Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: WP:MFD

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.

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 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.
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

Wikipedia:Deletion policy — our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
Wikipedia:Deletion process — our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion — whose guidelines on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
Wikipedia:User page — our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
Wikipedia:Userboxes - our guideline on userboxes

[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:

[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] February 12, 2012

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bathroom emergency pullstring

Tinton5 (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

On what grounds do you want the AFD page deleted? --Jayron32 04:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a G7 deletion author requests deletion of their own creation. When nominated no one else had edited, but they have now, so all we can do is a speedy close and not delete. I would suggest that Tinton5 puts on a note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bathroom emergency pullstring that the AFD is withdrawn. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The AfD should be kept as a record of the discussion that happened, however brief that discussion was. Achowat (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rhain1999/workspace/Lil' Rhain

The editor has been warned repeatedly about creating WP:FAKEARTICLE but he continues to do so. WWGB (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a fake article. I made a page on my workspace, continuing to build it with references, sources, and better information until it's sustainable for Wikipedia's requirements. Delete it if you like, but that's my hard work gone. Rhain1999 (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You may be only 13 but surely you can understand that you are not notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. No "references, sources, and better information" will ever change this fact. WWGB (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You never know, maybe one day I may become notable, and maybe that day will come soon?! But, yeah. I see why you want to delete the page. So, go ahead. Just remember me if I become famous! I'll give you a shoutout, WWGB! :) (I doubt I'll become famous, but still, worth a shot). Rhain1999 (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Like me, and like most other people in the world, you aren't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. As long as you are not notable, creating an article about yourself, even if it is in your userspace, is inappropriate. And even famous people shouldn't create articles about themselves. This is why. When you do become notable, somebody else will surely create an article about you sooner or later. --bonadea contributions talk 09:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure here, but Rhain1999's logic seems (to me at least) to be at odds with WP:CRYSTALBALL; he 'might' become notable and deserving of an article so he's making one now just in case. Obviously WP:FAKEARTICLE is the more prominent concern. I've got a habit of making fake articles of my own, but I do those on my own computer and save them as documents there; maybe Rhain can do something similar and avoid further issues on here. Comics (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks for that. :) Rhain1999 (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. For reference see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Rhain1999 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rhain1999/Purple sandbox. The same concerns still apply; WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:NOTWEBHOST. --bonadea contributions talk 09:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - per above; if Rhain becomes notable it will likely not be for the information contained in this page. Achowat (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 11, 2012

[edit] User:Busitech/Quality Window

This was created on September 8, 2010. The creator only had one edit after that on the same day and then left. This is a non-notable stale draft with only the official website as a reference. SL93 (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete as spam. Achowat (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Stuart Morrow/my fun physics game

Per WP:UP#GAMES. SL93 (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. Achowat (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:$ykotic

WP:FAKEARTICLE/abandoned draft about a non-notable neologism last edited in 2009, creator's only contribution. January (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. Achowat (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mitternacht90/Poems

Wikipedia user space is not a web host for poems. SL93 (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Achowat (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:GeneralIroh/Poems

Wikipedia user space is not a web host for poems. SL93 (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Achowat (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Aaron Schulz/Poems

Wikipedia user space is not a web host for poems. SL93 (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Achowat (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall

See my comment [1] here. AFAICT this process has never been used successfully and probably never used at all (baring one or two exceptions missed by the update of the cat page). The individual criteria seem so convoluted so as to purposefully prevent the idea/process of ever being initiated. As a consequence, the page is a dead letter whose main purpose seems to be to enable a bunch of folks to engage in some "make pretend game". Hence, it's existence is pointless. VolunteerMarek 02:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - the list of past recall attempts, including several succesful ones, is at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests.--Kubigula (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I see 2 successful ones.VolunteerMarek 04:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

By my count, the recall process has resulted in or contributed to 7 desysoppings (Crzrussian, Durova, Mercury, Blueboy96, Herostratus, Looie496, La goutte de pluie). Unfortunately, there have also been several instances where admins have not honored their commitment, when push came to shove.--Kubigula (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. There are many incoming links. It is "The "main" page[of Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall], giving a brief description of the idea. Even if the process is merely symbolic, not actual, it is part of our history and must not be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Well, I understand, and share, the nominator's scepicism but if some admins want this I do not see why not. And yes, the page should be improved and it should be clearer how you see the category of involved admins, but that is not a reason for deletion. BTW, my bêtes noires have not included themselves! Thincat (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - recall works as explained on that page. No reason given for removal. Achowat (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chupon/Recipes

