Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

Administrator instructions

Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals

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

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

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Module:, 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.

Contents


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

August 20, 2014[edit]

User:Russavia/Lenk[edit]

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

User requested it be deleted, and we already have an article on this subject. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Ladiesofpeanut/Peanut Pet Shelter[edit]

User:Ladiesofpeanut/Peanut Pet Shelter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft with no edits in 48+ months. Editors is not active. Subject does not appear to be notable. PNGWantok (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Lagb3/Miss Des Moines Pageant[edit]

User:Lagb3/Miss Des Moines Pageant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft with no edits in 48+ months. Editor is no longer active. Looking at the text it looks like it may be a copyright violation. Subject is likely to be not notable outside of Des Moines. PNGWantok (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:LakesideParent/Lakeside Joint School District[edit]

User:LakesideParent/Lakeside Joint School District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft with no edits in 48+ months. Editor is no longer active. The information is written like a personal essay. A stub exists at Lakeside Joint School District. PNGWantok (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Laburtonne/Battle for Milkquarious[edit]

User:Laburtonne/Battle for Milkquarious (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft with no edits in 48+ months. Editor is no longer active. The subject may be notable, but this is written like an advertisement. PNGWantok (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Lamjmss/Enter your new article name here[edit]

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

Stale userspace draft which has not been edited in 24+ months. Editor is no longer active. Does not look like a notable band. PNGWantok (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Laetitiacelsa/new article name here[edit]

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

Stale userspace draft which has not been edited in 48+ months. Editor is no longer active. PNGWantok (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Ladyleeloo/Paul Barry (songwriter)[edit]

User:Ladyleeloo/Paul Barry (songwriter) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft which has not been edited in 36+ months. Article now exists at Paul Barry (songwriter). PNGWantok (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Lailafayek/Zoheir Garana[edit]

User:Lailafayek/Zoheir Garana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 24+ months. Editor no longer active. PNGWantok (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:LadyShauncia/Pikahsso[edit]

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

Stale userspace draft not edited in 36+ months. Article exists at Pikahsso. PNGWantok (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Laitipay/WOWIO[edit]

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

Stale userspace draft not edited in 24+ months. Editor no longer active. Article exists at WOWIO. PNGWantok (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Rwityk/Anti-Falun Gong Chinese Propaganda[edit]

User:Rwityk/Anti-Falun Gong Chinese Propaganda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 24+ months. Editor is no longer active. This subject is well covered in the encyclopaedia. PNGWantok (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:RukhShona/Enter your new article name here[edit]

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

Stale userspace draft not edited in more than 48+ months. Article exists at Executive master's degree. PNGWantok (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:RussellChedzoy/Elizabeth Rollins-Scott (Artist)[edit]

User:RussellChedzoy/Elizabeth Rollins-Scott (Artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in more than 36+ months. Editor no longer active. PNGWantok (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Russell corbyn/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:Russell corbyn/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in more than 24+ months. Article exists at Longmyndian Supergroup PNGWantok (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Russbus64/Marshall Eriksen[edit]

User:Russbus64/Marshall Eriksen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not worked on for 24+ months. Article exists in mainspace at Marshall Eriksen. PNGWantok (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Russ Tannen/theoldbluelast[edit]

User:Russ Tannen/theoldbluelast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not worked on for 48+ months. Editor no longer active. Does not seem notable. PNGWantok (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Russavia/Polet[edit]

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

Stale userspace draft not worked on for 24+ months. Editor is indefinitely blocked. No content different to Polet Airlines. PNGWantok (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Qwerty.nose/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:Qwerty.nose/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article exists at B. B. Moeur Activity Building PNGWantok (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:QSjohn/New Ulaanbaatar International Airport[edit]

User:QSjohn/New Ulaanbaatar International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article now exists at New Ulaanbaatar International Airport PNGWantok (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Qj786007/Qasim iqbal jalali[edit]

User:Qj786007/Qasim iqbal jalali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited for more than 24+ months. Editor no longer active. Looks like a non-notable individual. PNGWantok (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Qwerty786/Vladislav Tarasenko[edit]

User:Qwerty786/Vladislav Tarasenko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited for more than 24+ months. No content PNGWantok (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:RachelOwen/Air hollywood[edit]

User:RachelOwen/Air hollywood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited for more than 24+ months. Editor no longer active. PNGWantok (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Qaiassist/Integrated Methodology[edit]

User:Qaiassist/Integrated Methodology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft created over 48+ months ago. Editor is indefinitely blocked. PNGWantok (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Qaches1/David Parkes[edit]

User:Qaches1/David Parkes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft. The subject is not notable. PNGWantok (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Surelyitsjohn/olympic test[edit]

User:Surelyitsjohn/olympic test (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. The editor is no longer active. The article reads like a made-up biography. PNGWantok (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Blue73/Four Lanterns[edit]

User:Blue73/Four Lanterns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Not worked on in 4 years. The editor is no longer active. An article has been previously twice deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Lanterns (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Lanterns PNGWantok (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Node ue/Antarctic language[edit]

User:Node ue/Antarctic language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is obviously no Antarctic language (hoax). Created near 10 years ago. Author is semi-active. PNGWantok (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:17poets/New Orleans Poetry Publishing History[edit]

User:17poets/New Orleans Poetry Publishing History (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft which hasn't been worked on for 36+ months. No recent edits from the editor on Wikipedia. Some text is a copyright violation of sources such as this. PNGWantok (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:1913Rambler/Engineered Air[edit]

User:1913Rambler/Engineered Air (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft which hasn't been worked on for 36+ months. No recent edits from the editor on Wikipedia. PNGWantok (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:193.60.78.34/The Drendler Curve[edit]

User:193.60.78.34/The Drendler Curve (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace which hasn't been worked on in 14+ months. No other major edits from the editor. Interesting theory though. PNGWantok (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:195.195.250.100/The Allison-Reckitt Constant[edit]

User:195.195.250.100/The Allison-Reckitt Constant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace which hasn't been worked on in 12+ months. No other major edits from the editor. Appears to be something some high school children made up. PNGWantok (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:20supriya/Oaktree international school[edit]

User:20supriya/Oaktree international school (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft which hasn't been worked on for 24+ months. No recent edits from the editor on Wikipedia. Subject article exists at Oaktree International School, Kolkata PNGWantok (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:20supriya/Oaktree International School[edit]

User:20supriya/Oaktree International School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft which hasn't been worked on for 24+ months. No recent edits from the editor on Wikipedia. Subject article exists at Oaktree International School, Kolkata PNGWantok (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:202.53.68.18/Chowlamaddi[edit]

User:202.53.68.18/Chowlamaddi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace. Not edited in more than 12 months. Draft creator not active. Nothing that can be salvaged from this draft. PNGWantok (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Ogmsmith/2011–12 Albany Great Danes women's basketball team[edit]

