Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion)
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.

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

March 27, 2015[edit]

Book:Black Is Beautiful[edit]

Book:Black Is Beautiful (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Book:Black IS Beautiful! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Book:Black Personalities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Book:Black English Sportsperson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Identical books with arbitrary inclusion criteria. What's so special about these five celebrities? Reach Out to the Truth 14:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aldrich Killian[edit]

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

Stale draft. SD0001 (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adrian Beerman Leeds[edit]

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

This advertisement draft qualifies WP:G13, but CSD was declined before. This can never become an article. SD0001 (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:212062719 Elina Naanda/Fig of Stone (Omukwiyugwemanya)[edit]

User:212062719 Elina Naanda/Fig of Stone (Omukwiyugwemanya) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft. No chance of ever becoming an article. SD0001 (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Dance Dance Revolution[edit]

User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Dance Dance Revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft for Dance Dance Revolution. It wasn't included in the article and these changes are not significant enough to need to keep. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Criticism of Dance Dance Revolution X[edit]

User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Criticism of Dance Dance Revolution X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. If there's interest, we could merge this into Dance Dance Revolution X. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

March 26, 2015[edit]

User:Omarteacher[edit]

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

Looks like an advertisement. Stefan2 (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kevlar group/Kevlar[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:FAKEARTICLE of a non-notable band. Mainspace article was deleted long time ago. This user page is merely circumventing the notability standards. P 1 9 9   17:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Sp5127/sandbox[edit]

User:Sp5127/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as per WP:STALEDRAFT and duplicate of existing article Kevin McCloud's Man Made Home. P 1 9 9   17:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Robert K S/Jeopardy! episode count[edit]

User:Robert K S/Jeopardy! episode count (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:OR/WP:SYN essay describing method to count episodes of Jeopardy! that have aired since 1984.

Author argues that calculating episode numbers is routine, but calculation method within essay fails to meet WP:CALC since method is not obvious. Calculation method is based upon out-dated and contradictory sources and uses manual counting to determine number of episodes that have aired during a given period. Essay argues that some sources should be taken literally while other parts in the same source should be ignored, and that separate sources containing information about television production from 20 years prior are still accurate today.

Lengthy discussion with third party opinion of why this article falls under WP:OR/WP:SYN at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 32.

