Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
Skip to active discussions
Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, consider adding {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.
Deletion discussions
Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
  • RfC about whether "new messages" banner hoaxes should be prohibited
  • RfC on how files from non-copyright states should be treated and used on WP
  • RfC on aspects of the leadership of the featured article process
  • Discussion about improving WP:PORNBIO
  • RfC on the "deletion" of the no longer used Reviewer userright
Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive · talk · edit · history · watch

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside the main namespace (also called the "article namespace") 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.

[edit] Information on the process

Pages in these namespaces may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Book:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including Wikiprojects), User:, the various Talk: namespaces, and userboxes (regardless of namespace)

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.

[edit] Before nominating a page for deletion

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 them here; simply tag them 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.
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 - Nomination is generally frowned upon. 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 {{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 should not be tagged as {{historical}}, reserve this tag for the only the most influential projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion 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.
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-reason}} using the reason: Redirect left after a cross-namespace move - G6 Housekeeping. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.

[edit] Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

[edit] How to list pages for deletion

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

Contents

Closing instructions


[edit] Active discussions

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


[edit] January 29, 2012

[edit] January 28, 2012

[edit] User talk:Wahnfried

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

Talk page without user page, and inactive user. ♪♫19maxx♪♫ 22:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:SaintSeanzy

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

Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Magioladitis (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a webhost. Shrigley (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pierdomenico Buda Rosa

User:Pierdomenico Buda Rosa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE; WP:USERBIO. ZZArch talk to me 09:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

this bio is genuine sirs!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierdomenico Buda Rosa (talk • contribs) 11:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete-The concern is not necessarily that the material is not genuine, but rather that it is not appropriate. While putting some information about oneself on the user page is fine (that's one of the main things its for, in fact), using it for pages like this that are written like an article is not, especially given that, being that the prose is not in English, it is clearly not suitable as an article. In the future, I'd encourage the nominator to make his nominations more comprehensive (ie, more than just policy links) so as to avoid this sort of confusion.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] January 27, 2012

[edit] User:Meandmyhouse

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

Personal essay. Normally I'd be fine with that on a userpage, but this is just so far outside the scope of WP:UPYES as to be unsalvagable. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  • How about you ask the user to blank the page? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I would also say that its better to ask that user to blank that page because the user is probably new to wikipedia. --Yasht101 (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Looking back at their talkpage I see that I didn't actually ask them to do that (weird, I honestly thought I had...). Withdrawing nomination for the present, will request user adds a WP:U1 tag. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Viva Florida 500 WP

Wikipedia:Viva Florida 500 WP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This project is directly promoting a official program of the Florida Department of State. It is in effect promoting tourism in Florida. See VIVA Florida 500. -- Donald Albury 11:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Donald Albury 11:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


That is not the entire picture. I'm working with Viva Florida members who are archivists and history professors. One of which is Dr. Francis of UNF who is sending 4 students to Seville Spain on a research project. We will be obtaining new information on ancient topics and updating Florida history articles here at Wikipedia of which this Wiki Project is the Landing page for their members. As I mentioned in the beginning, this project is not so much about promoting Viva Florida 500 to the Wikipedia community, as it is about promoting Wikipedia to Viva Florida 500 members. And frankly you need more accuracy in many of the Florida History articles, as there is many errors and need for embellishment. If you pull the plug on this project then I will pull the plug with promoting Wikipedia to Viva Florida 500. Let me know ASAP, as I have a conference call coming up with Viva Florida 500 with close to a hundred historians and archivists around the state of Florida, and there will be no need to promote this project if there is no page for it.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't you try to work through the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida? There are several of us active in editing articles about Florida history. Indeed, why didn't you try to contact those of us editing such articles? I am also active in the Wikipedia:United States Education Program, which is working with instructors to provide support for students editing Wikipedia as part of their classroom work. While what you describe does not really fit under that, we are certainly willing to help anyone who wants to work at improving articles in Wikipedia. However, your project looks like it is acting as an agent of the State of Florida, and that, among other things, looks like a conflict of interest. -- Donald Albury 14:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Also please note that I posted an inquiry about this project back in Sept 2011 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Florida about this project. I do all this work to it and you now Mr. Danbury User_talk:Donald_Albury#Deleting_the_WikiFriends_of_Viva_Florida_500.3F wants to delete it! I'm an author and a historian and I have better things to do with my time.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