User:Ogmsmith/2011–12 Albany Great Danes women's basketball team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft which hasn't been worked on for 12+ months. No recent edits from the editor on Wikipedia. Draft appears to be a copypaste of 2011–12 Connecticut Huskies women's basketball team but not attributed. PNGWantok (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:1stnationalbankmusc/First National Bank of Muscatine[edit]

User:1stnationalbankmusc/First National Bank of Muscatine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft which hasn't been worked on in 48+ months. No other major edits from the editor. User:1stnationalbankmusc/First_National_Bank_of_Muscatine#Achievements is also copied from this PNGWantok (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Glsyme/2012 AFL Finals Series[edit]

User:Glsyme/2012 AFL Finals Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft which hasn't been worked on in 21+ months. No other major edits from the editor. Article subject exists at 2012 AFL finals series PNGWantok (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:2.238.129.68/Microrapping[edit]

User:2.238.129.68/Microrapping (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace which hasn't been worked on in 16+ months. No other major edits from the editor. PNGWantok (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:2.28.58.225/Detinator[edit]

User:2.28.58.225/Detinator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace which hasn't been worked on in 12+ months. No other major edits from the editor. Subject does not appear to be notable. The image also probably should be deleted. PNGWantok (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:117.198.225.148/3 Man Band[edit]

User:117.198.225.148/3 Man Band (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace which hasn't been worked on in 16+ months. No other major edits from the editor. Potential article currently redirects to List of WWE personnel PNGWantok (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:119.92.173.171/Mark Anthony Montero[edit]

User:119.92.173.171/Mark Anthony Montero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace which hasn't been worked on in 16+ months. No other major edits from the editor. Subject of the article does not seem to exist. PNGWantok (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:14.194.182.247/Dyfi volly fair Meppayur[edit]

User:14.194.182.247/Dyfi volly fair Meppayur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace which hasn't been worked on in 15+ months. No other major edits from the editor. PNGWantok (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:112.207.212.88/SharePirate.Com[edit]

User:112.207.212.88/SharePirate.Com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace which hasn't been worked on in 13+ months. No other major edits from the editor. Subject does not seem notable. PNGWantok (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:111.93.67.98/Samadhiyala (Mulani)[edit]

User:111.93.67.98/Samadhiyala (Mulani) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace which hasn't been worked on in 14+ months. No other major edits from the editor. PNGWantok (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:14.139.180.67/EASAN THANGU[edit]

User:14.139.180.67/EASAN THANGU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace which hasn't been worked on in 12+ months. No other major edits from the editor. PNGWantok (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:02coled/Liverpool John Moores Fury American Football Team[edit]

User:02coled/Liverpool John Moores Fury American Football Team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft last edited two years ago. No other edits from this editor. PNGWantok (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:02gwood/Simone Rochelle[edit]

User:02gwood/Simone Rochelle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft last edited two years ago. No other edits from this editor. PNGWantok (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:173.181.111.157/Little Miss Trainwreck[edit]

User:173.181.111.157/Little Miss Trainwreck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article in IP userspace created by a registered editor for whom this is the only edit. PNGWantok (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:174.114.119.84/SiSwati Alphabet[edit]

User:174.114.119.84/SiSwati Alphabet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article in IP userspace created by a registered editor for whom this is the only edit. PNGWantok (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:007reji/4 Seasons Custom Clothiers[edit]

User:007reji/4 Seasons Custom Clothiers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I can't find anything that would indicate this is a notable subject. The draft was last edited 17 month ago. The editor is not active since placing this draft. PNGWantok (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:000fm000/Buster Rogue[edit]

User:000fm000/Buster Rogue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I can't find anything that would indicate this is a notable subject. The draft was last edited 17 month ago. The editor is not active since placing this draft. PNGWantok (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

August 19, 2014[edit]

Talk:BRIC/draft[edit]

Talk:BRIC/draft (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Stale draft that is in the wrong namespace (it is not a talk page). No substantial inlinks. DexDor (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep – Mentioned several times on the BRIC talk page. While not as common as it used to be, the talk namespace is a very acceptable place to post article drafts. Graham87 11:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:J. League Division 2 managers[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:J. League Division 2 managers (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused template in the wrong namespace (and wrongly categorized). DexDor (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/UN-SPIDER[edit]

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

Talk page with no corresponding non-talk page, not in English, redundant to UN-SPIDER article. DexDor (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matt Starr[edit]

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

Wrong namespace, redundant to Matt Starr (artist). DexDor (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David E Woodley[edit]

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

WP:FAKEARTICLE, in wrong namespace. Note: There is an article at David E Woodley. DexDor (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neha Pyne[edit]

Wikipedia:Neha Pyne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Self written, not sourced, wrong space BollyJeff | talk 03:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

August 18, 2014[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CBSUA[edit]

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

Talk page without a corresponding non-talk page. There is an article at Central Bicol State University of Agriculture. DexDor (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Category:South African 3D films[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Category:South African 3D films (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-useful combo of Wp talk, AFC and category. DexDor (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alltech Arena[edit]

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

There is an article at Alltech Arena and this draft shouldn't be in Wikipedia talk namespace. DexDor (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Международни отношения на Молдова[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Международни отношения на Молдова (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Talk page without a corresponding non-talk page. Very little English content. DexDor (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete This looks like an "article for creation". It also looks like it is an attempt to translate bg:Външна политика на Молдова into English. But Foreign relations of Moldova exists. Delete as a stale draft/article for creation. PNGWantok (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Международни отношения на Казахстан[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Международни отношения на Казахстан (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Talk page without a corresponding non-talk page. No English text. DexDor (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Cronetic/sandbox[edit]

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

Stale user space draft, no indication of notability of the subject, COI, spammish. Borderline for G11, but I will take to MfD instead. Safiel (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nom. Not notable, stale. Scarlettail (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as a stale draft. Username is also the name of the page the user is writing about. ///EuroCarGT 20:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Fscalone/Clickn kids[edit]

User:Fscalone/Clickn kids (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Promotional, unreferenced WP:STALEDRAFT. Last substantial edits were pure spam. User has made no edits outside this topic and has not edited for four years. MER-C 12:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation[edit]

Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
See also: Previous consensus discussion to userspace or delete this essay/proposal: Wikipedia talk:Unnecessary disambiguation#Time to Userfy?

