 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

May 24, 2015[edit]


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

Wikipedia is not a web host. This editor's sandbox and user page has been used (and deleted) multiple times for web host violations to the point where the editor was blocked. The sandbox is now again being used to host a fantasy version of Bad Girls Club. The editor is trying to hide it by commenting the content out so it is not visible except when using the editor. Whpq (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Alexis Rachel Levine[edit]

User:Alexis Rachel Levine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE. Everymorning talk 02:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

May 23, 2015[edit]

User:Masterchef Contestant/Whitney Miller Masterchef US[edit]

User:Masterchef Contestant/Whitney Miller Masterchef US (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale, non-English, unreferenced draft for a subject that now has an article (Whitney Miller). Whpq (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh/Cleanup listing[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh/Cleanup listing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This bot-generated page (linked to only from the sandbox of a user retired for 18 months) became obsolete 5 years ago after the bot stopped running and was replaced. The current bot creates a weekly cleanup listing here instead, linked to from the bottom of the main page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

May 21, 2015[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CurrentRFCS[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CurrentRFCS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Blank page created in 2012 and subsequently never utilized. Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Not blank - Its full wikitext is {{RFCUlist|width=98%|float=left|compact=very}}. It is meant to be a header for AN/I that transcludes {{RFCUlist}} from what I can see (although it does appear currently unused). ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  21:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete RFC/U doesn't exist anymore, so the transclusion would appear to be unnecessary. If something like RFC/U is re-invented in the future (as may be necessary given how choked AN/I has become with long-term behavioral complaints), a new header can be made. BMK (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Mark as historical. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Nazrul Islam(Ripon)[edit]

Wikipedia:Nazrul Islam(Ripon) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Discovered by accident; could not find a CSD criteria. No idea how this has existed for so long. Promotional, not an article, certainly not a policy page. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - moved out of user space, and being used as a web host. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

May 20, 2015[edit]

Template:User over 9000[edit]

Template:User over 9000 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Userbox with only a single transclusion. Inappropriate in the template namespace. Delete or move to userspace. As it has only been used once, simply adding subst: to the page using the template should be enough. Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Userfy - per WP:GERMAN. This is the example for userfication. It's uncontroversial, not divisive, but not particularly encyclopedic. The example given at WP:GERMAN is "This user eats bagels", and this is a perfect example. Outright deletion isn't appropriate, since it's not polemic. Achowat (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Jody Kriss[edit]

Draft:Jody Kriss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Severely violates WP:BLP: based exclusively on dirt-digging blogs. -M.Altenmann >t 15:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Username suggests it's an autobiography, but the lack of good sources makes this a violation of WP:BLP. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Autobio? r u serious? -M.Altenmann >t 22:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Felix Sater[edit]

Draft:Felix Sater (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Original research on an alleged mobster. Big violation of WP:BLP.-M.Altenmann >t 15:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

May 18, 2015[edit]


User:Rick570/PaulHuljich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A BLP copypasted into userspace to circumvent deletion. Deleted at afd in 2012. No meaningful edits in over a year and no attempts to address the concerns that lead to deletion. A WP:FAKEARTICLE stored here by an editor trying to use Wikipedia as a web host for a collection of bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Rick570/St Peter's College awards[edit]

User:Rick570/St Peter's College awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE. Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host deleted content. (afd) duffbeerforme (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Rick570/St Peter's College list[edit]

User:Rick570/St Peter's College list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Also nominating User:Rick570/St Peter's old boys list (20 February 2009)
WP:FAKEARTICLEs. Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host your preferred version of disputed content. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Rick570/St Peter's College, Auckland (as at 22 September 2007)[edit]

User:Rick570/St Peter's College, Auckland (as at 22 September 2007) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Also nominating

User:Rick570/St Peter's College, Auckland (as at 25 January 2013)
User:Rick570/St Peter's College, Auckland (as at 29 April 2014)

WP:FAKEARTICLEs. Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host old revisions. No meaningful edits since creation. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Old revisions, I think this is just housekeeping. Editor has actively edited existing mainspace article well after all of these versions, so assume that worthwhile material is now there. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Sire Life Sciences[edit]

Draft:Sire Life Sciences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Advertising written by admitted paid editor. No reason to wait a few more months to remove it. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Is there documentation in policy that being the product of paid editing to be reason for deletion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Not by itself, but the promotional nature of this draft combined with the payment makes this paid advocacy and an unambiguous abuse of Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Delete. MER-C 07:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, yes, delete as advertising. Paid editing was a very complex issue, I stopped following it, but it seems unresolved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Nmwalsh/sandbox/Smart Liposuction[edit]

User:Nmwalsh/sandbox/Smart Liposuction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Advertising, written by admitted paid editor. No evidence of notability; no reason to wait to get rid of it . DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Promotional draft + paid editing = paid advocacy and an unambiguous abuse of Wikipedia for promotional purposes. The subject matter rings alarm bells. MER-C 07:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. -M.Altenmann >t 07:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Alekksandr/Anne D'Evergroote[edit]

User:Alekksandr/Anne D'Evergroote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article was PROD'ed and deleted in November 2013. A copy was put on another user's sandbox and deleted in January 2015. No improvement has been made on this article since it the user copied it here in December 2014 and this appears to be an attempt to avoid the deletion process. Also fails WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC) CommanderLinx (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

May 17, 2015[edit]

User:Nmwalsh/sandbox/Wellness Bakeries[edit]

User:Nmwalsh/sandbox/Wellness Bakeries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pure advertisement by paid editor DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Promotional draft + paid editing = paid advocacy and an unambiguous abuse of Wikipedia for promotional purposes. MER-C 07:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


Book:Temp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not needed as a community book. DexDor (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


Book:Ss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This doesn't appear to be a useful book (contains just 2 articles and has a meaningless title). DexDor (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

May 16, 2015[edit]

Book:Pressidents OF the USA[edit]

Book:Pressidents OF the USA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Superfluous to Book:Presidents of the United States and no redirect needed from this mis-spelling. DexDor (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Redirect Redirects are cheap, and people do all kinds of weird misspellings. The fact that someone messed up the spelling like this when creating the book, means that there's a chance someone out there will do something similar when searching for the book.Bosstopher (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Book:NATO phonetic alphabet[edit]

Book:NATO phonetic alphabet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It doesn't really make sense to have a book for a topic about which wp has only one article. DexDor (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


Book:NARASAJJANA NURSRY (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not really a Wikipedia community book. DexDor (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Book:Italy Vacation 2015[edit]

Book:Italy Vacation 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Your 2015 vacation plan isn't an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia (community) book. DexDor (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