We simply missed your post, which is a real shame. What you are doing seems brilliant, let's not divide our efforts or compete in some way. I can't see any reason why you can't harness your efforts under the banner of the existing project rather than a parallel one that duplicates it. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
With the lack of participation on Florida history articles (or on any Florida articles, really), I welcome any effort to get more users involved, especially experts in the field. I haven't yet seen evidence of their involvement, but hope springs eternal. And while I understand Donald's concern about a conflict of interest, I don't agree that that's an issue here. Every member of every wikiproject has expressed a desire to increase the quality and quantity of coverage on a subject that they care about. As long as this particular wikiproject doesn't add clearly promotional text and links, it's no different than all the other projects, and there's no problem.
Perhaps renaming it to something more generic and officially making it a subgroup of wikiproject Florida would satisfy the concerns? Zeng8r (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd support that, I've just been suggesting a merger. I really think what is being done is exciting, and I hope Ourhsitory153 will agree to your suggestion. I'm not convinced that there is an issue over conflict of interest either. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I also don't think theres a conflict of interest and I agree that it would be better to not divide efforts. I just found out about the project recently myself and it caught my interest just because it doesn't have the normal WikiProject X naming structure. I had planned to bring it up but hadn't gotten to it yet. With that said I don't think its a problem if there are projects with overlapping scopes. --Kumioko (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
And Ourhistory153, if the project is renamed or moved or whatever, standard procedure is to leave a redirect at the old name so that any links you've shared with potential contributors would still automatically lead them to the project. It's wouldn't be a big deal, really. Zeng8r (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Writism1/Writism

User:Writism1/Writism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:OR ZZArch talk to me 09:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Writism1

User:Writism1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] User:Three-quarter-ten/Fleeting thoughts

User:Three-quarter-ten/Fleeting thoughts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Excessive unrelated content duffbeerforme (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Never realized that a User namespace subpage was subject to this level of content restriction (Wikipedia:User_pages#Excessive_unrelated_content). That's OK. I can move it to somewhere like Wikia or Google Sites or something, then just leave a link to it on my User page. Give me a week or two to move it. — ¾-10 23:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Deepmath/Chemistry 101

User:Deepmath/Chemistry 101 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Also:

A series of part WP:FAKEARTICLE/stale draft, part political rant, part personal ranting subpages under a now indef blocked user. OSborn arfcontribs. 04:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Brotherhoodofeternallove

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

Userpage of indef blocked user. Page only advertises the organization that the role account was created about Ramaksoud2000 (Did I make a mistake?) 00:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Recommend that nominator withdraw this and edit the user page to replace all content with a redirect to the user talk page:
    #redirect [[User talk:Brotherhoodofeternallove]]
    Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawn Ramaksoud2000 (Did I make a mistake?) 06:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] January 26, 2012

[edit] User:WoodKiller/M&M Tool and Machinery

User:WoodKiller/M&M Tool and Machinery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No work has been done on this draft article since last July. I see no evidence that the editor intends on working on it (they haven't edited since around the same time). As I cannot find good sources, this is unlikely to end up as a live article, and so should be deleted. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Irishmattpaul

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

WP:FAKEARTICLE (and not even much of one), borderline G11. Either it needs to be in mainspace and referenced, or it needs to go. Content has existed since May 2011, and only popped up because an anon vandalized it. Syrthiss (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, unrelated to project, I did tag it for G11, but I self declined. Begonia brandbygeana (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Joseph Smith, Jr. (b.1805)

User:Joseph Smith, Jr. (b.1805) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fake article trolling. OSborn arfcontribs. 05:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeaaaaaah, delete. Syrthiss (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete FAKEARTICLE that is also a polemic. Editor has no useful edits. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kulamula/Malankara Church of God,Thrikkannamangal.