Because essay is WP:OR/WP:SYN, user page content falls under WP:NOTESSAY and likely WP:NOTBLOG, and should be removed. AldezD (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete with admiration. The essential premise of the page is to find a SYTH way to provide a number that can be sourced from a recentish reliable source. As the output shouldn't be used in our articles anyway, whether hosted here or anywhere else in cyberspace, it should be hosted anywhere else in cyberspace. But, as someone fairly addicted to cricket statistics, I do admire the dedication and craftsmanship. --Dweller (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:OR/WP:SYN are not valid bases for deletion of a user essay that accurately describes a problem on the encyclopedia and suggests a solution based in factual sources and routine calculation. AldezD argues that my essay, which explains why derivation of episode counts from a few simple sources does not constitute original research, should be deleted because the method of calculation is not obvious. However, this is not a valid reason for deletion of an essay. First of all, routineness, not obviousness, is the standard for whether calculations do not constitute original research. WP:CALC. AldezD next argues that the calculation is based on "out-dated and contradictory sources." Arguing "outdatedness" is preposterous--a printed source that shows that Jeopardy! switched from a 39-week to a 46-week schedule after its second season does not become false simply because it was published years ago. Arguing that the sources are "contradictory" because Alex Trebek casually used the word "always" to describe how long a show with a 31-season history has had a 46-week schedule stretches the truth in service of what seems to have become AldezD's personal campaign against me, which has included false accusations of 3RR violations. Apparently not content that his obviously incorrect episode count remains on the Jeopardy! Wikipedia article, AldezD further seeks to stifle all contrary fact and opinion on the encyclopedia. I find this new step of his to be outrageous. Will he next seek to delete my user page? Will he seek to delete the essay Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not based on his disagreement with that essay? Robert K S (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment—The reasons for deletion of this userpage content are WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTBLOG. Within the earlier no WP:OR discussion, the user's actions of sourcing contradictory content and using content that does not meet WP:V to support his WP:OR/WP:SYN essay were pointed out by multiple editors as "picking and choosing parts of a source to support an argument while discounting other parts of it because they don't fit in with your conclusions". This userpage content is WP:OR/WP:SYN, which is corroborated by the third-party opinions provided in the earlier no WP:OR discussion, and the content falls under the "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" guideline of WP:NOTESSAY. AldezD (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
      • An essay describing a problem on the encyclopedia and factually demonstrating the solution with citation to sources is not the original thought, personal inventions, etc. that WP:NOTESSAY refers to. If it was, then every user essay on the encyclopedia would be subject to deletion on this basis. "Sourcing contradictory content" is your opinion. The content is not, in fact, contradictory, except by your strained interpretation that the word "always" means "since Season 1" rather than "for a very long time". Wikipedia is not a battleground, but this deletion nomination seems to be part of personal campaign you are waging. Robert K S (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Comment—The result of the earlier no WP:OR discussion is that the userpage content is WP:OR/WP:SYN calculation and uses sources that do not meet WP:V. The userpage content therefore does not meet WP:CALC falls under WP:NOTESSAY #1 and #3. AldezD (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
          • There was no such "result" in that discussion, in which no one else participated besides you, me, and AndytheGrump. You're both mischaracterizing the facts and mixing up your standards because you really, really don't want this page to continue to exist. Anyone who votes "delete" should look carefully into this and hope to understand the truth of the matter here. Robert K S (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Comment—From the earlier discussion: "Picking and choosing parts of a source to support an argument while discounting other parts of it because they don't fit in with your conclusions is WP:OR. And having to cite multiple sources for a single statement which can be found in none of them is synthesis." WP:OR and WP:SYN fall under WP:NOTESSAY #1. AldezD (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
              • Let's review, shall we? I cited to ex-Jeopardy! writer Harry Eisenberg's authoritative memoir for the basic factual proposition that the show switched from a 39-week season to a 46-week season in its third season. You argued that, because Eisenberg's book was published years ago, it might be possible that Jeopardy! no longer had a 46-week season and, therefore, any episode count based on this information would not actually be reliably sourced. [1] While I pointed out that your contention that the show could have changed its season length in the years since Eisenberg's publication was not based on any documentation or verifiable factual source, but instead was entirely the product of your own speculation, and that the burden was therefore on you to show that Jeopardy! had changed season length since Eisenberg, I additionally offered the Nerdist podcast interview of Alex Trebek in which he said that Jeopardy! still had a 46-week season. [2] I could have cited to any number of other recent sources for the same proposition, like this AV Club interview with Jeopardy! head writer Billy Wisse ("we tape five shows in a day, so we basically approach the games in those units—pools, we call them. So there are five-game pools. And we tape 230 shows in a year, so 46 pools, so 46 round tables."). Either way, the evidence is indisputable that Eisenberg is not "outdated" on the point that you contend, without any evidence, that Eisenberg is outdated on, namely, that the Jeopardy! season length is different today than it was at Eisenberg's publication. Now, you accuse me of "picking and choosing," and thus, "original research". Your sole grounds for this is Alex Trebek's statement in the Nerdist podcast interview that the show had "always" been 46 weeks. You apparently contend that an interpretation of an offhand use of "always" as figurative rather than literal is original research, and that Alex's offhand remark negates the reliability of several paragraphs of Eisenberg that explain the season length adjustment in explicit terms. It isn't, and it doesn't. But more importantly, while you're not now arguing that the show had always been 46 weeks, you're also not arguing that the show isn't 46 weeks. While your position is riddled with insoluble contradictions, my position is consistent. While you're unable to show how the numbers you propose as accurate can possibly work out under any counting method, the numbers work out based on all the different data points we have under my counting method. And that's the reason for the essay. The essay explains the correct counting method concisely, and with resort to just a few basic reliable sources. Now, your position is that because of your opinion on how a remark by Alex Trebek should be interpreted, there is no dispute and even my essay explaining the dispute may not be permitted to exist. I don't see that as right. Robert K S (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Ignoring the dispute above, the nitty gritty of this in policy and guideline appears to come down to interpretation of WP:UP#GOALS:
    Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (For example in the latter case, because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.)