Book:INTENATIONAL SPORTSWEAR BRANDS GLOBAL WORLD DATABASE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Book:INTENATIONAL SPORTSWEAR BRANDSGLOBAL WORLD DATABASE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single-article and badly-named Wikipedia books. DexDor (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Book:D011235813d's book of sites[edit]

Book:D011235813d's book of sites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a Wikipedia (community) book, but has a meaningless (IRL) title and contains just one (user) page. DexDor (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Book:Att läsa mars1[edit]

Book:Att läsa mars1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Incomprehensible title for the English Wikipedia. For info: There is a copy in userspace at User:Ghostrider/Books/Att läsa mars. DexDor (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Note: the editor who created the book has said "OK, to delete"[3]. DexDor (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9   14:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Book:Amphibious Aircrafts[edit]

Book:Amphibious Aircrafts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A very poor book (e.g. the first non-epon article listed is Marine propeller which is hardly relevant), title needs correcting. DexDor (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK the book was mainly created to demonstrate (PDF) rendering capabilities. It contains various visually interesting elements (images, technical diagrams, math formulas etc.) that look good in print. Despite this superficial argument, I still think it could be a valuable resource. Therefore I would recommend to expand/modify the book rather than delete it. Ckepper (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Book:Wikipedia - Moje seriály[edit]

Book:Wikipedia - Moje seriály (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It is unclear what this book is about - Moje seriály is (currently) a redlink in en wp. Userfication might be a possibility. DexDor (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  • del. aappears like a long ago abandoned test. -M.Altenmann >t 07:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Serves no purpose. -- P 1 9 9   14:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