User:Kulamula/Malankara Church of God,Thrikkannamangal. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

a part/duplication of Origin of Malankara Church of God Thrikkannamangal and still not referenced or anyhow useful mabdul 04:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kulamula

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

duplicate of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Origin of Malankara Church of God Thrikkannamangal and per "fakearticle" (a really bad styled one!) mabdul 03:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] January 25, 2012

[edit] User:Roambassador/Angry German Kid

User:Roambassador/Angry German Kid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Sandbox article about a series of non-notable Youtube videos created by the editor himself. It is unlikely this will ever be notable, is self-promotional and violates WP:COI. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment there is a User talk:Angry german kid page. Is this the same person? BTW I see User:Roambassador is active — to the point of removing the Mfd notice. Perhaps he/she can tell us whether this is a draft of some kind. Otherwise delete. --Kleinzach 00:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Korkey/How Not To Be Blocked

User:Korkey/How Not To Be Blocked (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The two malls don't exist, neither do the highway designations. The rest is silly meaningless vandalism — user indef'd for vandalism, in fact. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Kleinzach 00:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Clover945/TheDragons

User:Clover945/TheDragons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT Lmatt (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, also the page indicates it may be some sort of test page? OSborn arfcontribs. 05:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Clover945/Celestial Jones

User:Clover945/Celestial Jones (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT Lmatt (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete 18 months without an edit qualifies as stale--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zero sharp/Mengagde

User:Zero sharp/Mengagde (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT: Wikipedia is not a webhost. Page only has one edit from 2 March 2006, and user is inactive since 20 May 2009. Shrigley (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bryanwino

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

Attempted at a self-promotional article in user space. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This artical is factual. Please make point of any information that may be inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanwino (talk • contribs) 01:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Lmatt (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete, no explanation of notability and no citations. Lmatt (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete In the case of editors who are contributing significantly to the content, and whose user page primarily talks about their WP activity, it is generally acceptable to include items about the person not related to WP activity, and to use a format similar to a WP biography. However, in this case, neither of those two conditions are close to being met The editor has trivial contributions outside of the user page, and nothing on the user page about WP activities.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sphilbrick. Too promotional. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] January 24, 2012

[edit] Wikipedia:Scientific point of view/Noticeboard

Wikipedia:Scientific point of view/Noticeboard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Semi-recently created noticeboard that isn't being used for anything. Since WP:SPOV was a failed policy I don't think this is appropriate. Noformation Talk 20:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --Guerillero | My Talk 21:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I would actually like to rescind my comment that it is inappropriate (without rescinding deletion). This NB may actually be a decent idea with or without WP:SPOV, but I think it needs to actually be used for something. I've never been involved with NB creation before so I'm not sure how to go about making it something people use. Noformation Talk 00:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Question If WP:SPOV was a failed proposal, is it now accepted as an essay? If we can clarify its status, maybe we can then decide what to do with the subpage? --Kleinzach 00:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Overly specific noticeboard for a failed policy. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:S57bnd

User talk:S57bnd (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)
User talk:Nikkolson (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Both of this users pages, probably created by the same person, were deleted per MfD:User:Nikkolson and MfD:User:S57bnd as WP:FAKEARTICLE pages. All images by User:Nikkolson have also been deleted. I would think the talk pages created just to notify the users that his images/User talk should also be deleted, since this user has no contributions anymore. However, I'm, new at the MfD process. If I'm wrong please let me know and I will withdraw this Mfd request.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Rajinikanth fan