    I do still tend toward deletion, as this isn't directly useful to the project in my humble opinion, as we can't use it in article space. --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your pointing to a guideline more relevant than those on which the deletion nomination is based. However, I can't see how you can reach the conclusion you reach based on the wording of the guideline. The essay is directly related to a content dispute, and it explains the content dispute, and a position thereon, with reference to sources that are cited in the article. It seems that you believe that an essay is "unrelated" to the encyclopedia if the content of the essay cannot at some later point be wholesale incorporated into the article space, but I do not believe that that is the correct standard. Because the essay directly relates to the encyclopedia content by explaining a persisting factual error in an article and offering the solution to that error backed by reliable sources and simple counting, the essay is within the guideline and should not be deleted. Robert K S (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Interesting stuff. I appreciate what you're trying to do and how frustrating it must be if you perceive that an error is being perpetuated, but I'd say that "reliable sources and simple counting" is the very essence of SYNTH. --Dweller (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Respectfully, I don't think that's correct. What we call "SYNTH" on Wikipedia is not merely any synthesis: it's original research by way of synthesis. If the alleged synthesis is not original research, then it is not "SYNTH", either, and routine calculations do not constitute original research. If we have a source that numbers a Monday with the number 1, and we know that days are numbered successively, is it "original research" to synthesize that the following Friday is number 5? No; counting is routine calculation. If we know that a season of Jeopardy! started on a certain date, and a certain number of episodes preceded it, is calculating the number of episodes produced at any arbitrary date thereafter original research, if such can be done by counting calendar weekdays? Again, I think the answer is no. If counting from a starting point that comes from a documentary source is impermissible "SYNTH", then there is no computation that is not also "SYNTH" and thus WP:CALC has no meaning. We have to be careful with what we mean by "original research". Summarization and extrapolation of information are the proper function of the encyclopedia and its editors. But even if an editor ultimately disputes the validity of the sources relied upon, as seems to be the case here with AldezD arguing that Eisenberg is "outdated", that does not make the dispute one to be "wiped off the map," so to speak, by silencing the explanations of others. Robert K S (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
          • The userspace essay does not detail a routine calculation. It describes how to manually count calendar days based upon contradicting sources that have been used to create original research and synthesis. The user selects information from specific sources but ignores contradictory information from those same sources because he feels the contradictions are not true, calling into question the validity and accuracy of the OR/SYN calcs as well as the WP:V of sources being used. This information has been used to create SYN manual calculations that are not routine. The user continues to make the same WP:IDHT arguments based upon his own OR/SYN, despite existence multiple WP guidelines that detail why this method should not be used and why this content is not appropriate for Wikipedia. AldezD (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
            • If your beef is that the essay "ignores contradictory information from ... sources," then that is a content dispute regarding userspace content, not a reason for deletion of the essay. You are welcome to post to the essay's talk page and point out any perceived problems with the essay, and I will be happy to edit the essay accordingly to note and address any perceived inconsistencies. But I think the basic position that you seem to be advancing is untenable: you seem to be arguing that whenever sources are even arguably in disagreement, then the sources cannot be used for the facts they contain--even if there is no reasonable disagreement among editors as to those facts. Here, you are not actually arguing that Jeopardy! has "always" had 46-week seasons. Such is contradicted by the weight of sources, including both Eisenberg and Richmond. Instead, you are arguing that because you perceive an inconsistency in sources, those sources cannot be relied upon, and thus even an essay discussing those sources cannot be permitted in the userspace. In other words, you're trying to stifle a debate about article-related issues. Meanwhile, you have added to the article, and refuse to remove from the article, episode count information that you know to a reasonable certainty to be incorrect (based on the fact that your count ends in 9 whereas it would have to end in a 5 or a 0 since Jeopardy! is a daily program) and which is wholly unsupported by the source you offer for it, which never once states that the number it gives is a number of episodes aired or produced. Robert K S (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The essay is a tool the user has created to explain why he believes his WP:OR and WP:SYN method should be used calculate an episode count for a television shows.
Additionally, The user references three main sources within the essay, two of which contradict a third.
  • Inside "Jeopardy!": What Really Goes on at TV's Top Quiz Show, by Harry Eisenberg, is dated 1993 and does not account for nor verify any changes to production of the show (specifically, episode count) following the publication of that book.
  • This is Jeopardy!: Celebrating America's Favorite Quiz Show, by Ray Richmond, is also used in the userspace article as a source, but this source is dated 2004 and does not account for any changes to production following the book's publication.
The user essay purports the two sources above verify that "Jeopardy! started its run with a 39-week season, i.e., 195 shows per season", and that "During its 1986-87 season, i.e., Season 3, the decision was made to extend the Jeopardy! regular season 'from 39 weeks of shows to 46 weeks, leaving only six weeks of reruns instead of the previous 13'". (see User:Robert K S/Jeopardy! episode count#Sourced factual premises).
These two publications do not account for changes to production procedures after 1993/2004. The user presents a third source in the essay, A Nerdist podcast featuring an interview with Alex Trebek, which he claims verifies that 46 weeks of production have continued after 1993/2004. However, Trebek states at 25:26 in the podcast that "We've always done 46", and this refutes the claim within the userspace content that seasons 1 and 2 had lower episode counts, and also contradicts the other two sources (Richmond and Eisenberg) in the essay, calling into question both the accuracy of the two earlier sources as well as Trebek's recollection of details from 29 years earlier.
Ignoring the contradictions above, the user then suggests counting days in a calendar to determine a "correct episode count".
It is impossible to verify the number from any of the sources given since they are contradictory, and this again does not meet WP:V. The user "picking and choosing" what content within a source should be used, as well as the manual counting method, means the essay itself is OR and SYN, which does not fall under the earlier referenced WP:NOT guidelines, nor under WP:UP#GOALS bullet #4. AldezD (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(outdent) There is nothing "OR" or "SYN" about counting. Since the "method" proposed in the essay involves only addition and counting, it is not the method you disagree with. At best, you're only arguing that the sourcing that underlies the implementation of the method is incompletely sourced. I don't agree; I think Eisenberg is sufficient to support the proposition that Jeopardy! switched from 39 weeks to 46 weeks in its third season and remains so today, absent evidence that another change took place sometime later (you are unable to offer any such evidence, and you have never even disputed that Jeopardy! is still 46 weeks long each year). But whether someone agrees with AldezD or with me on the principle of the sufficiency of the factual sourcing, that does not make this essay "excessive unrelated content" as it would have to be to justify deletion. Best, Robert K S (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The user essay is original research and synthesis based upon selective referencing from contradicting sources. It is not routine calculation. This essay is OR and SYN. Within this deletion discussion, the user continues to make the argument of selective referencing and to ignore contradicting information as well as WP:V issues, which is a further example of the SYN and OR basis of this userspace content. Whether or not the show still produces 46 weeks of new shows, switched at some point or a combination of those items is not the issue. The issue is that this userspace content details non-routine calculations based upon OR and SYN, and that type of content does not belong on Wikipedia per the earlier mentioned guidelines of WP:NOTESSAY #1 and WP:UP#GOALS #4. AldezD (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