Same primary problem as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concision razor - an essay dominated by one editor advancing an interpretation of WP:AT (absolute shortness of titles at expense of all other WP:CRITERIA). Secondary additional problem making usual remedies for salvaging unbalanced essays unworkable as previous case at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule (now userfied), see earlier example for further details. In this case there was an underlying briefer essay here earlier which possibly had a greater degree of consensus but was apparently rarely cited, reverting to historical status and freezing may be an alternative option but the user would presumably prefer userfying to trimming back and freezing. Therefore current state and use of the essay puts it in the same box as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule - unfortunate but an extreme and unusual case, therefore proposing a solution which has already worked with the Yoghurt Rule essay. Also the shortcut WP:UNDAB would need to be deleted rather than continue to direct to an essay as WP:YOGHURTRULE was deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The basic reason for the nomination is one the main authors of WP:Unnecessary disambiguation (Born2cycle) and the nominator don't get along. This is rather pathetic. The essay in question seems acceptable per WP:NOESSAY (which I realize is an essay, but I see no real guideline/policy on essays. Maybe this ought to be considered, but that is a discussion for another day).Calidum Talk To Me 04:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Not so. I didn't nominate Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule. Calidum please try to concentrate on the substance of the problem. (Which perhaps I was assuming too much background knowledge, have expanded and restructured the MFD proposal above). In ictu oculi (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
That was a totally non-substantive comment, Calidum.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete – B2C has too much sway over title policy in the last 5 years, being the most active editor on the policy page and its talk page. This essay that supports his relentless drive toward minimalist and algorithmic titling causes a lot of trouble, and is not supported by the community. Delete it or move it back to his user pages. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Fluff: The funny thing is that I'm frequently accused of being something akin to relentlessly driving toward algorithmic titling, and even I can't support this stuff.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. This page existed long before I started editing it. It originated as a policy change proposal by WDGraham in 2006, was quickly archived two weeks after creation, and I revived it as an essay last year, and only started making changes to it this year. Note that this is the definition of an WP:ESSAY:
Typically addresses some aspect of working in Wikipedia, but has not been formally adopted as a guideline or policy by the community at large.
See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays
And this was the nutshell back in 2006: "Page titles should only disambiguate where there are other articles with the same name. If a name is used for only one article, it should not contain a disambiguation in the title, even if similar pages do." [1] The essence of this remains the same today. Whether this idea has consensus support can be debated, except that would be irrelevant, since essays are not supposed to necessarily represent consensus opinion anyway. Essays should not be deleted, or even nominated for deletion, just because you disagree with what they say.

Notice that the nom makes an outlandish claim, "... one editor advancing an interpretation of WP:AT (absolute shortness of titles at expense of all other [[WP:CRITERIA])", without a single shred of evidence that I or, or more pertinently, this essay, actually does this. In fact, this claim directly contradicts what the essay says (making me wonder if the nom has even seriously read it). But even if it said that, it would not be grounds to delete it. It would be grounds to write a rebuttal essay.

In the eight months since I started making revisions and improvements to this essay, several other editors have contributed as well, including: BDD, Dicklyon, BarrelProof, SmokeyJoe, and, most recently (making 7 revisions I have yet to review), 174.141.182.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

Finally, countless editors have made hundreds of links to this essay[2]. Perhaps what the opposers really don't like is when this essay is used in title decisions that are contrary to their preferences? --В²C 06:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC) struck Dicklyon - see below. --В²C 17:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Bullshit – listing me as an editor of the essay is really quite disingenuous, since you reverted each of my edits. It is obviously your own essay. Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    I just listed everyone in the revision history this year. I'll strike your name. --В²C 17:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, IP 174...'s edits were pure gnoming, enforcement of conciseness (ironically enough), linking, and raising a talk page issue; that editor explicitly stated in edit summary that they disagreed with the proposal and so shouldn't be taken as supporting or advancing it. BarrelProof's edits are also gnoming. BDD did nothing at all but add a tag. I haven't reviewed every single other editor's changes to the page, but most of them so far all of them do appear to be either gnoming/cleaning, or attempts to make the page stop contradicting actual policy and community consensus (and such changes are usually either reverted by B2C or effectively undone with later edits by B2C that obscure and weaken the changes). It must also be noted that most editors are critical of the essay/proposal on its talk page, including 174..., and SmokeyJoe, who's already said "should be userfied (or deleted if he doesn't want it), but requires a history split to restore the 2006 version". BDD and BarrelProof did not comment there. Virtually no one supports it there at all, and the entire idea of misinterpreting WP:AT's disambiguation policy in this way is routinely ignored at both WT:AT and in WP:RM discussions. While the nom's summary of this proposal/essay, "absolute shortness of titles at expense of all other WP:CRITERIA", isn't 100% accurate, it's close enough; the page's problem is that gives undue value to conciseness over all other concerns addressed by WP:AT, by naming conventions guidelines, by actual practice, by common sense, etc.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    I agree with User:SMcCandlish’s assessment of my edits. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    I agree with User:SMcCandlish’s assessment of my edits as well. My edits should not be construed as endorsing the essay (or expressing any particular opinion about it, really, as I have not really made up my mind about that). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If you think the page "gives undue value to conciseness over all other concerns addressed by WP:AT, by naming conventions guidelines, by actual practice, by common sense, etc", I think you're misreading it. What statements in the essay actually support that viewpoint? If you can find any, and identify them, I will happily edit or remove them myself. --В²C 17:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
You've quoted yourself, at your comment here.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • User-space it, without redirect, and delete shortcuts, per WP:NOESSAY, which doesn't allow project-space essays that "contradict policy (or other pages with established consensus)" or that "are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages", but notes: "Such oppositional views are, however, generally tolerated within user essays." There's already a consensus on its own talk page to userfy it; listing it at MfD is just a formality. Also, there's ample precedent.[3] The problems with this page are numerous, and often the same faults as outlined in the same author's "Yogurt Rule" essay case (it was user-spaced), plus additional issues. In summary form:
    1. Born2cycle usurped and erased a historical proposal that was tagged as such. The previously closing admin said "If you wish to revive this, please advertise at the village pump" (as did the {{Historical}} tag on it), but Born2cycle did not, instead expanding it in ways that have even less support, and tagging it with {{Essay}}. After userspacing, please history-split it so that the original proposal[4] is put back at this page name; it's important to keep on record just how long this "conciseness above all other concerns" nonsense has been rejected.
    2. It is far too easily and often confused with some kind of policy or other rule, and its author cites it that way (with shortcuts like WP:UNDAB), but it's really just Born2cycle's made-up neologism.
    3. Unlike other project-space essays, it does not present clear, well-reasoned rationales for something that someone else might reasonably cite with a clearly understood meaning and reason in WP:Requested moves discussion, e.g. "per WP:Unnecessary disambiguation". Instead it presents a novel view of what to do, then buries the reader under a text wall about why or why not this might make sense, maybe.
    4. The author essentially WP:OWNs it, permitting few substantive changes of any kind, especially if they highlight flaws, bring it closer to compliance with actual titling policy, or point out that it's just one editor's contrarian view of article titling (e.g., see above about reverting all edits by DickLyon, then trying to claim him as a coauthor in support of it not being essentially a one-person show).
    5. Much of the page consists of straw man arguments against the proposal, written in what-if form by Born2cycle personally, and rebutted by (of course) Born2cycle. It's like Gollum/Smeagol arguing with himselves, and does not accurately reflect actual editing community views, pro or con.
    6. Notably, it is in fact not an essay at all, once you read it, but a proposed change to article titling policy with regard to disambiguation, and it has failed. If it is not deleted or user-spaced, then tag it {{Failed}}. It already was tagged {{Historical}} (which is essentially equivalent) once[5], and attempting to revive a proposal without advertising it as one (indeed, hiding it behind an essay tag) doesn't make it magically un-rejected.
    7. It's essentially a duplicate venue to push the same "you must use the shortest name possible" idea, which conflicts with WP:AT policy, and various guidelines (numerous naming conventions, WP:MOS, etc.) that Born2cycle is advancing at Wikipedia:Concision razor (also now at MfD); i.e., it's preemptive WP:FORUMSHOPPING.
    The place to change article titling policy on disambiguation is in consensus discussions at WT:AT, where Born2cycle has already floated this idea and had it shot down. — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong keep This is a longstanding page expressing an important principle that has generally been held, even though it doesn't seem to be stated elsewhere. If B2C has taken it too far, pare it down. It should not, by any means, be deleted, or even userfied, really. This is not a fringe view. --BDD (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • User-space without redirect, or revert the user’s changes over the past year. Born2cycle has expanded and altered the essay so as to redefine terms and rules in a way that does not reflect community consensus. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    • PLEASE specify something the essay actually says - a direct quote - that contradicts policy, guidelines or conventions. My intent was never to write a single word that contradicted consensus. If it does, it needs to be fixed. Thank you. --В²C 19:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
      • There is a difference between reflecting consensus and not directly contradicting consensus. I have no doubt that what you added reflects your interpretation of consensus, but I do not believe that that is an accurate interpretation. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, that would be imposing a requirement on this essay that is not imposed on any other essay. Essays are not required to reflect your interpretation of consensus - they can reflect anyone's interpretation, including mine. --В²C 18:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Move to user-space, per SMcCandlish, 174.141.182.82, et al. As before with Born2cycle's "Yogurt Principle" essay, the problems rightly identified here are best solved by moving the piece from project-space to user-space where it more appropriately belongs. The essay as it now stands is largely a vehicle for the opinions and goals of its single dominant editor, and in various ways it does not square well with established community consensus elsewhere; per WP:ESSAYS, WP:NOESSAY, etc., userfication is preferable. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Userfy per SMcCandlish, Huw and others. Omnedon (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Request: Someone with more time than I have, please go though UNDAB, and quote some places where it conflicts with policy, quote the policy, and move on. B2C is simply going to keep demanding these quotations (he's even come to my talk page to demand them), and I'm out of energy due to other teapots of wikidrama today. No one else here seems even faintly unable to tell what the problems are in this "propessay" without cutting parts of it out and pasting them right here to look at them again out of context, like taking the wheels off a car to understand if they're flat or not, but whatever. Anything to put a cork in it. PS: It's faintly possible that policy problems with the page could actually be resolved this way, by threat of deletion or user-spacing breaking B2C's WP:OWN hold on the material. B2C espouses willingness to fix whatever problems are raised (though that leads to the questions "why not earlier, and why would B2C be the one to fix the problems instead of everyone else doing so and B3C not reverting or undermining their changes again?). Even if perhaps-salvageable things from the other page, the WP:Concision razor one, were merged in and the two made into a single "concise disambiguations" page that wasn't a one-person show, I'm skeptical that it'll say anything useful that can't already be gleaned from policy and guidelines on titles and disambiguation, since most of both pages' content is just Good B2C arguing against straw men with Evil B2C. But there may be no harm in trying. That said, there's also no reason at all not to user-space both of these, then see if something can be salvaged and proposed properly from them later (preferably by someone else). The main concern is that B2C evinces what seems to be a "conciseness is the ultimate principle" agenda, and wants something that says so, with a rule-like name and catchy WP:XXXXX shortcut, to self-cite, which sounds like it's a guideline and gets other people to treat it like one. That's not a permissible result, because it doesn't reflect consensus.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • SMcCandlish, I'm going to ask you one more time. Please stop misrepresenting my position. Here you did it as, " B2C evinces what seems to be a "conciseness is the ultimate principle" agenda". I understand that this is genuinely your impression. I have no doubt that you are acting in good faith. Never-the-less, I assure you you are mistaken. This is a quote from WP:Concision razor:

If two titles are equally good at identifying the subject, then the shorter one is preferred.

You seem to ignore the bold part. If you are not going to take the time to learn that you are wrong about your impression about my "agenda", or prove that I am wrong, then please have the decency to not opine on this matter. Thank you. --В²C 17:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring it all all, though. It simply isn't true. Any number of other criteria may lead us to prefer a somewhat longer name, and everyone undestands this here except you. This goes for choosing a base title to begin with, deciding whether to disambiguate, and how to disambiguate.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you are ignoring the part in bold. Or misunderstanding it. If some criteria leads you to prefer one title over the other, then they are not "equally good at identifying the subject". The, "equally good at identifying the subject" phrase is BD2412's quoted words. The more general version is in the nutshell:

If two titles meet WP:CRITERIA other than conciseness equally well, then the shorter one is preferred.

--В²C 22:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Fallacy of equivocation; you can't change the terms under discussion and then claim that the other party was misinterpreting. The new version still isn't true. Your change doesn't fix any problem, and introduces an error (of where in the process this page's logic would be applied). Remember that this is about conciseness in disambiguation, not about general conciseness in article titles. Once we get to the disambiguation part, we've already gone through the WP:CRITERIA analysis, so mentioning CRITERIA again is a non sequitur). As it turns out, it's still often the case that we do not use the shortest possible name, but add something that you would like to characterize as an unnecessary disambiguator, and on top of that it's not necessarily the shortest possible one, but whatever makes the most sense in the total context of the decision. We may do this for clarity, for consistency, or for some other reason. I decline to play any more of your WP:IDHT games. The proposal/essay's own talk page more than adequately covers UNDAB's faults, as does the commentary on this page, and your repeated demands for re-re-re-explanation, so you can declare those arguments "too vague" and post another pile of regurgitated defensiveness, is just a FUD tactic, and attempt to mire this MfD in text walls. The issue with this page are general, not matters of tweaking any particular line, and badgering us for quotes you can argue incessantly about isn't going to change that. While I appreciate more than most do some attempts to formalize and be "algorithmic" about titles, there are limits to the usefulness of such an approach, and this "propessay" goes far beyond them. Or to put it another way, if even I'm not buying it, virtually no one will (nor has, demonstrably).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
You make a good point about distinguishing disambiguator selection from title selection, and that CRITERIA applies only to the latter - that distinction is often not made when it should be, not just in this essay. But that's a reason for improving it, not deleting it or userfying it. I'm confident that these essays could be significantly improved with more of your input (and that of others). Thank you. --В²C 23:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I've read the essay several times, and I simply can't see as much that directly contradicts policy as some have claimed above. I do wonder if those who have clashed with В²C elsewhere are reading into the essay things that aren't there. Yes, there's definitely a part here which over-emphasises conciseness. For example, this statement is overgeneral for an essay supposedly about unnecessary disambiguation: But if we always favor the most concise of acceptable titles for a given article, then that title is likely to remain the most concise acceptable choice for a long time, if not forever. The reason not to accept unnecessary disambiguation is precisely that it's unnecessary, not primarily conciseness. The examples at WP:CONCISE correctly illustrate choices between titles which don't have other factors operating – using conciseness as a criterion to choose between disambiguated and undisambiguated names just muddies the issue. I think the essay could quite easily be fixed, so long as В²C accepts that it's about unnecessary disambiguation and not conciseness. Most of it is both clear and useful as an explanation of disambiguation. On the other hand, if В²C insists on retaining his views on conciseness then the essay should be moved into user space. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I don't see anything that contradicts policy (or guidelines or conventions) in the essay either - and I keep asking for it to be pointed out[6]. This is exactly the kind of constructive commentary necessary to improve this essay (any essay, really). The essay's talk page does not have much of this, unfortunately. --В²C 17:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Peter: For my own part, I agree that the problem really isn't about direct contradiction of policy, but rather about contradiction (or perhaps I should say misrepresentation) of what is and is not supported by consensus, something that WP:NOESSAY warns against in project-space essays. It's troubling that the piece seems to have become a vehicle for certain views that are not supported by consensus (and indeed have been quite controversial, like the so-called "concision razor", the assertion that B2C's preferred titling approach will put an end to disputes, etc.), yet which are presented in such a way that the reader may not understand that this is so. Co-opting a project-space essay to lobby against established consensus is also frowned upon, so things like opining against the "unfortunate" USPLACE convention (to take an example) add to the concerns.