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

Page exists as a compilation of sources, many of which contain BLP violations (e.g. Gjoni's 'zoe post' blogpost.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - WP:BLP covers the addition of information on living persons to Wikipedia. No information on living persons is included on this page. Sources do not contain BLP violations in & of themselves; links to sources containing information on living persons are not a violation of BLP in & of themselves. BLP is only violated when actual contentious, unsourced or poorly sourced, information on living persons is actually added to Wikipedia. The prima facie case is not substantiated. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The editor who made this page was banned from the gamergate topic area for posting these links at the talk page of gamergate controversy as they were BLP-violating. I believe your interpretation of policy is incorrect. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Policy (WP:BLP), community consensus here & ArbCom members opinions here would seem to agree that links are not, in & of themselves, violations of the policy.
On a side note, do we not have better things to do than trawl through people's sandboxes? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Re: 'better things to do'- Please remember to assume good faith, and remember that you're as much of a participant in this as I am. Looking over the links you've provided, I find A) no community consensus in the first link and B) no arbitration statement that links cannot violate BLP.
I invite you to consider this: If it's impossible to violate our BLP policies by linking things, why was this editor banned for a BLP violation in linking this thing? Furthermore: How is keeping these BLP-violating links on the encyclopedia going to improve it, especially given that the editor who was keeping them was both banned because of posting them and is no longer able to post in that topic area so would find them useless going forward? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi PeterTheFourth, In all honesty, "better things to do" was a comment on us both. If it was inferred as casting aspersions, then I apologise unreservedly; such was not intended.
I do find community consensus in the first link, based on the quality of the arguments therein, and invite editors to read & form their own opinions. For the second, I note the difference between an "Arbcom Statement" and "Arbcom members' opinions".
Relying on the topic ban to demonstrate that there is a BLP violation is begging the question. The case needs to be made here separately, not based on the assumption that the conclusion is true.
With respect to improving the encyclopedia, the philosophic burden of proof is on those wishing to delete this information to show that there is reason for its deletion; not on those opposing deletion to show that it improves things.
I again assert that links (outside limited Article space cases), in & of themselves, do not violate our BLP policy. In support I offer the policy itself. Editors asserting that links can & do violate BLP are invited to provide reasoning based on that policy.
There may be reasons why this miscellaneous page should be deleted, but I cannot concur that WP:BLP, as written, is one of them. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per the arguments of Ryk72, Having read through the discussions in the links he provided I think that there is no real reason to have the material removed. Also I invite Ryk72 to talk to me over email or my talk about BLP. The editor who made this page was banned from the gamergate topic area for posting these links at the talk page of gamergate controversy as they were BLP-violating Is tricky because obviously i think that the decision was unjust and in opposition to wider community consensus (and filed by a t-baned editor, apparently filing cases is BAN... oh wait) but still its an Oppose from me Thanks Peter for posting this on my behalf --Retartist 10:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Having read through the links in question, i fail to see how any of them violate WP:BLP only possibly excepting: 104. the zoe post (already removed but contained email transcripts), 110. (email transcripts but the actual emails aren't there so impossible to verify the truth), 112. (from 110). The rest are not in themselves BLP Violations, their reliability may be in question but that is no issue as they are not in article space. The only real reason to have this page deleted is that i can't contribute to the topic area. However, other editors can contribute and i think that they have something to gain from looking at this. Failing that, i'm going to let it be known that i intend to appeal the t-ban and block so then the deletion of this page has no reason. Thanks again Peter --Retartist 05:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see the purpose behind the list, but it is userspace (and sandbox) so works in progress are allowed, though should not be held indefinitely with no usage. You only listed 1 of these problematic refs, it would be helpful if you could list(by directing us to them) more, and why specifically they violate BLP. Most of these are reliable news sources which are unlikely to hold BLP violations. Retartist's topic ban from gamer-gate related pages didn't begin until the day after his last edit to the sandbox, so I don't really see his topic ban being relevant to this. Even if PeterTheFourth's interpretation of the BLP policy is correct and it applies to refs, I'm not seeing why this can't just be fixed by removing the problematic links and (possibly) WP:REVDEL. There's 10 revisions, 2 of which were the nom's, not too much effort to revdel. Userspace is also not the same as an article talk page. People who come looking for the article aren't likely to stumble upon Retartist's sandbox. ― Padenton|   15:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
What would be the proper procedure for requesting a reversion deletion? PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#How_to_request_Revision_Deletion Usually via emailing an admin in the category mentioned there or by IRC. ― Padenton|   17:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:LINKFARM and WP:BLP: Wikipedia is not a repository of links, especially to sources that cannot be used on the project. For example, our uses for Breitbart as a source are essentially limited to WP:ABOUTSELF, and the sources in question are not about Breitbart. Similarly, the Quinn email dump is sourced to the self-published, which we can never use to discuss other living persons. These are sources that simply can never be used per our BLP policies. And even with selective pruning of the sources, we're still left with a perpetual WP:LINKFARM as the user is topic banned. Woodroar (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Woodroar, Looking at WP:LINKFARM, it appears to apply to Article space only. And while there may be genuine concerns about Breitbart as a reliable source for factual information, I'm not certain that we have a policy based reason for its exclusion as a source for its authors' own opinions; provided these are attributed as such (per WP:NPOV). While it might be a lively discussion on WP:RSN, I'm not sure that it's a case for deletion here. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOT does apply site-wide, because it's our policy on what Wikipedia is not to be used for. We're not a dictionary or a webhost or, in this case, a repository of links, and so these types of content shouldn't be found in article or non-article space. (If I started a dictionary in my sandbox or hosted a game in my subpages, I would expect someone to delete that content. I mean, that's part of what MfD is for.) Of course, we're given some latitude per WP:USER, but this fails those guidelines. WP:UP#GOALS makes it clear that we're not to have "[e]xtensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article". And WP:UP#POLEMIC says that "[u]sers should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason" and says that such content should be "kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used". Keep in mind that this user is topic banned and cannot write any articles using this material. That topic ban may be overturned, of course, but if "excessive unrelated content" is already not allowed for editors who aren't topic banned, why should we allow those who are to keep it? As for Breitbart, you're right that we could use their articles in some circumstances, such as for the authors' opinions. However, we can't do that for claims about other living persons. I read each of the Breitbart articles, and every paragraph, every sentence, is about other living persons. So yes, we can generally use Breitbart when the article is discussing Breitbart itself or the author's opinions on sanctions against Cuba or net neutrality or artisanal beekeeping. But not about other people, which is the entirety of these articles. Woodroar (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - The link used as an example above, described as "Gjoni's 'zoe post' blogpost", has now been removed, by agreement with the user, as discussed at User_talk:Retartist#MfD_nomination_of_User:Retartist.2Fsandbox. I note that it is not "redacted" and that the removal is not based on BLP. Regards. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete There are 120 links, and it is not up to editors to carefully check each and find the few that are BLP problems. By contrast, anyone wanting those links hosted on Wikipedia needs to explain how the links help the encyclopedia, and what steps have been taken to ensure no BLP problems exist. See WP:DSLOG#GamerGate which contains 'Retartist...indefinitely banned from "any article, page, or discussion relating to GamerGate, broadly construed" for inserting BLP-violating external links after having previously been offered guidance on such'. No page can be used as a link farm, and particularly not in such a sensitive area where multiple BLP violations by external links have occurred. Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
As has already been said, Retartist's topic ban is irrelevant to this deletion discussion per WP:NPA. Retartist has not edited the sandbox since the topic ban, so it is not a violation of any topic ban. And yes, it is the responsibility of editors to check each. Countless policies say to remove the violating content, not the entirety. For one such policy, Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion. I see no multiple BLP violations at external links on this page. Nom provided one, which was easily removed with the consent of Retartist. You need to provide specifics (just point the rest of us to which refs are the problem) ― Padenton|   17:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly concur that it would be unreasonable, onerous & bordering on dystopian to expect editors to check the contents of each linked page.
Fortunately, WP:BLP does not require this. BLP relates only to "information about living persons" on Wikipedia. WP:BLPTALK explicitly states that links in non-Article space are not in violation of the policy. (Links in article space are covered either by the 3 core content policies or by WP:ELNO). So the good news is that we don't need to vet the linked pages.
Of course, I understand that editors views & opinions on policy will differ, and some editors will feel that links in non-Article space are covered. I invite those editors to show the sections of the policy which would support this view. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • keep Sheer BF nomination as spill over from a dispute re Gamergate.
Also warn PeterTheFourth that retaliatory XfDs are obvious and not tolerated. I'm also concerned that this was first MfDed by a logged-out IP [4], which was soon recognised as his by PeterTheFourth. A logged-out period oddly placed between his logged-in edits shortly before and after: [5]. Surely he wasn't trying to MfD anonymously to hide his identity? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Andy Dingley, On balance[6], I am forced to agree with your characterisation of the nomination. With sincere regret, and a decidedly heavy heart, I am adding an WP:SPA tag to the nomination above. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:AGF. No reason to believe PeterTheFourth was attempting anything illegitimate when making this MfD. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why he may have been already logged out, and I am skeptical of there being anything possible to be gained in that 3 minutes that an IP had tagged the page for mfd before Peter finished the tagging from the account. Maybe it was from a different computer. Maybe it was from a different browser. The fact of the matter is it was made clear to everyone reading the MfD (by PeterTheFourth) that it was by his account before anyone even saw the MfD. The MfD hadn't even been created yet, and it was created by PeterTheFourth. While I don't agree with the nomination, it is based on policy even if there would be a more suitable way to handle the problem than outright deletion. Let's stay on topic.
I'm removing the WP:SPA tag based on WP:SPATG, specifically "Editing only within a single broad topic" there is more than enough diversity in these edits (especially without examining them more thoroughly than just the pages they happen to be on) to imply a user that just has a strong interest in a particular topic. Also, in the future, the spa tag should be "subst'd", see Template:spa Padenton|   16:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Padenton, Many thanks for your thoughts; always good to read a different opinion. Per the note on your Talk page here, I cannot concur that the topic is sufficiently "diversified" or that the editor meets the requirement of having a "diverse range of edits"[7][8]; consequently, I am re-adding the tag (substituted). I trust the editor closing this discussion to form their own judgement. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
On reflection, I think the reasoned arguments provided on this page are sufficient. Removing tag. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete serves no purpose. Just as well may be stored on owner's computer, if archiving is needed. -M.Altenmann >t 07:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Cmsreview/Free will models[edit]

User:Cmsreview/Free will models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned draft, from an article previously deleted by Nihonjoe on September 16, 2009, because it was unambiguous copyright violation of a webpage. The article was then userfied, but never improved by Cmsreview. Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


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

Delete as per WP:STALEDRAFT, and fails WP:N. P 1 9 9   01:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as stale, and obviously copied from an online source. Lisa Gottlieb of Washtenaw County is locally famous but probably not enough for WP:GNG. If the biography is ever to be written this stale userdraft will not be useful. Binksternet (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

May 14, 2015[edit]