Userspace is not meant for recipes. SL93 (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete, at least one is a copyvio from http://boards.epicurious.com/thread.jspa?messageID=448694&. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:NOTWEBHOST and the above copyvio. Achowat (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. WP:NOTRECIPE on userspace and off. Shrigley (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kaini/recipes

Wikipedia userspace is not for a bunch of recipes. SL93 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

fair enough, give me a couple of days to move them off-wiki and then deletion isn't a problem. Kaini (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Delete - per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTRECIPE. Achowat (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

there's no contest or need for input here. i'm the owner of that bit of userspace. see above. Kaini (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Kaini, when you move it, you can put {{db-author}} on it. (And we don't "own" our user space.) Drmies (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

done. Kaini (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 10, 2012

[edit] User:Foxtons/sandbox

Page was pasted into the article Foxtons in 2008,[2] and this user has been blocked due to username COI. – Fayenatic (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - submission was Copy-pasted into the Article-space version with this edit. Can be deleted with little effect. Article was created in the Sandbox in one edit, so a history merge is unnecessary. Achowat (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- The above statement about a single edit in the Sandbox is inaccurate, but I don't think it should change the outcome. The blocked user pasted a copy of the article Foxtons from 19:34, 24 March 2008‎ by JASpencer into the sandbox, edited it there, and pasted it back into articlespace. In the sandbox he made a series of edits, so it would be feasible to merge that part of the edit history, but it would serve no purpose to do so as it was one session of edits by a single editor with no edit summaries. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Quidster4040/Side Projects/CONCACAF Gold Cup template

Assorted documents regarding soccer tournaments that the User would like to see. Contact on User's Talk has broken down, proposing deletion under WP:NOTWEBHOST Achowat (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I may have done this template incorrectly. It applies to User:Quidster4040/Side Projects/CONCACAF Gold Cup template, User:Quidster4040/2012–13 CONCACAF Champions League, User:Quidster4040/CONCACAF SuperLiga, User:Quidster4040/2012 MLS Cup Playoffs, and User:Quidster4040/2011 NIT Cup. Achowat (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed nom formatting. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Michielvv/Trisomy

Abandoned copy of article deleted at afd. WP:FAKEARTICLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Achowat (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Michielvv/Only Fate Remains

Abandoned copy of article deleted at afd. WP:FAKEARTICLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -Achowat (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kondicherry/EditCounterOptIn.js

User request. --kondi ^{talk/contribs} 08:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Just throw a {{db-userreq}} on there and a roving Admin will delete the page for you. Achowat (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 9, 2012

[edit] User:PJKs shirt/Southmoor Primary School

This page was originally nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:PJKs shirt/Southmoor Primary School, which was rightly speedily closed due to being the wrong forum. This is a WP:STALEDRAFT from an SPA whose only visible contributions are to userspace; this page has not been edited since November 2008 except for minor wiki markup and category edits, plus the aforementioned AfD. The user has also not edited since that time. I considered WP:ABANDON, but this draft doesn't appear to stand a chance as a standalone article in mainspace. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT. Achowat (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Per above. And apologies for accidentally originally bringing this deletion request to the wrong pew. As I mentioned at the above-indicated AfD, I had initially lodged the original deletion request in the wrong place. Somehow, it came up in my general search. I asked at that AfD that the deletion request be moved to Mfd, as it did not belong at AfD. I appreciate that after the mis-placed AfD was properly closed, nom has now nominated the text at issue for deletion here.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete: Stale draft that could not exist as an article if mainspaced Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep There is no part of WP:USERSPACE that says that a user must be active and must actively edit their drafts in order to keep them, only the suggestion (per above) that keeping drafts around for a long time isn't a great idea. In the meantime, is there any reason not to assume (per WP:AGF, for example) that the user will never return? And what happens then? They find the draft that they started deleted because they chose to step away for a long time. There is WP:NORUSH for the simple reason that editors are volunteers who have lives outside of wikipedia to which they need to pay attention also. There is no harm in keeping this page.

In any case, this sets an dangerous and outrageously arbitrary precedent that, if a user hasn't edited in a while, his/her userspace can be subject to deletion for no other reason than just that. If this were applied more generally, with the consequence being that editors have to keep active in order to maintain the safety of their drafts, this would have a deleterious effect on the userbase.