      Userfication seems like the easiest and best course in this case: it would allow B2C to continue exercising ownership and for his text to persist. Leaving it in project-space and trying to refactor it would I think be more difficult, both because of the apparent ownership problems but also because the essay's become sufficiently overgrown with his own non-consensus views that pruning it might be somewhat challenging. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

      • So many words and nothing at all substantive about what the essay actually says that qualifies it to be userfied per WP:NOESSAY. I note that the 3rd bullet of WP:NOESSAY references (the only that even has a remote chance of applying in this case), "Writings that overtly contradict policy (or other pages with established consensus), especially if they are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages." This essay does not overtly nor covertly contradict policy. It does not intend to undermine or even disagree with policy. It intends to clarify what is meant by a commonly used term on WP talk pages - "unnecessary disambiguation" - in a manner that is consistent with and supports not only policy, but also guidelines and conventions established through actual titling. To the extent that it fails to do this, that needs to be identified and fixed. But these guys can't even identify what those aspects are for the purpose of correction, let alone to justify deletion.

        Well, Huwman does mention the reference to the USPLACE convention as "unfortunate". That hints at disagreement, to be sure, but hardly rises to the level of overtly contradicting policy. Anyway, that's one word which can be easily deleted, if that's really the issue here.

        Opaque references to alleged "non-consensus views" are not helpful. --В²C 19:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

        • From what the majority of involved editors have said, your additions to the essay, and your use of it, undermine consensus (though possibly without intent… even though multiple people keep pointing it out). What you present—what you push—as consensus is not consensus. In fact, it sometimes seems like you want people to forget about reaching their own consensus in favor of your methods, which actually undermines WP:Consensus now that I think about it. That is the core problem here, as I understand it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, but such vagueness is just not helpful. What are the specifics? What specifically does the essay say that "undermines" consensus, and how does it do that? I think they are misreading or misunderstanding. It's probably not clearly expressed. That can be fixed.

            There are maybe 5-10 editors who routinely disagree with me on a few issues and keep showing up in discussions in which I'm involved. That same group of 5-10 hardly makes a consensus on any issue. In some discussions their view prevails, in others mine does. Worse, as far as I can tell, based on how they characterize what they think my position is, the disagreement is mostly based on misunderstanding. Then they express their disagreement with me in efforts like this. Anyway, justified or not, this is supposed to be about the merits of WP:UNDAB and whether it should be deleted or userfied per WP:NOESSAY; it's not supposed to be about "my methods". --В²C 21:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What's really happening is that all of the most active editors involved in the policies and guidelines that cover article titles, naming and disambiguation (and style) routinely disagree with you, and when they're the bulk of the participants, with the best arguments, in a site-wide page like MfD, yes they do form consensus. It's not a conspiracy of random editors who don't like you, it a consensus of regular editors in a WP-internal topic area against the changes to article titling policy that you're advancing.
PS: Your constant demand for out-of-context quotes to pick at is missing the forest for the trees. The problem isn't some line in the proposal/essay you can fix, is the entire nature of it and how you're going about it. Just the fact that you're talking about you personally going in and changing stuff to try to fix problems with this page, if only we'll tell you what lines to edit, is indicative of the very problem: This is your page, and you will never stop being the gatekeeper, so let's user-space it to make that clear.
I want to draw a close and instructive parallel here:
Unfortunately we're past that point with this page. No one appears convinced this can be salvaged as a project-space page, even if you were abducted by aliens and never heard from again, probably because the underlying idea just conflicts with actual practice in too many places.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. This enunciates a useful principal, and issues with the wording can be fixed. Per my recent comment on the article talk page, if the city in France is the primary topic of Paris, then the page does not need to be at Paris, France - and even though the city in Texas is not the primary topic of that term, we put it at Paris, Texas, not at Paris, Lamar County, Texas. The latter is not inaccurate and is definitely more precise, but is unnecessary. Similarly, we use Mercury (mythology) rather than Mercury (Roman mythology) or Mercury (mythological god); and we use Mercury (planet), not Mercury (Solar System planet). This proposition, correctly understood, should not be controversial. bd2412 T 01:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Alternative proposal: Move to WP:Unnecessary precision and edit the page accordingly, if it is determined that the essay can stay in project space. The page isn’t (or shouldn’t be) about a disambiguation matter, because truly “unnecessary” disambiguation is not disambiguation at all; it’s about a precision matter, and we should set about correcting that confusing terminology. That’s what I see in the essay, at least. What do you all think? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, removing the redirects This is the expression of a preference for one strand of information purity over helpfulness to readers; this contradicts the basic WP policy that WP is a practical encyclopedia, not a theoretical exercise. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    What if the rule said: "If two titles are equally helpful to readers, we should go with the shorter one"? bd2412 T 11:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Concision razor[edit]

Wikipedia:Concision razor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
See also: Previous consensus discussion to userspace or delete this essay/proposal: Wikipedia talk:Concision razor#Userfy without redirect.