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

WP:STALEDRAFT - since 2010 Dweller (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Whatever purpose it served at the time has long ceased to be useful. MarnetteD|Talk 22:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:STALEDRAFT applies to pages that look like articles. This most emphatically is not a draft article. Deleting it because you don't like it and can't discern its purpose is a non-starter too. That's just not a reason to delete it. Based on a review of the articles listed in this processing page, it is a processing page for BLPs lacking sources to support them. Rather than delete this page, people should be going through it to process out the pages that have been lacking citations for a long time. Jack Ankerson and Deborah Andollo for example, which have been tagged that way for five years. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, it **was**, it would seem, a processing page for BLPs lacking sources to support them, but this page is five years old, and consequently, many of the pages listed are now adequately sourced (many others are deleted). Around the time this page was created, there was a huge push to get BLPs sourced or deleted. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Those looking for such articles would, of course, now just click here. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Whether it's a stale draft or not, banned users don't need user subpages. If someone wants to use it, let them use it. If nobody wants to use it, delete it. --B (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep no valid reason for deletion presented. This page isn't an article, so WP:STALEDRAFT doesn't apply, the fact that the user is banned doesn't mean all their subpages have to be deleted and even if there is no conceivable use for the page in the future that still isn't a reason to delete it - we keep plenty of historical pages around, even outside userspace. Hut 8.5 20:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. No rationale for inclusion, so it fails WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT. -- P 1 9 9   14:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You realise this is not an article, right? Hut 8.5 17:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • By applying WP:STALEDRAFT and WP:NLIST strictly to articles only would mean that we could never clean up old and redundant pages. IMO, the principles from these guidelines do apply, regardless if it is a article or not. Anyway, User:Dweller has already clearly described above that this page is redundant and obsolete now. Time to clean it up, this is not Wayback Machine. -- P 1 9 9   19:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The reason we have STALEDRAFT is because content on Wikipedia that looks like an article may mislead the reader into thinking it is actually an article, such pages aren't being maintained or subjected to our content standards, and the potential harm that comes from this outweighs the benefits if the page isn't being actively worked on. This rationale simply does not apply to any page that does not look like an article.
    NLIST just does not apply outside mainspace, as you can see from the wording of the page, and applying it to userspace would make no sense whatsoever. Want to keep a list of articles in your userspace that you're thinking of working on? You can't - unless you can find a reliable source that confirms you're thinking of working on it. Ridiculous.
    We only delete pages here if someone can point to an identifiable reason why keeping pages like that around would cause actual harm. Nobody has done that here. "It's old" is not a valid reason - we have thousands of them. Hut 8.5 20:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

May 13, 2015[edit]

Draft:Delta leisure Group[edit]

Draft:Delta leisure Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP, and the user who created this draft is now blocked. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

If it is indeed the "4th biggest independent record label in the UK" it would be notable. It's worth keeping and finding sources. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I cannot find a source for this, I had a look before putting this up for deletion. Just had another quick look, and still cannot find source supporting this claim. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
While I agree with DGG in principle, I cannot find sources about this either. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Only 1 reference actually mentions the company which merely proves existence, not notability. -- P 1 9 9   14:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


Draft:Intoximeters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft of a blocked user (and possible undisclosed paid editor, see talkpage, although this isn't the main issue), clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Joseph2302 (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. As per User:Worldbruce: "The St. Louis Business Journal is the only source that helps prove notability. It is insufficient on its own. The draft makes a credible claim to importance, that the company played a historic role in the advent of DUI laws, but that claim is not backed up by sources that say that. Another serious problem is that long stretches of the article are not supported by any sources. The subject does not appear to be a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. ... Wikipedia is not for advertising, marketing, or public relations." -- P 1 9 9   14:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Portal:Royal Air Force/Did you know/Archive[edit]

Portal:Royal Air Force/Did you know/Archive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Royal Air Force/Selected picture/Archive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Royal Air Force/Monthly Aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Royal Air Force/Nominate/Selected pict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Royal Air Force/Nominate/Selected ship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Royal Air Force/Weekly Article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

None of these pages have any inlinks. They are all in a category that says "Pages that were archived following the Dec 2008 redesign...". These pages just clutter up category space, what-links-here lists etc. Afaics these pages are not significant in the history of Wikipedia so do not need to be kept for historical reasons. DexDor (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

May 12, 2015[edit]

User:Brake1ra/Lindsay Lou & the Flatbellys[edit]

User:Brake1ra/Lindsay Lou & the Flatbellys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as per WP:STALEDRAFT: not worked on since 2012. P 1 9 9   18:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Module:Br separated entries[edit]

Module:Br separated entries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Module:Separated entries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merging Module:Br separated entries with Module:Separated entries.
These two modules mostly do the same thing, with the exception that Module:Br separated entries can only use <br /> as a separator and Module:Separated entries trims spaces and newlines at the beginning and end of parameters. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge I wrote Module:Br separated entries to have the exact same behaviour as the old Template:Br separated entries, including the amount of whitespace added, but abstracted to any number of entries, rather than just three. However, there probably isn't any actual need to keep the same whitespace as the old template, so I would have no problem with this being merged. (In fact, I think it should ultimately be merged with {{unbulleted list}} for accessibility reasons, although that's a different discussion, and I think that there was a TfD discussion about that already if anyone can dredge up the link.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't we also merge Module:Comma separated entries with these two? Alakzi (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Alakzi: I'm not really sure about that, since it uses the function 'comma-separator' ):plain() and not just a plain character string like ,&#32;. If you feel that it should be added to the nomination then do so. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Hmmm. Presumably, that was done to ease migration to Wikipedias of languages written in the Sino-Japanese and Arabic alphabets. I don't know enough about the localization library to imagine a solution. Mr. Stradivarius? Alakzi (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
        • We don't really need to worry about other-language wikis too much - if they do copy our modules, they can always alter them locally to make them work with the correct punctuation. I don't remember exactly why I chose to use the MediaWiki message now, but it was probably just because it's nice to keep it in sync with the official MediaWiki:Comma-separator. (Not that I can imagine that ever changing.) Still, it's not too hard to merge the modules and still use the MediaWiki message. You can just do something with separate functions like this. By the way, it isn't necessary to use &#32; instead of a normal space - these are used in template code because parser functions like #if trim whitespace, but this isn't a problem in Lua modules. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
          • The separator is a named parameter, so whitespace is stripped before it is passed on to the module.
            {{#invoke:Separated entries|main|1|2|separator= }}
            12. Alakzi (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
            • Yep, so you should do it in the module itself if you can. If you use {{#invoke:Separated entries|main|1|2|separator= }}, then the space will get trimmed to an empty string before being passed to Lua, and then if you html-encode it inside Lua it would still be an empty string. So html-encoding wouldn't make any difference in that scenario. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
              • I'm not sure what the relevance of HTML decoding to unescaped whitespace is; encoded whitespace, newlines, and other specials need to be decoded to be registered by the MediaWiki parser farther down the pipe, e.g. in constructing a list. If I were to remove mw.text.decode, * {{#invoke:Separated entries|main|1|2|3|4|5|separator=&#10;*}} would not produce a list. I suppose we could assign the first and second unnamed parameters to the separator and conjunction, but that would come at the expense of an intuitive interface. Alakzi (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
                • Ah, decoding, not encoding. Sorry, I misread the module. It's an interesting idea, but still probably not necessary. If you're making a template for other users to use, it would be better to put the separator inside the module itself, as that's faster than going through an intermediate template that does the same thing (and would only be able to make a limited number of items available). And for end users typing the separator in themselves, it would be easier to just type the whole list in as wikitext rather than have to figure out how HTML entities work. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