That the sources are contradictory is solely a matter of your opinion. I do not find an offhand "always" in the context of an oral interview to mean more than "for a long time", and do not find it to contradict two other written sources. But even if the Trebek interview is ignored and not relied upon, we still have the AV Club interview to support the fact that Jeopardy! remains a 46-week-season show and has not, contrary to your unsupported speculation, changed its season length since 2004. The issue is solely that you, AldezD, want to "win" what you irrationally perceive as a "war" over this minor factual issue, and since I refuse to be baited into an edit war with you over the article proper, the remaining way available to you to win the "war" is to have my essay deleted. Since the essay relates directly to article content, and cites to sources used by the article, it is not "pure original research, [or] in complete disregard of reliable sources, or ... clearly unencyclopedic" and thus is proper userspace content under WP:UP#GOALS #4. Robert K S (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Manually calculating days on a calendar based upon contradictory references which don't give an exact episode number nor an episode count—only the purported number of production weeks within a season—is SYN. The userspace content details an OR/SYN method to calculate an episode count based upon a specific date, and this userspace content does not belong on Wikipedia based upon the earlier mentioned guidelines. AldezD (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry if the basis of your arguments has been your misunderstanding about what the sources attest to. The sources do not give the number of production weeks. The sources give the number airing weeks in the season of produced episodes. 46 weeks times fives shows per week (Monday-Friday) equals 230 episodes per season. For a growing collection of sources attesting to this, see here. The number of weeks out of the year that Jeopardy! is produced is actually not important to the episode count, but given that Jeopardy! tapes 5 shows a day, two days a week, it would take 23 weeks during the year to tape the show, because 230/10 = 23. Robert K S (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, WP:IDHT. You are manually calculating an episode count based upon an OR and SYN essay in a userspace article, which itself uses sources that contradict each other. The sources do not provide the number of new episodes in a season. You are using SYN to arrive at this calculation result, which is not routine. The essay details OR and SYN and does not belong on WP, neither as basis for information contained within an article, nor within userspace. AldezD (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The basis of your deletion nomination is that the contents of the essay are "original research". But first, the whole point of the essay is to show concisely how episode counts involve no original research. You can repeat "OR, OR, OR" all you want, but you haven't shown where there's any OR. I've cited to numerous sources that render your contentions that Eisenberg is "outdated" incredible. And second, even if you were completely correct, and there was some "original research" in the essay, that isn't a valid basis for deletion of a userspace essay directed to resolving a point of contention in an encyclopedia-related matter. Read WP:UP. Under "what may I have in my user space," one of the explicitly allowed types of content is "Expansion and detailed backup for points being made (or which you may make) in discussions elsewhere on the wiki." This essay qualifies. Furthermore, it's not "unrelated content". The essay relates directly to information that you seek to include in the article and refuse to remove, despite the fact that I have demonstrated again and again that the information you seek to include is mathematically impossible. Jeopardy! airs daily on weekdays. Thus, any episode count as of a Friday would have to end in a 0 or a 5. You have included information indicated an episode count, as of a Friday, that ends in a 9. My essay addresses that. It's a related matter, not unrelated content, as you would seem to insist. Robert K S (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
As an aside—and this does not relate to this specific deletion discussion—you continue to make the argument here (as you did in the earlier no WP:OR discussion) that I seek to include information in the article and "refuse to remove" information. I have repeatedly commented that if you as an editor do not agree with a sourced episode count currently in the article, remove it and remove the linked source ([3], [4], [5]). AldezD (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The basis of the deletion nomination is that this userspace content details non-routine calculations based upon OR and SYN, and that type of content does not belong on Wikipedia per the earlier mentioned guidelines of WP:NOTESSAY #1 and WP:UP#GOALS #4. AldezD (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Counting is a routine calculation. Addition is a routine calculation. I don't think you have ever argued otherwise, although you have been fairly good at masking that fact in the volume of text you've posted. The only thing you seem to dispute is the bases for the numbers being added together. I think the reasons for your disagreement are feeble and dishonest, and each time I bring more evidence into the discussion, your argument morphs into something new. First, it was "there might not still be 230 episodes per season after 2004" (when This Is Jeopardy! was published). Now with a voluminous and growing set of references debunking that speculative contention, your argument has become "Alex said 'always' and 'always' must mean 'always'. Therefore, one source contradicts others, and none of them are valid!" Even such argument, combining a stubborn literalism with an unreasonable approach to reconciling differences in the record, does not result in a conclusion that there has been original research. Every point has some published evidence behind it, and even you are not disputing that. Robert K S (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
This specific userspace deletion discussion is based upon the WP guidelines that an editor's userspace should not be used as a host for OR or SYN content. The essay which discusses manually counting days on a calendar and using numbers of weeks to arrive at a calculation result is not routine and falls under SYN and OR. The sources within the essay do not provide a specific count of episodes by season for all seasons airing since 1984. You are manually arriving at this calculation result by multiplying the number of days in a week and the number of weeks of new episodes in a season. That is SYN. AldezD (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you now arguing that counting calendar days is not a routine calculation? Robert K S (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
A 3,500+ word essay that describes a method of manually counting days is not a routine calculation. It is SYN, and does not belong in userspace content per the guidelines mentioned earlier. AldezD (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
You're just going in circles. You know very well it doesn't take 3,500 words to describe the routine calculation, because we've covered that point many times before. It can be done in a single sentence: add up the number of episodes from previous seasons and count calendar days from the beginning of the current season. Addition and counting are routine, and even now, when the question is put to you pointedly, you cannot summon any argument as to why they are not. Given that your entire argument for deletion is that the essay is original research, but the whole point of the essay is to show why the routine calculations involve no original research, there is no basis for deletion of the essay which directly addresses a point of contention between you and I on article content. You just can't stand the fact that there is any dissent and you wish to stifle it through this wholly improper deletion nomination. Robert K S (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Are you both looking for a starring role in one of Wikipedia's most interesting pages? You're heading that way. Both of your positions are abundantly clear, neither of you is going to persuade the other. Just stop arguing and wait for third party editors' opinions. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/To be sorted[edit]