The specific primary problem with both Wikipedia:Concision razor and the related Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation is proposing and promoting in WP space, the confusion of WP:PRECISION with CONCISION, that the shortest article title must always be applied which interprets WP:AT policy against what WP:AT actually says. Same secondary problems as previous case at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule (now userfied), see earlier example for further details. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The basic reason for the nomination is the creator of WP:Concision razor and the nominator don't get along. This is rather pathetic. The essay in question seems acceptable per WP:NOESSAY (which I realize is an essay, but I see no real guideline/policy on essays. Maybe this ought to be considered, but that is a discussion for another day). WP:CONCISE is part of our article naming, so why isn't an essay supporting its use allowed? Calidum Talk To Me 04:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
This copy pasting of personalizing comment from Calidum from the other MFD shouldn't detract from the discussion. The original case Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule was made by other editors, and this has also been pointed out. The MFD should be considered on its merits, someone else can state these better than I. I've reworded it by the way. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
(EC) @Calidum: Actually, the nominator said per "Same problems as previous case" and then linked to it; it provides a substantial list of issues. Most (not quite all) of them appear to be applicable here. I would rather see the nom naming some specific reasons here, but characterizing this as a personality dispute is incorrect. Proof: see consensus for userspacing at the essay's own talk page.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The "consensus" to which you refer is among a small group of editors with whom I have a history of disagreements that is ultimately philosophical in nature. That's hardly objective or representative of the community at large. What's critical in these mFd's are the opinions of editors uninvolved in these title disputes. You are not among them, of course, and neither is In ictu oculi, Smokey Joe, Omnedon, Huwman, that remarkably-informed-on-esoteric-WP-matters IP I can't memorize, and a couple of others. --В²C 18:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • User-space it, without redirect, and delete any shortcuts, per WP:NOESSAY, which doesn't allow project-space essays that "contradict policy (or other pages with established consensus)" or that "are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages", but notes: "Such oppositional views are, however, generally tolerated within user essays]]." There's already a consensus on its own talk page to userfy it; listing it at MfD is just a formality. Also, there's ample precedent.[7] The problems with this page are numerous, and often the same faults as outlined in the same author's "Yogurt Rule" essay case (it was user-spaced), plus additional issues. In summary form:
    1. The author very[8] strongly[9] insists[10] on tagging it as a {{guidance essay}} (previously a {{supplement}}), yet there is no support anywhere for it to be considered acceptable guidance material; its own talk page shows that it does not have such acceptance. Its very presence in project-space is problematic.
    2. The title misleadingly implies it is some kind of policy or other rule, for which it is too easily and often mistaken, and its author cites it that way, but it's really just Born2cycle's made-up neologism.
    3. Unlike other project-space essays, it does not present clear, well-reasoned rationales for something that someone else might reasonably cite with a clearly understood meaning and reason in WP:Requested moves discussion, e.g. "per WP:Concision razor". Instead, it presents a novel view of what to do, then buries the reader under a text wall of why or why not this might make sense, maybe.
    4. The author essentially WP:OWNs it, permitting few substantive changes of any kind, especially if they highlight flaws, bring it closer to compliance with actual titling policy, or point out that it's just one editor's contrarian view of article titling (e.g. here).
    5. About two-thirds of the page consists of straw man arguments against the proposal, written by Born2cycle personally, and rebutted by (of course) Born2cycle. It's like Gollum/Smeagol arguing with himselves, and does not accurately reflect actual editing community views, pro or con.
    6. Notably, it is in fact not an essay at all, once you read it, but a proposed change to article titling policy with regard to disambiguation, and it has failed. If it is not deleted or user-spaced, then tag it {{Failed}}. It already was once,[11] but Born2cycle reverted it. Someone else's proposal for essentially the same idea was also previously rejected, at the pre-Born2cycle WP:Unnecessary disambiguation
    7. It's essentially a duplicate venue to push the same "you must use the shortest name possible" idea, which conflicts with WP:AT policy, and various guidelines (numerous naming conventions, WP:MOS, etc.) that Born2cycle is advancing at the current version of Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation (also now at MfD); i.e., it's preemptive WP:FORUMSHOPPING.
    The place to change article titling policy on disambiguation is in consensus discussions at WT:AT, where Born2cycle has already floated this idea and had it shot down. — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think if an essay proffers some interpretation of our rules, and it's a reasonable interpretation and stated with sufficient cogency it's OK. Yes a call for complete negation of important rules might not be appropriate. This essay is nowhere near that, it accepts the Five Virtues of article titles and just offers the opinion that one of them is more important.
It doesn't make its point very well. I guess it's trying to say that concision is more important than the other four virtues outlined at WP:CRITERIA, but it shys away from really saying that, dealing with the implications of saying that, or offering any concrete guidance on how to apply it. It also doesn't offer any argument or reason for particularly valorizing concision as opposed to, say, recognizability. So it's not a very good or useful essay I don't think. (I don't agree with the above poster that presenting and then demolishing arguments is not OK -- it's a common and acceptable rhetorical device -- but I do agree that I can't see many people saying "per WP:RAZOR" since there's no "per" there really.)
Still, I dunno. Maybe people have been making the argument "pfft, concision, it's in the rule but we really don't pay much attention to that as a matter of practice" and we need a counter to that, or something. Not a great essay but not madness or lunacy or illiteracy, and it might get improved. It's my opinion that, although I don't really like it, that it lies north of the line "of sufficient quality to exist" so let it lie I guess. If not, then userfy without prejudice. Herostratus (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Herostratus: This principle problem with it is that it's a pretty much wholly-WP:OWNed user essay belonging to Born2cycle; it is not a Wikipedia guidance essay as it claims to be. No serious changes to it ever stick, becuase B2c reverts them or edits them away piecemeal, so it always ends up saying what B2c wants it to say. That's reason alone to user-space it. I don't support outright deletion myself. PS: The challenge-response format itself isn't problematic; the problem with its use here (as with the other B2c proposal/essay up at MfD right now, which uses a superficially different but effectively identical format) is that it is not presenting the actual arguments against it and addressing them, but straw man arguments in many cases; where it presents legitimate ones, the responses have been debunked. See its talk page.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh. Well, that's different maybe. However, the only changes that need to stick are those that strengthen the thrust of the essay, which is "If two titles meet WP:CRITERIA other than conciseness equally well, then the shorter one is preferred". Any changes that make the reader more likely to walk away from the essay thinking "Wow, that was convincing, and I now do believe that, in a title, conciseness is more important than topic-specific conventions on article titles and so forth" would be welcome, you'd think, and if the original author is being recalcitrant over changes of that nature then that's odd but yes I guess that would be a problem.