May 1, 2015[edit]

Draft:Fast Toys Club[edit]

Draft:Fast Toys Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Created by blocked user, who according to their userpage is probably an undisclosed paid editor. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 12:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 12:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 12:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Blocked sock. MER-C 12:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment @Joseph2302: Are you sure you've MfD'd the right article? The creator of the draft has a clean block log and no userpage. Or are you referring to blocked sock User:Mr.sahota, who made a few later edits? Because I can't see anything in his userpage history that looks like a COI declaration. Bosstopher (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bosstopher: I was referring to User:Mr.sahota, although it appears they weren't the creator. This makes this argument completely invalid therefore? Joseph2302 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't seem to find where Mr.sahota makes the COI declaration, can you point me to the diff?Bosstopher (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

May 10, 2015[edit]

Draft:The New Theory Of Everything[edit]

Draft:The New Theory Of Everything (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A draft that never stands a chance as an article (WP:NOT#SOAPBOX). Magog the Ogre (t c) 02:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

May 8, 2015[edit]


User:Gvf23 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Inproper use of userpage. It is in fact an article earlier deleted/redirected conform Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Universe 2015 (2nd nomination) The Banner talk 16:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to User Sandbox/draft space While the article was redirected, it was done under the expectation that it would be recreated if the event goes ahead. Therefore it makes sense to hold onto the old article in userspace and improve it in preparation. Bosstopher (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

May 6, 2015[edit]

Draft:Liquid crystal water[edit]

Draft:Liquid crystal water (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure what the standard is for this, but I think it is probably hopeless that this particular draft will ever be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia articlespace. The reason for this is that the ostensible subject is only promoted by WP:FRINGE groups and no outside notice of this idea seems to exist. Articles on individual researchers can include their particular claims, but this piece is largely an example of synthesis of similar but separate proposals about weird water behavior. Not sure what the standard is for deleting drafts (the policies and guidelines about this are fairly vague), but we did give this page enough time to develop and I'm fairly convinced that we're not going to be able to address the problems that were brought up. jps (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep looks to be adequately referenced, and is heading in a suitable direction. A draft can have more flaws than an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. See the comments I placed on the article's talk page and the fringe noticeboard. The issue is not with the referencing or the structure of the content; the issue I have is with the content itself. It is not a spinout of the discussion of hydrogen bonding and intermolecular forces in water, and I'd be even more opposed to keeping the article under a different title. Long range molecular ordering in water does not happen because of anything like the intermolecular interactions in a liquid crystal.
The article presents an unusual problem for a science article. It doesn't look wrong, but it is, and it's difficult to see why it's wrong. I don't think I can clearly and concisely explain why it's wrong; that's not relevant, though. If liquid crystal water is not a fringe phenomenon, there should be multiple independent, high-impact sources that agree, including review articles. Currently, the article does have some references to peer-reviewed journals, but that's below the standard I think is necessary. Roches (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I think, consistent with what Roches is saying, that this article can be seen as a potential Fringe / UNDUE spinout of Properties_of_water. As such, as a general principle, I think it should only be allowed if there is consensus at the parent article for a large section to cover the subtopic within the parent article, except only for problems of article size. From what Roches says, this sounds very unlikely. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep We cover fringe. This is fringe, and it's sufficiently notable to be worth an article; at least, it needs a chance to become an article. I dislike our tendency to reduce coverage of unpopular subjects, and I really dislike in the strongest terms any attempt to inhibit people from trying to cover them properly. This draft would need significant rewriting, but it will be easier to deal with that by having a draft to start with. For a quick idea of where this actually fits into the current scheme of science, see Gilbert Ling#Polarized-oriented multilayer theory. Articles on either science or pseudo science should include the collection and recapitulation and organization of the individual sources on the subject. That's not what we mean by WP:SYN -- the prohibited WP:SYN is our drawing factual conclusions where the authors of the works cited have not done so. I am not impressed by the argument that this should be deleted because it is fringe--I agree it's pretty clearly fringe, but it is a total misapplication of WP:FRINGE to say we should not cover it. That's what Roches and {{U|[[User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc}} seem to be saying. And, @SmokeyJoe, that the draft might be misused is no reason not to use it properly. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
"that the draft might be misused"? Did I say that? I read the draft again. I can't say that it is clever malicious nonsense. Much seems so reasonable. It's a subject of surprising complexity. Not having any better advice, I advise the authors to very strictly stick to independent secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
We should not present the idea that water behaves as a liquid crystal as a fact. The discussion of clathrates in the 2002 article linked above is not related to liquid crystals, nor is the formation of micelles. The term "liquid crystal" means something specific and it means something that this article does not touch on. You could say water is a semiconductor because it's sometimes an insulator and sometimes a conductor, depending on the amount of dissolved salts, right? But that's a misapplication of "semiconductor" and this article is a misapplication of "liquid crystal."
I don't think this is really fringe science or fringe research, because there doesn't seem to be any research involved. It seems to consist of, on one hand, actual research into specific behaviors of water, and on the other hand commentary from unreviewed sources on why this means water is a liquid crystal. I guess there is a place for covering fringe beliefs that are wrong. But this article explains phenomena that are adequately explained in other ways and says they should be explained by magic. Roches (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it's anything, it's a POV fork of Properties of water. (Arguably, it could also form a portion of Gerald Pollock—if this draft were significantly trimmed and contextualized, and if we were to determine Pollock notable enough for his own biography. Please, nobody go create that bio just to be a WP:COATRACK.)

    What we have – and despite repeated requests on this point, what we still have – is a very inventive bit of WP:OR (heavy on the WP:SYN) coupled to a serious WP:NPOV violation (centered on WP:WEIGHT issues). The draft has a fair number of citations, certainly, but their application and interpretation is problematic. Actual, direct support for this theory comes down to a number of low-impact primary publications (including some self-published books) by a very small number of authors. In addition, we see a small number of cites to independent, credible sources, from which cherry-picked factoids are pulled out of context to 'support' this theory; these independent papers don't seem to ever use the phrase "liquid crystal water". There isn't any robust secondary coverage of this theory at all; everything directly referring to it seems to come from its tiny cadre of proponents. We're left with a situation where not only is there now outside criticism of the topic, we can't even find outside comment.