This MfD seems to be more about saving face when Epeefleche's indiscriminate approach to nominating schools for deletion has, by his own admission, tripped up (again). He was conducting a "general search" for articles to nominate for deletion which frankly suggests a crusade. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 21:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The bigger issue I have with this draft is that there is little hope, if any, that this topic will ever meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Achowat (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

How do you know? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Because there's no indication in that article or in any reliable source indicating notability. Achowat (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. While this user has no mainspace edits, and has not edited for years, this page is completely harmless - no spam, no promotion, nothing. It is already tagged {{noindex}}. Nothing good is achieved by its deletion. Leave it be. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Question - What would happen if someone else created a real article about the school? Would this stale draft be deleted then? Personally I can see no reason to keep it. It's not really a draft, is it? It's a link to the unfortunate and rather dismal school website. Thats it. I can't understand why anyone would want to keep it. Fmph (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right in that there is not much positive value in the content, but I think there is less negative value.
WP:GNG or WP:ORG should not be applied to userspace. These guidelines apply to the question of whether a stand alone article should exist on the specific subject, they do not apply to the question of whether the material should be covered at all. I think primary / elementary schools rarely get their own article, but they do frequently get a mention on a location article and in lists. This school currently has one red link on a list. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 8, 2012

[edit] User:Ohsnapsydney/Alexis Neace

WP:STALEDRAFT, user's only edit to date. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. See Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - per SmokeyJoe. Achowat (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Per Staledraft and Notmemorial.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 7, 2012

[edit] User:The Skelters

This user has made zero contributions to articles and using the userpage for promotion. Delete per WP:SOAP WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK Sumanch. An article The Skelters was created about the band a while ago by
User:Missell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs); a possible sock. Their entire contribution of is to the promotion of the band including images. (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The page is pretty harmless, so can be left alone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
It's clearly simply a poor attempt at creating a fake article - Delete. Achowat (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nelson Geno Soto-Costello

Userpage last edited by user almost two years ago and whose only edits were his userpage (and similar content on his talkpage). Either a stale-draft or simple self-promotion, neither is suitable for long-term userspace storage. Since then, lots of IPs have edited it as if it were an article, but it does not appear suitable as an article at this time by content either. DMacks (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - looks like some people have been trying to evade inclusion guidelines (and the attention of legitimate editors) by creating their own little promo piece on a user page. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:NOTMYSPACE. Achowat (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Per Staledraft.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Pcomq

WP:FAKEARTICLE Magioladitis (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a fake article, per se. It appears to have been used as a draft and then transferred to the Artcile space; I propose a history merge given that information. Achowat (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Disordered indoors

Promotional biography. User has not made any edits other than to the user page, and an attempt at creating an article with content of the same type as that on the user page. ... discospinster _talk 03:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - User has one mainspace edit, adding himself to a Record Label with a Blue-Link to his User-page. This page is floating on the line right between WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTMYSPACE, but either is against policy. Achowat (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 6, 2012

[edit] User:Lihaas

There's a user page underneath, a few hundred thousand kb long, with a million contradictory userboxes, some of which very offensive (there's one that claims that the user is a Nazi, for instance). The rules on user pages aren't always clear, but this one needs to go, I think--it is disruptive, a total waste of server space, and does not contain, as suggested in WP:UP, "limited autobiographical and personal content". See also discussion on the user's talk page. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly there is NO claim of being a nazi. And regardless of the pt that was never sought to clarfy anyways, a person's politics doesnt ban them if there is NO disrputive editing to push a pov. Where is that then? youre an america/european/whatever so that disqualifies you from editing? Is there any logic? You have a political support for liberals/conservaitives/whatever means you cant edit?! ("you" in general) Seen the list of additions and sources ive made to numerous article (and if you must know to israeli articles too that are NOT critical or blindly critical just as ive done to the other side of the issue with criticism sourced and the opposite). Youre (genearal not specific) call for a nazi is offensive tpoo, where there is nothing to say so.

but per UP its all and only personal.Lihaas (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Nonsensical, divisive, offensive content unrelated to the editing of Wikipedia or its goals. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete at least the National Socialist part per my rationale at ANI. I haven't really reviewed most of that user page because it's so WP:TLDR. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - This page could be an example of "what not to do" with a user page. Specifically though, I agree that the page is deliberately offensive. It may be offensive in an attempt to be humorous, much the way that a dirty joke could be, and thus isn't actually malicious, but it's still inappropriate for a user page. -- Atama頭 23:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There is NO userbox claiming to be a nazi, that is the presumption at topic. Secondlty size on a userpage is irrelevant because no one is being there, its not an article. See Nightstallion's also has large userpages. Its not disruptive beacuse and individual doesnt LIKE it? Remember: offense is not a reason to remove like Mohhammed cartoons or virgin killers. Furthermore, content is similar to others with userbozxes and wikilink logs, dont BLIDNLY assert deletion.