Wikipedia:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/To be sorted (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale page created for the purposes of a bot that hasn't edited it in seven years. Dweller (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Articles[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Misleadingly stale. Despite the note at the top of the page, the list hasn't been properly maintained for eight years.

Using [6] will in any case provide an up to date list of pages using the template, making even an updated list redundant. Dweller (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/SatyrBot maintenance/Verification[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/SatyrBot maintenance/Verification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale. Hasn't been maintained for seven years. Bot it was intended for has been inactive for some years too. Dweller (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/SatyrBot maintenance/Cleanup[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/SatyrBot maintenance/Cleanup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale. List not updated in seven years. Bot it was intended for hasn't operated in some years either. Dweller (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

User:90/MARR[edit]

User:90/MARR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Divisive; Wikipedia is not the place for this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

March 25, 2015[edit]

User:Jacir[edit]

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

Meaningless user page fluff from a user with no other edits. Page dates from 2010. Borderline for CSD U5. Safiel (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. SD0001 (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Madumita Digital Studio[edit]

Draft:Madumita Digital Studio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draftified to escape deletion while AfD. – nafSadh did say 21:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • So what? I moved it to the draft namespace as this would allow the creator, Adnatull, time to make possibly constructive improvements. If he does not improve the draft in a reasonable period of time (3-4 days), I have no objection to this being deleted. — SD0001 (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Martinwguy[edit]

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

This user page violates WP:FAKEARTICLE, which states that "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles". Based on the link to this page from Xvi (text editor), also created by this user and since removed [7], it appears the similarity to a real article was intentional. User has been warned [8] and [9], and is aware of the problem [10] but has taken no action. Msnicki (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Armi Millare[edit]

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

Article for the subject (Armi Millare) exists. SD0001 (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrew S. Howell[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrew S. Howell (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft. SD0001 (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Doxent/List of singers by range[edit]

User:Doxent/List of singers by range (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft. Sadly, User:Doxent hasn't edited in three years. Dweller (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Jinnai/PQ Angels[edit]

User:Jinnai/PQ Angels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As per WP:STALEDRAFT, this is a userfied version of an article deleted in October 2009 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PQ Angels). It has remained untouched since, and the user has not edited on Wikipedia since January 2012. --DAJF (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

March 24, 2015[edit]

Draft:Alyssa Veniece[edit]

Draft:Alyssa Veniece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:NOTWEBHOST WordSeventeen (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - The page is in question is a recently created draft article. The structure makes it look like an article. This is in no way something that is being used as a web host. -- Whpq (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment The article draft has already put in mainspace two times and was speedily deleted each time. WordSeventeen (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Based on the user talk page of the creator, it has been speedily deleted 3 times, of which the first two predate the creation of this particular draft. I don't have access to deleted content so I don't know how similar they are but in any case, none of that has to do with a DRAFT as the draft name space is for working on potential articles without all of the scrutiny that is applied to article space. Note that this draft has an article review template so presumably when the editor working on this thinks it is ready, it can be reviewed for suitability. -- Whpq (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - This draft doesn't fall under WP:NOTWEBHOST; the main contributor intends for it to become an article (at the risk of repeating Whpq's arguments, since the draft is cited and has the structure of an article). Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Doesn't meet WP:NOTWEBHOST requirement. Draft is quite recent. SD0001 (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:AlyssaVeniece[edit]

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

WP:NOTWEBHOST WordSeventeen (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails WP:FAKEARTICLE. Msnicki (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge to Draft:Alyssa Veniece. The user page is not the right place for a draft article. Given that a version exists in the DRAFT name space, the article should be developed there. -- Whpq (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge per Whpq. Can be done easily. SD0001 (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

March 23, 2015[edit]

March 22, 2015[edit]

Portal:Wikimedia ZA[edit]

Portal:Wikimedia ZA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This breaks the rule at WP:PORTAL that "Portals shall be created for encyclopedic topics only and not for article maintenance categories.". The list at User:John_of_Reading/List_of_portals shows that this is the only portal (if indeed it is a portal) like this. This is not categorized as a portal. There are no significant inlinks to the page. DexDor (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - It definitely isn't a portal in the sense used for Wikipedia portals. It was created as a place for discussion for South African Wikipedians. One might entertain moving this to the WP name space, but it appears that this page for discussion has garnered no real activity. The only post is a mysterious comment about a template. -- Whpq (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Indifferent - As the page's creator I am indifferent as to wheather or not it is deleted. If it does violate WP:PORTAL then I am all for it. I might create a better suited page elsewhere for it some time in the future. Thanks for notifying me of the deletion nomination. --Discott (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Could you explain why such page is even needed? The edit-a-thons have their own pages where questions and discussions can be had. For general questions that South African (or any editors) have Wikipedia:Help desk. If there is something about a South African specific topic they wish to discuss, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject South Africa. From the time this portal was created in July 2014, theee has been exactly one edit to the talk page. That would indicate that there is no real need for such a portal page. -- Whpq (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kotohimelove[edit]

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

Appears that this userpage draft is both a WP:FAKEARTICLE and a WP:HOAX. Project Shrine Maiden is a redirect to Touhou Project, a bullet hell shooters computer game from the 1990s that would not be suitable for childrens' programming. I found no source to support the content of this fake article. Content also indicates it is a hoax, claiming, for example, that episodes "The Facts of Lice" and "Boys Have Cooties" were aired by PBS. Owner/author is infef blocked for vandalism and hoaxes. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 03:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as a hoax. -- Whpq (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Robert135[edit]

User:Robert135 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page resembles an article, pushes fringe theory of perpetual motion. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2015‎ (UTC)

  • Delete. WP:FAKEARTICLE. Editor abandoned this draft and WP entirely in 2010. The material is wholly unsourced and does not appear to be worth salvaging. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Per HobbesG above. "Thinking on Wikipedia rather than scratch paper" with no chance of ever being more. Entirely OR. After 5 years, time for it to go as both FAKEARTICLE and STALEDRAFT. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 05:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - unsourced draft for a fringe concept. -- Whpq (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

March 21, 2015[edit]

User:Afil/Ligia Filotti[edit]