    What it comes down to is this—without independent secondary coverage, it's impossible for us to write a proper encyclopedia article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Per Roches and TenOfAllTrades. This article is based on a walled garden of primary OR, and SPS sources. There is no mainstream high quality scientific source that supports the existence of this form of water, not even one. There isn't even mainstream repudiation of it, mainstream science has so far completely ignored it. So nesxt step is to see if it passes notability as a fringe topic like UFOs and healing crystals? But no, even as a FRINGE topic it still fails to pass NOTABILITY - due to the walled garden nature of the sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Global agenda[edit]

Wikipedia:Global agenda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm surprised that anyone would create a page like this. WP (or for that matter the WMF) should not have any "global agenda" save to create a neutral compilation of free knowledge. I appreciate that there are global problems that need fixing, but that it not Wikipedia's job. It flies in the face of neutrality, and it is a gross deviation from our mission. This page is meant for "using the power of Wikipedia to address global challenges". How would the proponents of the page propose to do this on Wikipedia? Manipulating the articles? That's POV-pushing. Holding discussions about world problems in projectspace? That's WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTPOLITICALTHINKTANK. What is acceptable is writing neutral and well-sourced articles concerning such matters, but that is already being done and needs no coordination.

This project was built as an encyclopedia, a gazetteer, and almanac, and a community. It was not built as an advocacy site, and this site and the Wikimedia Foundation are not [supposed to be] an organization of political advocates. This falls afoul of Wikipedia's policies. It should be deleted. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Comments: The entire contents of Wikipedia:Global agenda are "This page is to be used for setting out a plan for using the power of Wikipedia to address global challenges. Please discuss this plan on the talk page." There is no mention of advocacy—especially, there is no mention of political advocacy. If people are in general agreement about global challenges, then they can address them by themselves without political governments. However, there can be internal negotiations about procedures, so there can be various internal (non-political) advocacies converging toward a consensus, in the same way that negotiations take place on many Wikipedia pages.
Wavelength (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
"Using the power of Wikipedia" is not among the goals of wikipedians. The goal is to create wikipedia. Anything else is distraction and waste of already scarce workforce of wikipedians. Let WMF awash in donations they don't know how to spend worry about the World Peace. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
My motivation for starting Wikipedia:Global agenda came from comments in the third paragraph posted by Jimbo Wales on his talk page at 18:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC). That paragraph is reproduced below.

I have always said that we are more than just a highly technical effort - Wikipedia is a moral statement about the kind of world we would like to live in. I see room for action in this kind of situation, but rather than having this conversation at the moment of emergency, where all the usual complexities tend to weigh against action of any kind, I'd rather see us have a more focussed and serious conversation about how we ought to use our invisible and unused power to put things on the global agenda in a major way.

Those comments were made by Jimbo Wales, and I am very interested to learn his thoughts about Wikipedia:Global agenda. Please note that the discussion began with an appeal to use links on Wikipedia to help victims of the 2015 Nepal earthquake, and that many non-political organizations providing that help are listed at "Humanitarian response to the 2015 Nepal earthquake". The scope of Wikipedia:Global agenda does not need to include political matters.
Wavelength (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep or move - As the creation of this page was generated by a comment that I made, I was asked to comment on this MfD. First, the Wikipedia community has, at times, engaged in what is hard to characterize as anything other than "political" action - most notably in the case of Sopa/Pipa in the English Wikipedia, but also similar actions in other major languages such as Italian and Russian. Second, many times there have been discussions about what moral responsibility or ambition we might have with respect to global crises of various non-political kinds. I remember in particular a big debate about whether to run some kind of banner around Hurricane Katrina, and a similar debate about the 2004 Tsunami relief efforts. All of these debates and discussions are valid and important and as the nominator has said, there are some very strong reasons to be cautious here.
But if we are going to act in some cases, and not act in others, using or not using our (rather larger than most people here realize) global power, then we should have a clear-cut set of principles, formulated in the abstract during calm times, to guide us. Therefore, the purpose of this page is valid.
The reason I say "Keep or move" rather than simply "Keep" is that I'm open to a rename or a move to a different place. But shutting down the discussion pre-emptively before we have a chance to formulate and clarify ideas, doesn't mean deciding that we will never do anything. It means deciding to continue acting in an ad hoc and relatively unprincipled way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I am sad that Jimbo decided to finish his argument with an insult to all wikipedians, of kind "deciding to continue beating our wives". In fact, there is nothing wrong in acting ad hoc, because you cannot invent a rule for every accident. In fact, the whole wikipedia policy has been evolving in an ad hoc way: all additions to it have been purely ad hoc: a new rule was created only when a significant particular necessity arose. The same is here: the page Wikipedia:Global agenda is empty. I read it that the necessity is hot here yet. And for such cases we have a principle, too: "use common sense", i.e., hardly "relatively unprincipled". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - how do you know what policies or guidelines or whatever might be discussed? Nobody does. If/when some do, you can !vote on any proposal. Meanwhile, allow discussions, don't stifle it by deleting things. I'm really amazed and baffled that you're choosing to delete a blank non-article page, based on the 2-word title. (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - we are not here to "address global challenges", we are here to build an encyclopedia. Debating whether and how to use Wikipedia to save the world will only be a distraction from that. The "clear-cut set of principles" should be "don't do it". I supported the SOPA action, with some qualms, but that was an exceptional case, and to go any further is to start down a slippery slope taking us away from our core purpose. JohnCD (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I'd like you to consider it from this angle: with SOPA (and similar actions around the world) we are already doing such actions and without any abstract principles to guide us. If the "clear-cut set of principles" really should be "don't do it" then we'd best host this discussion and determine that, rather than continue in an ad hoc fashion. My own view is that we should do some things, and we should clearly delineate it so that we don't go down a slippery slope. I think the current path we are on will lead to gradual and unprincipled expansion simply because we haven't had this kind of discussion in a non-crisis time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
We have the principles already: the First Pillar: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", and What Wikipedia is not, including Wikipedia is not a soapbox: "Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so." This seems to be a proposal to discuss bending those principles. JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. It seems perfectly reasonable to have this page, even if it will end up merely saying something along the lines of "we are not here to address global challenges, we are here to build an encyclopedia", as JohnCD argues above. Deli nk (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:NOT should cover that quite easily (and if it doesn't, maybe a sentence could be added). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete WP:NOTHERE-kind of page. "Gigantomania" and "delusion of grandeur" terms come to my mind. As if creating the greatest encyclopedia ever is not enough. To the point: I see no explanation how the suggested political stuff can help in improving the encyclopedia we are building. Yes, there are lots of noble goals, like Save the Rainforest, World Peace, etc., but there are better venues for pursuing these. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Comments: As I stated above, the scope of Wikipedia:Global agenda does not need to include political matters. Also, there are some possible initiatives that can improve Wikipedia.
(1) Improving literacy can lead to increased numbers of readers and editors.
(2) Improving income equality can lead to a reduction in the number of dead links to external pages that need to be discontinued because of insufficient funds.
(3) Improving civility can lead to improved collaboration among present and future Wikipedians.
Wavelength (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, sure, and manufacturing cheap computers will make them affordable in African villages thus more wikipedians increase coverage of African topics in unreferenced articles. Or lobby to ban Facebook, so that people stop idle socializing and start writing wikipedia, like it was 11 years ago. None of our business, I say. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • P.S. It also comes to my mind that once we start identifying any agenda other than you know what, the whole idea of WP:NPOV lands on a very slippery slope. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: JohnCD puts it well: we don't need this page because we already have pages that discuss "a plan for using the power of Wikipedia to address global challenges": the pages are WP:5P and WP:NOT, and the plan is "we don't". Writ Keeper  08:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or at a pinch userify. I can see no circumstances in which Wikipedia should ever be "using the power of Wikipedia to address global challenges". Abandoning neutrality would be such a fundamental change, it would need a huge RFC (and would probably rip the Wikipedia editor base in half, given the number of resignations it would provoke). If someone wants to start a userspace essay on why they think Wikipedia should abandon NPOV, feel free, but there's no way this should have the stamp of apparent legitimacy by being in project space. – iridescent 10:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Comments: At User talk:Jimbo Wales#Disaster relief donations (version of 14:10, 9 May 2015), I posted these comments [at 20:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC) and 22:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC) and 03:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC) and 13:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)].