Template:Rajinikanth fan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Userbox used only by the creator. Userfy if the creator wishes, else subst and delete. jcgoble3 (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As I wish to continue use this template and will use in other of my wiki project pages. I wish to retain it since I don't want hard code the formatting in every project page --Terminator (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete after userfying per standard procedure. See WP:Userboxes/Music/Artists for examples of userfied userboxes. Question to Yjenith: What is meant by "my wiki project pages"? Do you mean subpages of your user page? You can still use it, but like the userboxes in my earlier example. Johnuniq (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Blakeww31/Blake William wilson

User:Blakeww31/Blake William wilson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Do we allow for hoaxes in user space? (That it's a hoax is clear: I am in fact the sexiest man known to date, with Brad Pitt and OrangeMike tied for second place.) Drmies (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete as a very weak attempt at a WP:FAKEARTICLE. All user's contributions have been unhelpful, and keeping this page would only encourage further fooling around. Johnuniq (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Subpages of User:Zalgo

User:Zalgo/ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/Black Trigag (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/Cloak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/Header (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/Lion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/Rainbowsig (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/Scrolling Like (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/Userboxes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/evil (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/love (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/Eh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/Introduction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/Javascript (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/Status (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/Test (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/URLS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/facekiss (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/sandbox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/Believe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/La Face Cachée De La Pomme (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/Rainbow Support (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/Riddle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/StatusTemplate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/Tricked (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Zalgo/scrolling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (now deleted by me, see below BencherliteTalk 14:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

All subpages of an indefinitely blocked user which are mostly useless absolutely-placed images or violate WP:NOT#SOCIALNETWORK ~Crazytales (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hiropapi

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

This is just a copy of the deleted autobiographical article Nagura Hiroo, and contravenes WP:FAKEARTICLE. --DAJF (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete Not compatible with WP:UP and a perfect example of FAKEARTICLE, particularly given this edit which used {{WikiProject Japan}} on the user talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Already deleted page, full of external links... reads rather like an advertisement, or something. User hasn't exactly done much else, either. -— Isarra (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pdgator29

Relisted. 05:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Pdgator29 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Out of this user's hundred or so edits, only 8 have been to the article space. Everything else is userpage making garbage. I would also add all of this to the MFD as well, but it would be too tedious to do so. Wikipedia is not a social networking site. —Ryulong (竜龙) 11:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Rcsprinter. Whenaxis about | talk 23:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chavmusiksux

Relisted. 05:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Userpage of someone who has not edited in over 3 years and most of the edits appear to be to this page. Wikipedia is not a social networking site. —Ryulong (竜龙) 11:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep Old userpages are typically not deleted even if the user doesn't make contributions—because they may come back. Whenaxis about | talk 23:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Daisy18108

Relisted. 05:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Daisy18108 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

User has less than 10 article edits and all of the other edits regard this and her other subpages. Wikipedia is not a social networking site.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. On the last day that this user edited, she made valid edits to the mainspace, so at least she was on the right track then. I don't think her userpage is so problematic that we should delete it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • She has 7 edits to the main space. The rest of them are all to the several dozen pages in her user space.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • So what if she has only made 7 mainspace, is Wikipedia not an inclusive project? There is no stated "rule" that allows a user page to be deleted based on a person only having a few mainspace edits, so what right is there to delete her page. -KightofFivePillars (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Per WP:UP,

      User pages mainly are for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and drafts, and, if desired, limited autobiographical and personal content. User pages are available to Wikipedia users personally for purposes compatible with the Wikipedia project and acceptable to the community; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site.

      Someone with 289 edits, 170 of those have been made to this user page and the various subpages that make it up, with only 7 remaining edits in the mainspace and this person has not been to Wikipedia in 2 years. Wikipedia should not retain this information, particularly when it no longer has anything to do with improving the project.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep, old userpages are typically not deleted even if the user doesn't make contributions—because they may come back. Whenaxis about | talk 23:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] January 23, 2012