User:Afil/Ligia Filotti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article was deleted at AfD in 2011, and no work has been done on it since then. - Biruitorul Talk 23:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't see where Afil was notified. If subject of this draft received awards from Dept of State or some independent RS are found about the art career to establish notability, this article may make it to mainspace and stay. The writing, layout and photos are good. I have a couple of old drafts I'm working on but off-line (going to Smithsonian Archives next week) doing research with no apparent activity on Wikipedia. I'll give Afil benefit of the doubt and a chance to comment before expressing an opinion on keep or delete. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 04:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Objection There is no reason to delete the page. The proposal of Biruitorul is only the result of a personal dispute between me and him and is simply based on different political views. I consider that opponents to oppressive political regimes (in this case the communist regime) should qualify for articles. Biruitorul does not. I simply consider that personal views of some wikipedians should not be imposed on others. Due to his aggressive attitudes I have given up contributing to Wikipedia after having tens of thousands of contributions (Wikipedia statistics can be checked). I tried to cut all discussions with him to avoid further confrontation, hoping that this would avoid more clashes. In this care I moved the page from an article of wikipedia to one of sections to accomodate his views. If this is not acceptable, I want all articles I have contributed to Wikipedia to be deleted. I want nothing to do with an organization in which one user can impose his views on the entire community.Afil (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Afil's reply is replete with non-sequiturs. No, I don't consider that "opponents to oppressive political regimes" do not deserve articles on Wikipedia. After all, it was not that long ago that I authored an article on Victor Rădulescu-Pogoneanu, perhaps one of the purest examples one can find of a principled opponent of Romania's communist regime. However, I also believe, in line with WP:BASIC, that an encyclopedically notable individual must be the subject of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" - something which this text plainly does not meet, as was overwhelmingly determined by the consensus to delete the article from the mainspace as a result of this discussion. Four years have passed in which notability could have been demonstrated, but it hasn't happened, and there's no sign it will. Userspace is a place for articles to be improved, not kept as a way of circumventing deletion. I have nothing at all against Afil, but really now, either show notability or let's get rid of this. - Biruitorul Talk 19:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Toon twitter adventures[edit]

Wikipedia:Toon twitter adventures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Clearly not encyclopedic, page creator is now blocked. Not sure what speedy criteria this fits (A11 would work if this was in mainspace), so nominating here. Altamel (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a web host. -- Whpq (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Definitely doesn't belong in Wikipedia: space (or anywhere else in Wikipedia except perhaps as a sandbox experiment). Appears a juvenile trying to impress. Author's userpage was speedied G-11, likely with a similar text. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 05:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User:B&LTVC[edit]

User:B&LTVC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE, or at least just the infobox. We already have an article on Mr. Burns and this is not a useful draft. Whpq (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It is just a page I'm deleting it myself later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B&LTVC (talkcontribs) 20:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The correct place to do that would be your sandbox. Amortias (T)(C) 22:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete Per nom. Amortias (T)(C) 22:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Page content was voluntarily removed by B&LTVC, a WP:NEWCOMER who just created an account on 20 March 2015. S/he hasn't had time to learn Wikipedia norms and experimented with several topics and draft articles in the userpage rather than in a sandbox because of that inexperience. @Whpq:, please consider withdrawing this one. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 01:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Quacks pretty loud. Thanks, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 11:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Note: The user has been confirmed as a sock. I've replaced the contents of the page with the sockpuppetry tag as per usual practices. Mike VTalk 22:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Let's close this then, as no revdeletion is necessary. SD0001 (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

March 20, 2015[edit]

User:Tomaca/Vickilyn Reynolds[edit]

User:Tomaca/Vickilyn Reynolds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft from 2011. It appears to be a copy of Vickilyn Reynolds which has been altered to use HTML formatting in place of regular wikilinking for whatever reason. Whpq (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:SMBJohnson[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not LinkedIn Whpq (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Thomas W. Edwards[edit]

User:Thomas W. Edwards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Promotional user page. It's really using Wikipedia to host essentially what is press release material. Whpq (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Don't WP:BITE. User is new, although with no other contribs. We can delete this per WP:U5 if the user does not edit again anytime soon. SD0001 (talk)

Old business[edit]

March 19, 2015[edit]

User:PatrickLoSasso[edit]

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

This user's only contributions to Wikipedia over the years have been to maintain this personal biography. Per WP:NOTWEBHOST, this page should be deleted. Deli nk (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete self-promotional. Gigs (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Blank per WP:FAKEARTICLE. May not be necessary to delete since it's the user's main page. Ivanvector (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, it is spam. Spumuq (talq) 10:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Richardweisskopf[edit]

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

This user's only contributions to Wikipedia over the years have been to maintain this personal biography. Per WP:NOTWEBHOST, this page should be deleted. Deli nk (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  • This information was established and maintained to provide a reference for future contributions to Wikipedia, which will commence within the next few weeks. Please do not delete this profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardweisskopf (talkcontribs) 19:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

March 18, 2015[edit]

March 17, 2015[edit]

March 16, 2015[edit]

User:Bartfargo/Andrew Wesely[edit]

User:Bartfargo/Andrew Wesely (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Not a U5 because of the editor's other work. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

March 13, 2015[edit]

User:Crispest chip/AssociateSystem[edit]

User:Crispest chip/AssociateSystem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Looks to be WP:OR than something ususable. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment While searching for copyvio I found PreAct. There are some phrases in common. Both of them may be a copyright violation of an offline source. Gigs (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
PreAct is a copyright violation. I've marked it as such. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Does that mean this is as well? I found common phrases between the two. Gigs (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

March 12, 2015[edit]

User:Bryan Bieber/Filament Productions[edit]

User:Bryan Bieber/Filament Productions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Long-abandoned article draft in user space for non-notable company (does not quality as G13 because it does not use the template, does not qualify as U5 as the user has other contributions and that doesn't really apply to drafts anyway). B (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

March 11, 2015[edit]

User:Sumunumus[edit]

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

WP:FAKEARTICLE - This is essentially an unreferenced article placed in user space. We already have James Hurt in article space. There are no references provided so a merge is not a good option. Whpq (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Sarashea/Garth Francis[edit]

User:Sarashea/Garth Francis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT, and in part, a copyright violation with parts of the article that look to be copied from this obit. Whpq (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

March 10, 2015[edit]

User:Robert K S/jipc[edit]