I have started Wikipedia:Global agenda "for setting out policies and guidelines related to Wikipedia and the use of its power and influence for addressing global issues" [revised: "for setting out a plan for using the power of Wikipedia to address global challenges"]. However, Wikipedians vary widely in their beliefs and values, with various areas of overlap. Therefore, there could be many resignations by Wikipedians in protest, if details are not decided carefully. Also, it should be noted that some Wikipedians may choose to abstain from political issues.

Please note the last six words of the second last sentence ("if details are not decided carefully").
Wavelength (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing your point. Abandoning NPOV would be the most fundamental change in the Wikipedia's history since "cite your sources" was pushed through more than a decade ago. "Deciding on the details" would be a WP:BIKESHED discussion, since there's no possible way to "address global challenges" which isn't going to alienate a significant number of editors. – iridescent 08:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep at least until content is developed. I am quite open-minded about what types of content should be allowed in project-space. If you disagree with what you think is proposed to be here, then comment on the talk page or discuss with relevant users. Deleting the page before it is even started doesn't seem like a great way to work collaboratively. If you don't think Wikipedia should have a global agenda, then maybe that can be the content of the page, with explanations as to why. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - my feeling is that this is obvious Meta fodder. With SUL and even automatic transfer of log-ins, there's little excuse left not to use that site for what it's for. Wnt (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep or move - Since this type of question has come up before, and since it is very likely to come up again, we should have a place to discuss it. Ultimately that may be on meta, but until we get a better idea of the scope of what we're talking about, I'll suggest it stay here until the folks who started it come up with a limited scope (within a few weeks I hope). I've put my specific thoughts on what it could do at Wikipedia talk:Global agenda. It would be stretching thing to say that my ideas are political, they are just about external links to charitable organizations helping people after natural disasters. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Tentative keep. While I strongly agree with non-political stand of WP, I must also agree with User:Wavelength that a Global agenda does not need to include political matters. And I'm wondering if pursuing any agenda would divert a lot of resources away from building the encyclopedia. Anyway, it's a little premature to delete this page as per User:This,_that_and_the_other. On the other hand, this discussion should really be held at Meta-Wiki. -- P 1 9 9   19:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong meh - This is borderline out of scope and these proposals seem alarmingly unrelated to the WMF's Mission Statement (which, let's remember, is about education). But I'm pretty sure this will go down like a lead balloon anyway, so we might as well let the community reject it the "right" way. --NYKevin 02:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedians can address global challenges within the scope of building an encyclopedia, simply by contributing to the quality and quantity of articles closely related to those challenges, with a neutral presentation of views. (There can be links to pages with additional information on other Wikimedia projects and on websites beyond Wikimedia projects.) However, it is important to remember that humans have limitations.
Wavelength (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Please note the reason this entire debate started;
I thought it'd be helpful to readers to add an external link to 'Donate' to April 2015 Nepal earthquake - see [9]. Is all. Discussion here (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
So where do we draw the line on advocacy? Let's draw a line in the sand between education and advocacy. Educating people is a tool to encourage advocacy. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • VERY STRONG DELETE. Wavelength, the author, has a history of creating pages that are outside of the scope of WP and this is definitely one of them. Wavelength has taken the comment from Jimbo too far, and I am surprised at the comments made by Jimbo in this Mfd.
As others have stated here and elsewhere WP works within the mission statement of the WMF and within the principles of WP. Any political action should be taken by the WMF. Leave WP out of it. WP is an encyclopedia. We inform and educate. By doing that it allows others to be guided in their political actions.
I think I was neutral on the SOPA blackout but in hindsight it should not have been done. Let's not cross the line to political advocacy. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The phrase "global agenda" does not mean "political advocacy". I myself have never intended that Wikipedia:Global agenda be used for political purposes, although other editors may wish to use it for those purposes. It can still be used for many non-political non-advocatory purposes, such as the improvement of articles in Category:Disaster management.
Wavelength (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Point taken but the title name is very suggestive of using WP for, well, a global agenda. My rationale for deletion remain the same. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is a two sentence page with the suggestion to discuss it on the talk page. This is not how WP works. If the page creator cannot be bothered to put up more information the editor should have discussed it before creating a page that is currently going nowhere. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia's "Global Agenda" is its 5 pillars.Bosstopher (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

May 5, 2015[edit]


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

Wikipedia is not a web host for fantasy reality game shows. This appears to be fake versions of Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 2) and Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 3). Whpq (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. This should have been deleted per WP:CSD#U5. MER-C 06:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


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

Wikipedia is not a web host for fantasy reality game shows. This appears to be a fake version of Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 3). Whpq (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. This should have been deleted per WP:CSD#U5 -- it even says "ANTM16 MY WAY" in the table of contents. MER-C 06:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

April 28, 2015[edit]

User:SheffieldSteel/Admin (2nd nomination)[edit]

User:SheffieldSteel/Admin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (2nd nomination)