Offensive is never a reason to remove on WP as censorship.

If anyone dont like/want to then dont read the page, but dont delete just cause.Lihaas (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is what I said on ANI:

Still, the "This user is a National Socialist" userbox may be disruptive in itself === The userbox itself is clearly causing strife among Wikipedians. Per Wikipedia:UP#Excessive unrelated content perhaps Lihaas should be asked to remove it. As Kiefer.Wolfowitz points out, it has come up before. I recall that User:Hail the Dark Lord Satan‎‎ was indef blocked recently for causing disruption by choosing a divisive persona. This issue isn't very far from that. Disputes about the meaning of national socialism (which Kiefer mentioned above) should be resolved on the redirect's talk page, not via userboxes that are prone to misinterpretation and may cause unnecessary aggravation of some good faith editors or just act as flamebait.
— User:ASCIIn2Bme 21:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Its not divisive per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, if users adhered to such guidelines as WP:NPA they would then find no need to resort to such ad hominem attacks and pre-judgements (per the ANI). Furthermore per WP:NPOV all editors should NOT one worldview regardless of whether its liked ot not. SPECIFICALLY WP doesnt Censor because of offensiveness.

Comments should be on CONTENT and additions instead of NPA/POV-forks (as this became). Disruptive is based on enhancing the CONTENT of the "encyclopaedia" (or not doing so, rather) not the whims of users (either others or myself). You only get baited if you want to feed on it. you cant force people to bite on it.Lihaas (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. The page is needlessly large, complex, hard to load, and confusing. Yet that doesn't really matter. What does matter is that is is divisive to the point of being disruptive, as can be seen on ANI. Keeping this page would be keeping running into drama for no good reason. I don't care how it goes, weather through mfd, or if Lihaas trims it himself, removing anything that's needlessly divisive to the point of being disruptive (say 80% of it), and comes back within the scope of WP:UP, but it should go. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"excessive content" is then also for the numerous subpages.

Secondly there was only ONE cited "offensive conytent" which then leads to a blanket call to delete EVERYTHING? like the wikilink logs on the page?! Consensus is not vote counting?Lihaas (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

to reiterate saying its only disruptive because of those who dont like it, thats explicitly forbidden. this is a user page (and ive seen many LONG talk pages) not an article. NO ONE NEEDS to read it but the user himself. if others resort to presumptive NPA's based on their whims then thats BOOMERANG. and as said on the ANI the userboxes are seemingly contradicted and dont mean anything. (in this case R-41, who brings up a needless side issue for his personal vendetta and changed the whole topic from "alleged harassment" (after i pointed out nicely on his talk page) to resorting to nazi calls that are then picked up by others "who i dont like that," yet say it keeps coming out again.

and see this Wikipedia:ANI#Still.2C_the_.22This_user_is_a_National_Socialist.22_userbox_may_be_disruptive_in_itself. only one user had a problem then, which was disavowed by The Bushranger and NuclearWarfare.

Instead of meaningless arguements on idssues that dont matter if WP is to keep out NPA and NOTAFORUM issues, it would be MUCH more productive to go on adding content to pages itself.Lihaas (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete and block user. Too large, divisive userboxes. Hipocrite (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Its offensive and divisive why? Hipoctite UNILATERALLY decides to delete and move my page because he doesnt liek it [3] without any consensus as the discussion is ongoing and then says i should be blocked?Lihaas (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocking the user would be using a sledgehammer to crack an egg, and totally inappropriate. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:UPNOT ("substantial content on user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia"). 223,000 bytes says that the content is substantial. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ive made an accomodation here. Is that better? Is there something else "offensive" that i should change?

EVERYTHING on that page (except the flag and text) IS related to/from WP directly. if you mean userboxes then why not take them all away since thats whats theyre there for. Please dont POV-fork from a first assessment of offense to blanket calls for deletion without trying dispute resolution. And how may i ask is the SIZE a suggestion of insubstantial content? Or is that your Synethesis bias?Lihaas (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete unless Lihaas is willing to pare it down. Like, a lot. City Of Silver 01:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What? I just asked above the statement what is needed? I change the one, what else~?