But if one doesn't agree with with the thrust of the essay, then one probably shouldn't be making substantive edits to it, as a general rule. Essays are allowed to make their point. If someone disagrees with that point, they're welcome to make their own essay expressing an opposing view and linking to that in a See Also section of the original essay, and that's all. Herostratus (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Herostratus: This raises the other main issue here, though. The "essay" isn't really one, its a proposed change to article titling process. Even if it were purely and essay, there are multiple types of essays, and it's routine to moderate the anti-consensus nature of any that seek supplement or provide interpretive guidance for policies and procedures as B2c says this does. Note that there is not "WP:NOAADD", providing counter-arguments to all the points made in WP:AADD. Neither Concision razor nor AADD are the sort of "essay", in the broad sense, that lend themselves to pro and con POV forks, like WP:Don't template the regulars and WP:Template the regulars. A change to AADD that "strengthened the thrust of the essay" by adding a bunch of more arguments some subset of editors don't want to see, but which did not actually closely reflect policy and standard operating procedure, would be rapidly reverted. I.e., it's just not the case that "strengthen the thrust of the essay" is always an okay goal for edits to all essays; it only applies to opinion pieces, not policy guidance/supplement/interpretation pieces, where "strengthen the essay's relationship to SOP" is the actual goal. B2c is clearly not at all advancing a "here is how I think WP should operate" or "wouldn't it be best if policy were interpreted this way?" opinion, but a position that his interpretation of policy and procedure is correct and that others should cite and follow it, and he frequently cites it himself in WP:RMs. This is not a criticism of "citing your own essay"; there are only a few thousand active editors and every essay had to be written by someone, most often to store repeatedly-used logic so that it can be cited more easily. Rather, it's a criticism of the essay being defended as if just opinional but used, and intended, as if factual, and specifically geared for use in RM discussions as an Ockham-style "razor" rule that determines actual decisions. All of this applies to the other, closely related B2c essay up at MfD; they're two variants of the same theme.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Nuh-uh. If some people are trying to decide whether to move an article, and some say "Well, they're pretty much the same as regards Naturalness, Recognizability, Precision, and Consistency, so although one is clearly more concise, that's not enough reason to overcome inertia and the topic-specific conventions for these articles, so let's keep the old title". Then someone else can say "No, let's change it, because conciseness is really important! And for a convincing argument to that effect, see WP:RAZOR." The second person is not being disruptive. It's a reasonable opinion to state, and the essay just lets them state the arguments (if there were any) without having to type it each time. (It's not clear that the essay is actually intended to say that, but I'm going by the nutshell.) WP:NOAADD would be fine by me too. Herostratus (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that would be the case if this were such an "essay ... actually intended to say that", but it's not a community-created summary of a major viewpoint on these matters that actually presents a rationale for why conciseness is important within the context of the other CRITERIA and should be interpreted as trumping other concerns like the inertia you mention or topical naming conventions. It's one user's jealously guarded opinion piece laying out straw man arguments for why actual WP practice should be ignored. That's why I'm arguing for user-spacing, not deletion. If I wrote an essay on why official names of things should always, always be used, and to hell with all other concerns, that should be user-spaced as contrarian personal venting, and would be a very different page from one we all wrote together on why official names should be given a due amount of concern when balancing the CRITERIA. Honestly, such an essay might well be needed, because too many people think that any other concern can trump official names and this isn't really true. And maybe an essay on balancing conciseness with other CRITERIA is needed, too, but it's not this essay and the page's author won't let anyone try to steer it in that direction. PS: I wasn't saying it would be impossible to create a NOAADD, I'm suggesting rather that it would be rapidly user-spaced for the same reasons at issue here.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's an essay. If you don't think that it belongs in projectspace, request that it be moved to the author's userspace, but there's no need to get rid of an essay entirely just because of its content. Nyttend (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Userfy. Essays are fine, but this one belongs in userspace. Omnedon (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Herostratus. I am accused of "OWNing" the essay. I dispute that claim. I only ask what Herostratus points out should happen: "if one doesn't agree with with the thrust of the essay, then one probably shouldn't be making substantive edits to it". As I've said many times, if you disagree with [the main thrust] of an essay, then write a different essay. I welcome all criticisms and improvements to the essay, as long as they " strengthen the thrust of the essay, which is "If two titles meet WP:CRITERIA other than conciseness equally well, then the shorter one is preferred." It is not my intent, and never has been, to promote conciseness as a more important criterion. If anything, it is the least important, having a role only when the two titles in question meet the other criteria equally well. In fact, that's the point! --В²C 17:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Well if it's not especially important I don't get what you're trying to say. If your point devolves to "I like it that conciseness is one of the title criteria, and if it wasn't I would campaign to make it one" that's fine but it is probably best expressed in userspace because it's not something that people will will invoke much.
So then let me ask you this: could we have four other essays -- WP:Recognizability razor ("If two titles meet WP:CRITERIA other than recognizability equally well, then the more recognizable one is preferred"), WP:Naturalness razor, WP:Precision razor, and WP:Consistency razor? This follows from "It is not my intent... to promote conciseness as a more important criterion", right? So yes or no? If yes, then I maybe your point is "When a title meets four of the WP:CRITERIA more or less equally well, but not a fifth, then rather than saying 'enh, only one out of five, let's just leave it as it was' we should say 'well, even with just one out five, we should change the title'" -- but that's a different essay. If your answer is no (that is, conciseness is particularly important so the concision razor is a special thing, which I gather you're not trying to say) then you should make that clear, and also address whether conciseness should tend to trump the topic-specific conventions on article titles and so forth, and ideally explain why.
So it's not very clear or useful. And since it's not clear or useful it needs improvement and until then is very unlikely to be invoked much in arguments, so it arguably belongs in userspace at least for now. I'm liberal about the criteria for what gets to be in wikispace so I say "enh, keep" but others might not be so and they'd have a point.
So anther question I'd like to see answered is "This is essay belong in wikispace rather than userspace because ________". What goes in the blank? Herostratus (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It is useful because there are a surprising number of RM situations where analysis based on the other criteria really does come up a wash. That is, there is no consensus regarding the other criteria, both titles are arguably reasonable, and one of the two titles is shorter. My answer to your first question is yes - and that is definitely the general point, and I've toyed with writing parallel sibling essays. I hadn't thought about a general razor essay, but, frankly, I just don't see a need for that or for any of the other specific ones. That is, I can't think of any other case where there is no consensus on all criteria but one (that isn't conciseness), but people resist finding in favor of whichever title is favored by that one criterion. I mean, there are many cases which result in "no consensus" even though there is no disagreement that one of the two titles is shorter. This essay argues that in such cases the shorter title should be favored. Another reason Conciseness might be especially useful as a razor is it is arguably the most objective criterion. Recognizability, naturalness and precision are clearly subjective. Consistency can be objective when a very clear convention is available. But conciseness is almost always objective. Conciseness does have two components - brevity and completeness. Assuming the two titles are "complete" (or reasonable) as titles for the article in question, then the one which is more brief, shorter, is the more concise one. The other criteria just don't cut as sharply, if you will. They don't make good razors. Does that make sense?