The user's admin rights were revoked due to inactivity. After which more than 3 years of complete inactivity passed. As such, this page serves no purpose other than possibly shaming the users mentioned on it. In the interest of honesty, I also had the opinion that such a page was a bad idea (basically an attack page that should be dealt with in accordance with CSD G10) when the user was still an active admin. However, regardless it no longer serves any good purpose or any purpose at all. Law Lord (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I wonder what has changed since the last time Law Lord attempted to get this page deleted. My interactions with him are still the most prominent feature on the page. Have his interactions with other users improved dramatically? Is he now less of a spiteful and vindictive individual? Is there no longer any purpose in keeping a record of his past conduct? I very much hope so. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 03:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete If users cannot record admin actions per WP:UP#POLEMIC, I don't see why admins should be allowed to either. See MfD of one of my pages: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Surturz/AdminWatch --Surturz (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete SheffieldSteel's comment demonstrates aptly why this page should be deleted. Seems to be claiming the page should be kept as a black mark against someone he thinks is a "spiteful and vindictive individual." Violation of WP:POLEMIC.Bosstopher (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


User:Toddst1/sandbox/Glasshole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT – Has not been edited since April 2013 except for one bot edit thereafter. A redirect already exists at Glasshole which redirects to Google Glass#Criticism and privacy concerns. North America1000 13:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what possible difference does it make to anyone if this draft exists in Todd's user space? It has some sources, it could be useful at some point. Why on earth is deleting it worth the effort? Go Phightins! 01:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep This page is really doing no harm and could be useful if the User returns. JZCL 16:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:STALEDRAFT and WP:NEO. This can be adequately covered at Google Glass. -- P 1 9 9   01:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

April 26, 2015[edit]

Draft:MD Rabbi Alam[edit]

Draft:MD Rabbi Alam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Been to AfD twice already at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MD Rabbi Alam (2nd nomination). Time to stop this until he is actually notable. Fiddle Faddle 20:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. I see some third party sources cited in the draft, and it looks as though it's still being actively edited. Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Dtalbott/bio notes[edit]

User:Dtalbott/bio notes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Seems to be, at least in part, a violation of WP:ATTACKPAGE. jps (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • weak keep seems to be more criticism than attack, but it is related to Wikipedia pages and so has some reason for keeping. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Do you think calling me a "modern-day Inquisitor", my actions "foolhardy" and "motivated by ignorance and ideological zeal" is "more criticism than attack"? jps (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

      Certain actions by ScienceApologist need to be called out. Use of the terms "pseudoscience" and "pseudoarchaeology" in officially categorizing the work underway is a foolhardy insult to all who are now devoting their lives to this investigation. When a modern-day Inquisitor, motivated by ignorance and ideological zeal, seeks to discredit the work of others by such offensive language it is an additional offense when his "colleagues" indulge his pretentiousness and do nothing. If uninformed editors can shoot first and ask questions later in this fashion, why would anyone trust Wikipedia's treatment of work challenging ANY sacred creed of institutionalized science? How easily we forget that such challenges are the essential content of scientific progress.

  • strong keep There are no attacks (per nomination) on this page. When one considers the history between User:jps (nominator) and User:Dtalbott one can only conclude that this Mfd is itself an attack. To assume good faith would be to ignore both the on-site and the off-site interactions in the past between jps, Dtalbott and myself. For this page to be deleted would be to (again) have Wikipedia become the tool of zealots rather than the encyclopedia it aspires to become. As jps has for many years taken an adversarial stance toward Dtalbott and anything Dtalbott is associated with, it would be laughable, if it weren't so serious a violation of CoI, for this MfD to be successful. This page is in userspace and it violates nothing. Davesmith au (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

April 8, 2015[edit]

User:AmritasyaPutra/getting trolled[edit]

User:AmritasyaPutra/getting trolled (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is effectively a grudge list of statements that AmritasyaPutra took offense to by people that have been in conflicts with them. The notion that it is meant to be "humorous" is clearly disingenuous. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Ah, somebody came across this page, I see. Since I am the star (villain?) of it I'd rather not vote, as AP is likely to scream COI, but if the page genuinely were humorous, it would not be chock-full of diffs from the two editors this guy has had the most disputes with. Edit summaries like "endless nonsense" and "from the looney toons" (whatever those might be) are hardly helping his case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a user page. It is tagged as humour. It is a collection of direct quotes from talk pages. Some links are even stale. There is no commentary on any contributor, it is what they have said on talk pages. Yes, it is limited to few users including the nominator, the collection itself is small too. This is a nomination after nominator's altercation with me here. This is several months old and there has been no concern raised on the talk page. --AmritasyaPutraT 05:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:POLEMIC says: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed" Nowhere does the policy say that if you tag it with the humour tag you get a free pass to store "laundry list of wrongs, a collation of diffs and criticisms related to problems". So the question is: are you going to use these diffs for anything or not? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
That's hilarious, that really is. Do you think placing a "humor" tag on the top of a page allows you to post whatever you like? D'you really believe the page went unnoticed, when you linked it from your user-page? The users you describe as trolls, ie myself and Kautilya, have been aware of this for months; we just didn't rise to the bait. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Those are remarks I found amusing. Anyone can read "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it seriously." right on top of the page prominently in bold. They are links to article talk page section and not isolated diffs. I collect from what I come across, I do not scourge the Wikipedia for examples. I was not involved in all of them. Neither is there any comment from my side, nor the title or content has any commentary on any editor from me. There are 11 links to discussion and 4 editors and in 4 of them I am no way connected/involved and 3 of the links have even become stale. None of them is a highlight of personal attack by you or maunus or anyone else. It is definitely not "Very divisive or offensive material" as WP:POLEMIC conveys. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete- this is very clearly a list of perceived slights, and slapping a template on the top saying "Hur hur hur I'm just joking around" to protect it, is not going to work. Reyk YO! 06:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I consider them out-of-the-discussion remarks and hence the title 'trolling', I do not see them as insults towards me(in discussions I participated in), or any other editor, I am open to you/others striking out the one which is considered insulting to any editor. There is little I can do if there is no feedback/suggestion/comment, you will find me cooperative. Like I said above: There are 11 links to discussion and 4 editors and in 4 of them I am no way connected/involved and 3 of the links have even become stale. --AmritasyaPutraT 08:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It is not in this page nor linked as a diff. It is on an article talk page discussion. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is only in userspace. Similar drafts are also in userspaces elsewhere like here and nobody complains of it. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note the owner of this page has copied the content over to another userpage, where it continues to be called "trolling." It lacks the humor tag now, but has a rather meaningless message from the creator. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note AP has also removed the mfd notice, contrary to the instructions on said notice. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep As one of the people that has had long exasperating debates of very low quality with the owner of this page, I think this infantile effort to let off some steam doesn't hurt any one. Let it be. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Reyk. AP is free to gather lists of grievances on their own computer to their heart's content. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reasons Reyk brought up. Weegeerunner (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.