[edit] User:Jamesdorethy31

User:Jamesdorethy31 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

talk page contains inappropriate statements about a person called "James Dorethy" U+003F? 13:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Article Incubator/A Star Is Born (2012 film)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/A Star Is Born (2012 film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, as filming has been delayed, no cast is listed on IMDB, and IMDB also now lists this as a 2013 film. Additionally, this article clearly fails WP:NFILM, which states that "no film which has not entered principal photography should have an article." This movie has not. This article has, for these reasons, failed its AI assessment and should be deleted. MSJapan (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments seem like standard policy. If the film ever happens this content can be restored.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep The article meets WP:AI?. Current notability is irrelevant, as the film will become notable in time. —Andrewstalk 02:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. WP:CRYSTAL does seem to apply here. --Kleinzach 04:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as WP:CRYSTAL applies only to the mainspace. The article incubator is designed for articles being created and improved upon when they might not meet all the criteria for inclusion in the mainspace. This one, given the references in the article, appears to possibly meet even the mainspace criteria even though the release date keeps getting pushed back. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment There seems to be a bit of confusion here. There are criteria for deletion from AI, and it is under those guidelines that this article was nominated. That is why I noted the article failed its AI assessment (the results are on the article's talk page), as that is a major criterion. One other is not meeting policies (such as CRYSTAL and NFILM as noted) with no exemption for namespace, and another is no one actively working on the article, (45 days with no edits prior to the nomination). MSJapan (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The reason that articles get moved to the incubator is because of current lack of notability. WP:AI? are the relevant criteria here; which of these does the current incubated article fail? —Andrewstalk 08:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
AI? is to put things in, not to take them out. Further down the page (WP:GRADUATE is a shortcut to the relevant subsection of WP:AI), there is a section on deletion, which reads: "If an article has been assessed and does not meet the assessment criteria, and there is no possibility it can meet the criteria with further work, and a reasonable time has already been given and there is no possibility it can meet the criteria with any further time allowed - the article should be nominated for deletion at WP:MfD."
As I noted earlier, the article failed its assessment (see the article talk page). It simply cannot meet relevant notability criteria (WP:NFILM) as it has not started principal photography (clearly stated in NFILM, precisely to avoid problems like this where a film can be delayed indefinitely). The main barometer for sources for film is IMDB; this potential film's page lists no cast, and has changed potential release date to 2013. Therefore, this is something that may not happen, which meets WP:CRYSTAL. I'd also note, that the lack of meeting NFILM is likely an "exclusionary criteria" that probably should have kept this article out of the incubator in the first place. The last criteria is reasonable time, and the article had not been edited in 45 days when I assessed it. Thereby, all the deletion criteria as laid out in AI have been met. MSJapan (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a dispute over WP:AI? item 3. The way I read it, that means "the article could be improved to a point where it could be in mainspace." It could also be read to mean "the article will eventually be appropriate for mainspace, possibly without any actual changes" but given the mission of WP:AI, I think the former is probably closer to the intended meaning. You cannot improve something to overcome notability, and this does not meet WP:CRYSTAL. --NYKevin @888, i.e. 20:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] January 22, 2012

[edit] User:Ne0Freedom

User:Ne0Freedom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete polemical content per WP:NOTWEBHOST. See also likely sock: User:Eternal-Entropy Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep --Ne0Freedom 19:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have reconsidered, and would like to withdraw this. The user is not a sockmaster, but instead openly operates 3 accounts. The User:Eternal-Entropy userpage MfD will remain. I will not withdraw that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as no valid reason for deletion. Also, nominator has withdrawn nomination. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, nominator has withdrawn nomination. Lmatt (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Eternal-Entropy

User:Eternal-Entropy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete polemical content per WP:NOTWEBHOST. See also likely sock: User:Ne0Freedom Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/UN

Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/UN (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:SOAP violation. Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy of any kind, and any encouragement to send letters to outside parties violates this policy. —Kww(talk) 02:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete Violates WP:NOTADVOCATE. The blackout may have sullied that guideline, but there's no reason to take it further. And writing letters to the United Nations is both taking it to an extreme and rather silly and futile anyway. Franamax (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Writing a letter is taking the protest one step too far. I favored the blackout, but a petition is not part of Wikipedia's mission. Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep for historical reference, as is standard procedure with proposals. WP:SOAP clearly doesn't apply in this situation either. Short of the proposer requesting a U1, there's really no reason for this. Swarm X 23:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Speaking of that, I self-nominated the page for deletion under G7. Whenaxis about | talk 23:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I have removed the speedy because there have been substantial contributions to the page—in the form of comments opposing the proposal—by other editors. I agree that the proposal violates WP:NOTADVOCATE but am neutral about whether this should be retained for historical reference. Cunard (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
        • In that case, I change my vote to keep, since I did.. create the page. Whenaxis about | talk 22:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep-Writing a letter is taking it too far? Nobody is suggesting that PIPA/SOPA are done. PROTECT IP is a rewrite of COICA. This kind of thing requires a follow-up or we will end up in the same position as before. We can't just say "That'll show em'" and take the day off. Archive per standard procedure. Marcus Qwertyus 05:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag historical. Marcus Qwertyus and Whenaxis both make good arguments which I agree with. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - WP:NOTADVOCATE should be marked as historic after the SOPA protest. Its also important to keep these activist pages so we can see what the level of interest was. Youreallycan 17:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The only problem I would have had with keeping it is if the proposer had strongly opposed. That doesn't seem to be the case, so keep with a nod to User:Youreallycan for his reasoning (the second sentence, anyway). It was a good-faith proposal, so I don't see as big a problem with NOTADVOCATE. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 19:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Ideas

Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Ideas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:SOAP at the very least. We are not a project that takes political initiatives to legislative bodies, or even discusses the idea. We are writing an encyclopedia. —Kww(talk) 02:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Blanket comment to those that argue that there needs to be a place to discuss this: There's a whole project devoted to this kind of thing. http://meta.wikimedia.org. I wouldn't argue with issues like this being discussed there.—Kww(talk) 18:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Quote from main SOPA initiative page: "The community has asked the Wikimedia Foundation to keep it informed as events unfold: to that end, the Wikimedia Foundation will use this page as a central place to post information. If you have questions for the Wikimedia Foundation, you can post them here—staff will monitor this page. However, this is not a Wikimedia Foundation page: it's a community page, and the Wikimedia Foundation is playing a support role here." It doesn't seem that WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#FORUM quite fit as deletion reasons here...there is no propaganda or recruitment going on, just brainstorming. It was started to provide a place for input/ideas from anyone who cares to do so. The purpose of any ideas is to help provide information towards future legislation that seriously impacts Wikipedia. If Washington does call upon organizations such as WMF for input, which they have said they will, this is a location where the WMF can add ideas from; a location of sincere input from Wikipedia users who have suggestions to avoid faulty policies that directly impact them. Very simple and no malicious intent whatsoever. Petersontinam (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Why Mfd this specific page rather than Wikipedia:SOPA initiative. Is there a reason? --Kleinzach 02:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The Wikiproject as a whole is a response to a direct request from Jimbo. The better part of valor and such prevents me from going after that mess. There's no need to let it proliferate beyond the problem it has already created. Additionally, while the parent page was targeted at an internal action, this one is specifically soliciting ideas for input to outside bodies: that's a violation of WP:NOT#FORUM by any reasonable reading.—Kww(talk) 02:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - brainstorming ways to help support the project isn't a violation of NOT#FORUM which is written to limit the scope of discussion on article talk pages, not project pages. Selery (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Where did you get the idea that WP:NOT#FORUM only applies to article talk pages? The plain text of the section contradicts that notion.—Kww(talk) 03:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
"... talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk...." Selery (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Is that from the little blurb that goes at the talk of an abused talk page? WP:NOT#FORUM states "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for ...". Perhaps you should click on WP:NOT#FORUM and read the policy.—Kww(talk) 03:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is where that quote is from. You are quoting from WP:SOAP. Brainstorming about ways to help the project isn't using it as a soapbox, either. Selery (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
An amazing brain-fart on my part. Corrected rationale, but WP:SOAP specifically prohibits "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind", and that is what this page is.—Kww(talk) 03:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe we are allowed to advocate for the project, and I am not sure what you see as propaganda or recruitment. Selery (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep – I think that the issue with Wikipedia and SOPA is a unique one, and while I don't support special treatment regarding SOPA in the mainspace, I do support, to an extent, relevant discussion in the project-space, as it is most certainly relevant to the encyclopedia (especially given the aftermath of the blackout). I feel that this is such appropriate discussion. --MuZemike 10:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep – The wikipedia community has to decide whether they want to write an encyclopedia or engage in political action. Actually, the blackout was a first step in the latter direction. If we want to follow that course, I think it is a much better idea to come up with constructive ideas (as are discussed on this page) than to simply protest. Mhkoepf (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - There is a need for somewhere that wikipedians can air their opinions on this subject. However, it would be nicer if it was not limited to discussion of US law. There are other countries in the world. Deb (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - In 11 years, this was a unique situtation. I see where WP:SOAP is a concern, however, input from those affected by a law that threatens the existence of Wikipedia is not your typical soapboxing. Perhaps there should be a formal outlet for this input put forth by the WMF. Either way, the protest happened (successfully), Washington said "put your money where your mouth is", and a reasonable response would be that somewhere there should be constructive input towards legislation...input which explains clearly to lawmakers the unintended consequences of SOPA and PIPA. On this "Ideas" page there may be critical input that makes a difference...is that soapboxing or survival? I don't think anyone believes that some form of SOPA and PIPA isn't going to come forward in the future. Petersontinam (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - As others have said, SOPA is a unique issues, the likes of which Wikipedia has never before had to deal with. The most important policies regarding neutrality and the like are maintained in the mainspace; our article on SOPA adheres well to those guidelines. However, the SOPA initiative pages are relevant to the future workings of Wikipedia and are behind the scenes enough not to undermine our dedication to neutrality. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep for the humor value alone. That page is hilarious.VolunteerMarek 19:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Violates WP:SOAP, and belongs on a political action site rather than in an encyclopedia. Edison (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep -Discussions for betterment of the "Flow of Knowledge" --Ne0 (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. This particular page is patently idiotic. "universal social wage"? "public campaign finance"? I stopped reading after that. T. Canens (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is very impolite to call anyone's ideas "idiotic" or to make fun of people sincerely putting forth their ideas. Disagreeing (without contempt or superiority) is a much better way to get your point across. It takes courage to put your suggestions forward, even more so when it seems there are people ready to pounce to try and make you feel foolish. Petersontinam (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting discussion, following naturally from the Blackout. --JN466 22:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per all the above keeps. No valid reason for deletion. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a place to discuss ideas to promote the survival of the project. I actually don't read this as a WP:SOAP violation at all, but for those who construe it as such, consider: if the project dies, WP:SOAP and all other policies die with it. If that happens, wouldn't it would have been better to invoke WP:IAR? Rivertorch (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep While I agree the reaction was a bit...much, and seems to violate WP:SOAP, I believe that WP:IAR was created for instances like this. Mythpage88 (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:TomJackson95/TomJacko95

User:TomJackson95/TomJacko95 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This user subpage was created 5 months ago and appears to fail WP:UPNO as it appears to be more of a general CV in the form of an fake article. Significant contributions have been made more recently by anonymous IP accounts which may be seen as defamatory. Fæ (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] January 21, 2012

[edit] Old business

Everything from here on down is old business; the 7-day review period that began on 22 January 2012 has ended. Open discussions below this marker should be either closed or relisted above. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions which have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically and need no further action.

[edit] January 19, 2012

[edit] User:Mongeese/Today I Caught the Plague

User:Mongeese/Today I Caught the Plague (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

abandonded copy of repeatedly deleted article for Today I Caught the Plague. WP:FAKEARTICLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=473771379"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export