User:Robert K S/jipc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:UP#COPIES and STALEDRAFT. Article has not been edited by user since 2007 and is old revision of content deleted by AFD in 2007 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! in popular culture (3rd nomination)). Only other edits since 2007 have been two revisions in 2010 by IP editor. WP:NOTWEBHOST also applies, and userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host WP:FAKEARTICLE, old revisions, or deleted content. Page is being used solely for long-term archival purposes. AldezD (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:

User:Robert K S/jap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)–UP#COPIES/STALEDRAFT created in 2007 following first AFD of live article. No edits since 2007.
User:Robert K S/epstat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)–UP#COPIES/STALEDRAFT created in 2008 of sections within Jeopardy! broadcast information. No edits since 2008.
User:Robert K S/50ggsoat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)–UP#COPIES/STALEDRAFT created in 2009. No edits since 2009.

AldezD (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Two articles within this nomination are also recreations/copies of other articles that were deleted in 2014 following an earlier MfD. AldezD (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

March 9, 2015[edit]

User:Abhilash ig/COSPE[edit]

User:Abhilash ig/COSPE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT: Has not been edited since July 2011 (other than my formatting to correct errors on the page). NORTH AMERICA1000 05:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

March 4, 2015[edit]

Wikipedia:Louis Couperus/Gallery[edit]

Wikipedia:Louis Couperus/Gallery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Afaics this page is unique in en wp (e.g. there are no other pages like it in Category:Image galleries). The place for galleries about a specific topic is Commons[11]. The only inlink to the gallery is from the GA talk page which says it's temporary.

For info: I recently moved this page from the article namespace as this page is more WP admin (it was created to support a GA discussion) than it is encyclopedia content (it has no inlinks from any articles) and (IMO) MFD is a more appropriate venue for discussion of this than AFD.

I don't think the page is likely to be of much interest to future historians of Wikipedia (and people can also look at old versions of the article to see what photos it had in it on any given date), but if anybody thinks that this page is likely to be of such importance to future historians of wikipedia that they need to be able to access it without asking an admin then please indicate whether you would be happy for the page to be changed to a redirect or marked as historical and have the current category removed. DexDor (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. As stated, it was meant to be a temporary place for the excessive number of images that the Louis Couperus article originally contained, but it serves no purpose now. Many of the images are minimally or only incidentally related to the topic. Moreover, there is already a link to Commons. -- P 1 9 9   13:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Josepaulopineda/jose[edit]

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

Abandoned draft in user space. Editor has not been active since 2013. Found while scanning for links to known copyvio websites —Farix (t | c) 18:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2, 2015[edit]

February 26, 2015[edit]

User:Wakkie1379/sandbox[edit]

User:Wakkie1379/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft of what looks like an attempt to translate the Lung cancer article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT. I think the translations would be better suited to be taken to the various other language wikipedias rather than stored here. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

So the issue is some tools used to fix translations do not exist in other languages (like the find and replace function) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - clearly an attempt to improve wikipedia as a whole. I think translators should be given very wide latitude for cross-posting. --Surturz (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

February 24, 2015[edit]

User:Maxcrc/Countries without frost[edit]

User:Maxcrc/Countries without frost (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned draft, unlikely to be considered encyclopedic. "Frost" is too vague a term. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The user FreeRangeFRog is lying in his purpose to vandalise other userpages' content. That page was modified few days ago by myself, so his lies about an "abandoned" page don't stand at all.. That user seems to have a clear reputation of vandalising pages of other users. Perhaps he has nothing to do .There is no reason to remove a userpage , the only reason "abandoned" is a clear lie, as you can see my last edit few days ago. (I don't always log in when i edit, that's why sometimes you see IPs).MaXiMiLiAnO (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Sparse edits through 2009-2012, followed by a few edits in the last 30 days that were nothing more than reverts, apparently. Wikipedia is not a webhost, and you should not be keeping this unsourced and apparently made up material in your userspace indefinitely. Drafts are intended to be turned into articles. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

What user FreeRangeFrog states is untrue. On 9 February the page was edited and changes were made. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Maxcrc/Countries_without_frost&diff=646147311&oldid=594645985 The revert was dated 9 February on a change made on 22 January, instead a change of the text was made on 8 February in the line regarding Qatar.That was not a revert, but a change in the text,since it was made that time alone.

Regarding the content of being vague, this also doesn't make sense, as in the first line we can read the following "This is a list of countries which haven't recorded any official nor unofficial freezing air temperatures".