Now that ive rationally calmed down ;)Lihaas (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep this is just an example of how bad a user page can get bogged down. If you don't like the length, there's nothing that says a UP has to be a certain length or less. Userboxes? Then get rid of the offending user boxes. The rest of it could simply be condensed or archived per WP:DELETE. Just because some copyediting/paring is in order doesn't mean an entire page needs to be deleted. Buffs (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep WP:POLEMIC is about posting "statements attacking or vilifying groups" of people, and I don't see any of that on the page. Lihaas should be free to mention his radical viewpoints, even the nationalistic right wing ones, as long as he doesn't use them to promote hatred or injustice. And no, being a Democratic National Socialist doesn't automatically mean you engage in hatred or injustice. If the community disagrees with me about this, they can remove the infringing userbox or block of text, but surely the whole userpage doesn't need deleted. Them From Space 01:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and thats all im saying. Ive also made an accomodation. If there is anything else then i will reword/remove.Lihaas (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Navigating this user page is a headache and then some, but sadly, that's no reason to delete a page.--WaltCip (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment It's not a waste of server space, but it does waste resource, of people viewing the page, of people trying to find everyone with a given user box, etc. Lihaas should spend some time to make sub-pages for the various bits and pieces, but it's not a huge deal. (Incidentally I speedily deleted a much bigger page a few weeks back - that certainly was disruptive.) It might also be worth Lihaas reviewing the user-box policy. Rich Farmbrough, 02:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC).

thx and this is constructibve. i reworded one vbone of contention. better? any thing else?Lihaas (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - 200,000 bytes is enough for me to believe that it fails WP:NOTWEBHOST. →Σ τ c. 02:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing here that violates the link you mentioned. Buffs (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your résumé, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. Humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace, however. →Σ τ c. 02:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Still not seeing it. Buffs (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You are free to have your own opinion and disagree with me. I see no reason to attempt persuading you further. →Σ τ c. 04:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps putting the lengthy text into a collapsible box would reduce the apparent page length Buffs (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Another Comment This whole thing is a violation of WP:DEL and an abuse of the process:

"[[If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion...Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum...issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user."
It seems none of these avenues have been attempted and this discussion should be closed on those grounds alone. Buffs (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the nomination statement, this discussion was opened because it was believed to be a "severe case". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes. I also found it interesting that the editor never participated in the ANI discussion involving them, though they were active while that was going on, and from that I concluded that they didn't have an interest in it--i.e., were not willing to discuss their side of the debate/disruption. Moreover, it seems to me that the amount of participation here shows that this is a valid nomination. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Goes way past the purpose that user pages are supposed to fulfill:

User pages are pages in the User and User talk namespaces, and are useful for organizing and aiding the work users do on Wikipedia, and facilitating interaction and sharing between users. 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.

A huge page, impossible to navigate, full of contradictory user boxes (which might as well be a catalog of them for all the information they convey), with archives discussions, and extensive lists of... something or other -- this is not a user page, it's the bottom right desk drawer where you throw everything you don't know where to put. Violates WP:UPNOT, WP:POLEMIC, WP:NOTWEBHOST and probably others as well. Just junk it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep, this is ridiculous. Having a bunch of userboxes on your page is no reason to force you to remove them. There is no basis for this posting. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - there are plenty of policies concerning user pages, and this page violates most of them. The amount of nonsense not related to WP alone is very much NOTWEBHOST. Intent of userboxes aside, no one userpage should aspire to be a catalog of userboxes. There's a lot of obscure material on the page as well, and I frankly don't know of any natives of the American Deep South who are gypsy National Socialist Indian Basque Cyrillic users. Wikipedia is not a playground. MSJapan (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep As Buff said, this seems like a misuse of MfD and it seems to be aimed at the content of the user boxes---in particular the national socialism box, which Lihaas has explained repeatedly, has to do with nationalist socialist movements. Lihaas dislikes the monosemantic understanding of "national socialist" as Nazi. It may be reasonable to ask Lihaas in dialogue whether he could reduce his collection to a smaller size. It may be reasonable for Lihaas voluntarily to rephrase "national socialist" as "nationalist socialist", if this change does no harm (because it would do us plenty of good!). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I see some of my comments are featured on there. If not deleted, can the lengthy copied discussions please be removed? Also needing removal are the many contradictory userboxes—which place the user's page in categories used by Wikipedians to find certain kinds of editors. Nightw 06:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: "a total waste of server space" is a ridiculous reason for deletion, as hard drives are extremely cheap and deleting only hides content. But maybe I have problem with my irony detector, Bulwersator (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - or remove offensive userbox(es) (BTW National Socialism redirects to Nazism - it is similar to placing giant swastika on userpage and claiming that it is used as symbol of eternity/good luck/Buddhism) Bulwersator (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