Really, this is just an expansion on WP:CRITERIA that applies in certain types of cases. Or, rather, it's an explication on how to assess CRITERIA in certain cases, if you will.

As to your last question, what is the answer to that question with respect to any WP space essay? It's the same here. Being in WP space conveys that at least a number of editors agree with what it says, or at least agree that it doesn't contradict policy. If it's in my user space, the 5-10 editors who don't like it will dismiss as being a "user space essay" expressing only my opinion which contradicts policy (without ever explaining how it contracts policy, just as they are unable to do here). That will mean fewer will read it and give it the thought I believe it deserves. I hope I've addressed you concerns and questions. Let me know if you have any others. --В²C 21:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. If changes are needed, propose a specific change and seek consensus for it on the essay's talk page. bd2412 T 03:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Not quite as mischevious as the page being discussed above, but that's only because this is more oblique and thus less immediately understandable. Still, it's the expression of a preference for one strand of information purity over helpfulness to readers; this contradicts the basic WP policy that WP is a practical encyclopedia, not a theoretical exercise. Perfectly OK in user space of course, just as would be an essay of mine explaining why I thoroughly disagree with it. (I could of course argue that my position represents outr true policy, but in practice this sort of thing in WP space just causes confusion.) DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

August 16, 2014[edit]

Portal:Southern California[edit]

Portal:Southern California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Inactive portal. The portal is linked to from only 100 articles (excluding the talk page links for the SoCal Project), and the content is better covered by Portal:California or Portal:Greater Los Angeles or perhaps Portal: San Diego (this latter may also be inactive, and the LA portal was just revived by myself-gotta have an LA portal). While i dont see any problem with inactive projects, portals, to me, must be at least minimally maintained, otherwise readers will eventually sour on them. I imagine there are a LOT of opinions about this topic, but i really want to see a decision made either way here. if deleted (and all the subpages, not many), I would be happy to volunteer to add cali, la, san diego portal tags to all the articles tagged by this one. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

August 15, 2014[edit]

Portal:People's Republic of China[edit]

Portal:People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The portal has been nominated for deletion once:Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:People's_Republic_of_China, and I believe JJ98's comments were reasonable. The People's Republic is the current representative of China, which has lasted no more than 100 years. To have a portal of its own is redundant. I suggest to redirect it to portal:China. Huangjinghai (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep or Redirect to Portal:China per my previous nom. Although it had its significant hits in July, but still not happy about it. Portals don't need to require deletion. JJ98 (Talk) 23:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the People's Republic of China is notable enough to have it's own portal. The PRC is a distinct entity separate from "China" and there is surely enough material to keep the portal populated with interesting articles and links. PNGWantok (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Ahmed Mansour[edit]

Draft:Ahmed Mansour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Essentially a facebook page for a young person -- no conceivable hope for an article DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

August 14, 2014[edit]

User:Austinm4m1/Sandbox1[edit]

User:Austinm4m1/Sandbox1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Looks like a WP:STALEDRAFT. No substantial edits after February 2011. Keφr 16:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

August 13, 2014[edit]

August 12, 2014[edit]

User:Naresh Krishna Raja[edit]

User:Naresh Krishna Raja (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Naresh Krishna Raja/About you (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Naresh Krishna Raja/Wikibox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Naresh Krishna Raja/Edit count (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Naresh Krishna Raja/Navbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Naresh Krishna Raja/Map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Naresh Krishna Raja/Wikibox (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Naresh Krishna Raja/Wikibox2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Naresh Krishna Raja/Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Naresh Krishna Raja/Userbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Naresh Krishna Raja/Contact (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Naresh Krishna Raja/Wikipedian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Naresh Krishna Raja/About (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Naresh Krishna Raja/Time (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Naresh Krishna Raja/Timezone 5.5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Naresh Krishna Raja/Timezone 5.5/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Naresh Krishna Raja/Timezone 5.5/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Naresh Krishna Raja/Timezone 5.5/testcases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Naresh Rajad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Naresh Rajad/User Languages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Naresh Rajad/Contact (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Naresh Rajad/Userbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Naresh Rajad/About you (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User has never made a single constructive edit to Wikipedia, but has created several vanispamcruftisement pages, none of which are useful in any way Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

August 12, 2014[edit]

August 11, 2014[edit]

User talk:ParisStGermain[edit]

User talk:ParisStGermain (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

User talk page of a non-existent user page. DexDor (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:KIS/AL[edit]

Wikipedia:KIS/AL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This (apparently unused) template is now redundant to {{WP:KIS/US state}} since I modified that template in wikipedia space. (Note: When discussed at TfD, these userbox alternatives were either userfied or moved to wikipedia space, placing them in MfD territory, though I am nominating purely on technical template grounds. I also have been posting notice at WT:Keep It Simple.)

Demonstration of redundancy: {{WP:KIS/AL}}: {{WP:KIS/US state|AL|article=yes}}: also similar {{WP:KIS/US state|AL}}: linking to the WikiProject instead of the article. This is longer code, so I would not oppose a redirect/wrapper if anyone wanted to use it, though I doubt that is really needed. —PC-XT+ 04:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Access Denied/userpage[edit]

User:Access Denied/userpage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User subpage of a blocked user that hasn't been edited in over two years, so it really doesn't need to hang around any longer.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 00:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep, it's just like a main user page; it's doing no harm. Graham87 05:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTWEBHOST CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @CombatWombat42: That policy does not apply here because it's just a standard user page. And re: your edit summary accompanying this !vote, no space would be saved by deleting this page; in fact deleting it would make the page take up more space because more database rows would be created. Honestly, if Access Denied had put all this content on their main user page rather than on a transcluded subpage, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. Graham87 03:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
      • The spirit of the policy is to keep people from trying to use Wikipedia as a webhost, a policy i wholeheartedly support. Unless you are privy to the technical details of wikipeidas server code, I suspect it may save a few bites to delete it eventually, but again, the point is to discourage this kind of behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatWombat42 (talkcontribs) 04:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
        • But the user wasn't using Wikipedia as a web host; they were creating a user page in accordance with the user page guidelines. Re: the second part of your message, everyone is privy to the code of MediaWiki, the software that runs Wikipedia, along with almost all the other tools that run on the Wikimedia servers. the likelihood of deleted text being completely erased from the Wikipedia database is vanishingly remote; see footnote B of Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages. Graham87 15:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
          • I understand your reasoning Graham, but WP:NOTWEBHOST is cited quite frequently in deletion discussions of user subpages (of which this is). My reasoning for the nomination is why should this subpage of a blocked editor still be kept?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 17:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

August 10, 2014[edit]

User:Trueminecrafter2789/Herobrine in Minecraft[edit]

User:Trueminecrafter2789/Herobrine in Minecraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT Passengerpigeon (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Sashashekhar/Patent Misuse[edit]

User talk:Sashashekhar/Patent Misuse (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

stale draft in user talk space DexDor (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Redfarmer/UU Seminarian[edit]

User talk:Redfarmer/UU Seminarian (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

a subpage of one editors talk page created by another editor and consisting of just an inappropriate tag. DexDor (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Bhabani prasad chakraborty[edit]

User talk:Bhabani prasad chakraborty (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:NOTCV DexDor (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Batinic[edit]

User talk:Batinic (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:NOTCV etc. DexDor (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Ashley Y/Userbox/Unitarian[edit]

User talk:Ashley Y/Userbox/Unitarian (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a user talk page that consists just of an inappropriate project tag. DexDor (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

August 9, 2014[edit]

Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Article collaboration[edit]

Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Article collaboration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikiproject page never used for anything, project focus for discussion as been on the main project talk page instead. NickPenguin(contribs) 16:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as unused and unlikely to be used. Article collaboration happens at articles and their talk pages, a separate process is not needed. - Evad37 [talk] 08:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I created this page because some other WikiProjects have such a page in place. NorthAmerica1000 08:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.