I don't understand what is unclear to him, unless he doesn't agree with the content itself,which wouldn't be a valid reason for deleting the page. It looks like he is moved by personal reasons to have that subpage (that is not a draft) deleted, because it seems he didn't bother to check at the last changes nor at the page's content. I don't see a difference between that and other userpage's subpages . They all have been kept for years, with or without sources, some with more and some with less frequent edits. Therefore it would make more sense to request a deletion for the main userpage if the reason is an abuse of Wikipedia as being used as host. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.98.69.173 (talk) 171.98.69.173 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete I don't see this ever moving into article space. There are no references, especially for the percentages, which are admitted estimates (who estimated them? Is this original research?). And if it isn't going to make it to article space, it shouldn't be in user space, since user space isn't meant to be a permanent home for articles.  DiscantX 09:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Note, there is no requirement that user subpages be draft articles. This is not a policy-based argument. Risker (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Risker, I feel this falls under #3 at WP:Subpages#Disallowed uses – "Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." There is no requirement that subpages be draft articles, but this is a draft article, and it hasn't shown any signs of being moved to the article space in years, and so it doesn't belong in the user space. Drafts are meant to be temporary. This isn't, to use your examples below, an essay or Wikipedia related blog. It isn't even Wikipedia related. Which is exactly what the user space is for (except of course temporary drafts).  DiscantX 04:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Why do you think this is a draft article? Has the user said it is a draft article? (In fact, he has said above that it is not a draft.) Is there a "draft article" notice on the page? How do you know this isn't just a list the user refers to for other reasons? Risker (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
          • If it's not a draft article and it's not related to Wikipedia, should it not be hosted somewhere else, not here? Isn't this exactly the kind of thing WP:NOT warns against?  DiscantX 04:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete No hope of ever becoming an article. Nothing but vague WP:OR. More than 7 years old and no better now than when it was when created. We don't even know what the estimated percentages are for (% of country that is frost-free? % of time the country is frost-free? % of sources that say the country is frost-free? likelihood the country is frost-free?) And what's the point of making estimates such as 0-80%? Might as well just say 0-100% chance and be done with it. Meters (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Note, there is no requirement that user subpages be draft articles. This is not a policy-based argument. Risker (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - there might be potential for this to be built into an encyclopedic list, based on statistics from weather authorities, but at the moment it isn't that. It's just a list of stats. User Maxcrc seems to be using this space to host a page linked from his own website, along with several other pages. He should just host them there. Ivanvector (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Note, there is no requirement that user subpages be draft articles. This is not a policy-based argument. Risker (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Good one. All 5 of the user Wikipedia pages he's linking to should probably be speedied U5. I've tagged the other 4. Meters (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
You shouldn't have done that, I have just turned down all of those requests, Meters. If you really feel it is necessary, bring it to MFD. Risker (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Asked Risker to explain reasoning on his talk. Meters (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
And I have responded on my talk page. To summarize briefly, this MfD has not come to a conclusion yet, and there is not a community consensus that the original page is even deletion-worthy (yes, I can read the votes, but it's early days). Putting up a whole slew of additional userspace pages, which are doing no harm at all, and are not actually webhosting, up for CSD at the same time, while the user has also just been blocked (and that is a whole different subject which I won't deal with here) comes across as premature at best, if not mean-spirited. I'm still at a loss as to why instead of coming straight to MfD, there wasn't even an attempt to discuss with the user whose userpage is being discussed here. This whole thing is a big mess that could have been avoided entirely. Risker (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, these aren't really WP:U5 - there's a slim possibility they could be turned into articles with some work or used for other existing articles, and thus are plausible drafts. Each one should be evaluated on its own merits. Personally I can see a rationale for deleting each one, since the user who was working on them is blocked indefinitely; they are likely to become stale drafts, but that's not a speedy criterion. Ivanvector (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
As I have noted above, there is no requirement at all that user subpages be article drafts. Many users have all kinds of things in their userspace that will never be suitable for articles; I have essays in mine, Newyorkbrad has a Wikipedia-related blog, others keep logs of their activity, etc. As long as the user isn't straying into areas that are not permitted by policy or convention (e.g., BLP violations, fair-use images, polemics, games or the like) then they're generally permitted. Risker (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict × several) Of course you're right, and thank you for interjecting your comment four times above. The pages you mention here are all related to Wikipedia or the project's goals, which is generally (but admittedly not always) required for user pages. Newyorkbrad's blog is Wikipedia-related, your essays have to do with Wikipedia (I'm assuming), I have pages and templates in my user space which are useful to my editing but unlikely to ever move to main space. The problem is Maxcrc's page pretends to be a Wikipedia article. The harm is that a user happening across his website might click one of these links and find what looks like a Wikipedia article but is really just a list of unverifiable guesses as to the likelihood of freezing temperatures in an assortment of countries. That usage is inappropriate.
Maybe this could be turned into an encyclopedia article, maybe a list of countries without freezing temperatures listing countries in which the official record low is above 0 °C (32 °F), sourced to weather authorities? I don't know if national temperature records are easily compiled - temperature extremes are often by city, but that might be a useful list as well and could be made sortable by country. If we were to create such an article, this page in Maxcrc's user space would not be of much benefit at all, since it just lists stats with no explanation as to what they are or where they came from. Ivanvector (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Risker's points are completely unconvincing. Their examples of user subpages are Wikipedia-related. We're not hosting the stats for Tommy's Little League or Al's Bowling Alley or any other indiscriminate information. The only way the present subpage can be construed as Wikipedia related is as a potential article and 6+ years is enough time to develop an acceptable one. --NeilN talk to me 04:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. It's obvious from the set up and layout that the sub page was never meant to be an article, just a repository of stats that is being stored here rather than on their own site. Blackmane (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The page presents information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. It's not a draft, apparently, but a page the user hopes will help build the encyclopedia in some other way. Per Risker's suggestion at AN, Maxcrc should consider adding {{NOINDEX}} to their sub-pages so they don't get found by search engines. -Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Anthonyhcole, this information is uncited and probably WP:OR. Who is going to use it to help build Wikipedia, and why hasn't it happened yet?  DiscantX 10:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
There's no deadline, DiscantX. I assume Maxcrc will use it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Tag as non-article and Keep - user pages of active user. Other UP's for this user (eg User:Maxcrc/Europe) are clearly not drafts. As far as I can tell this editor is using Wikipedia and these UPs for his own purposes. I think that is acceptable and should be encouraged. As long as the UPs can't be mistaken for articles I see no problem here. --Surturz (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This would be great encyclopedia material if it was properly referenced. But it seems to be WP:OR. And I must agree with User:NeilN: enough time has passed to properly develop this. -- P 1 9 9   01:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

February 23, 2015[edit]

February 22, 2015[edit]

February 18, 2015[edit]

February 16, 2015[edit]

February 13, 2015[edit]

Closed discussions[edit]

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.