? It is. How is that equivalent? There is absolutely nothing wrong with displaying a swastika anywhere as long as it's not related to Nazism or any similar ideology. Nightw 15:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Prior consensus for this type of userbox. User:Newyorkbrad has pointed me to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/National Socialism. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- That discussion is 3 years old. WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. In any event, it is not simply one userbox which is under discussion here, but the totality of the user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Tidy up This doesn't really need to be deleted, especially as Lihaas has shown himself willing to accommodate changes in the userbox that caused all these problems. The only other problem is the length, and with sensible use of subpages and collapsing templates, I'm sure we can make that a non-issue. I've offered assistance at his talk page. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep, but only on the condition that Lihaas removes that one userbox. I've already stated my opinion here. If that infobox is kept, drama (like this MFD) will continue. Just remove that one userbox, Lihaas, and the drama will stop. It really is that simple.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- If Lihaas had done that earlier, when the matter was brought up on their talk page and at ANI, we wouldn't be here. They didn't take the matter seriously until an editor cleaned up that user page, and I still don't understand Lihaas's arguments. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Unless he cleans up his mess before this discussion closes. Hopefully he is still around? Maybe he is emigrating from the US to Sealand and too busy? I like to saw logs! (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per Atama and Martijn Hoekstra. 28bytes (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - one user box doesn't matter. Thousands + thousands of bytes wasted on a user page is the issue, and one that needs sorting. Giant Snowman 13:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"needs sorting"≠a deletion argument. Buffs (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete the lot (or seriously clean it up). It's not about the Nazi userbox, it's about a userpage that is so excessively long and image-filled it becomes disruptive. If your userpage causes most editors to have to wait for several seconds while it loads, it's gone beyond what editors are reasonably allowed to do with their userpages. Robofish (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Since "clean it up" is an option, per WP:DEL, deletion is not the solution. Buffs (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep the arguments for deletion have not convinced me. Sasha (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete - hundreds of kilobytes approaching a megabyte in length??Jasper Deng (talk)19:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:SIZE is explicitly not a reason for deletion. Buffs (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

*Keep It seems to be within community standards. MichelleBlondeau (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Banned user. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Wikipedia is not censored. Except for talk pages, where meddling 3rd parties are constantly removing correspondence that doesn't deal with them... Now it's IDONTLIKEIT blankings of user pages... There is one user box that is the cause of the trouble, in my estimation, and Lihaas ultimately needs to take it down on his own. Carrite (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- You might like to take a close look at WP:NOTCENSORED, which deals only with articles and images, not with user pages, which are subject to WP:USERPAGES instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Subject to WP:USERPAGES, eh? Okay, I'll bite... For the record, here's the COMPLETE applicable section on Userboxes from that the esteemed guideline you cite ("Permitted Content" portion): "USERBOXES: All the userboxes can be found here." That's it. Finito. Now, show me where it says it's cool to IDONTLIKEIT blank another User's Userpage for "violation" of this guideline... Carrite (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    - Your argument is premised on the idea that the only thing wrong with the page is a userbox, but, as many commenters have made clear, that is not the case. There are multiple violations of WP:USERPAGES, all of whichhave been mentioned here, and which I don't intend to repeat -- but the bottom line is that the purpose of having user pages is to facilitate our work on Wikipedia, and there is no way a page like this that is disturbing to so many editors serves that function. If one user was upset about it, that's WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but when there's a community consensus that it is disturbing and disruptive, it has to go. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      - I respectfully disagree. If one user is upset about something that doesn't violate policy, that's WP:IDONTLIKEIT, is 30,000 users are upset about something that doesn't violate policy, that's still WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WP:NOT#DEM. Achowat (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
A similar situation: User:Gr8opinionater. This was another individual who had something to do with a (the? ... one of the?) National Socialist userbox. Interestingly, his page is quite similarly infected with the userbox ~~collectivism~~ collecting bug. I like to saw logs! (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nice: a box that says "This user is highly against nazism." Not just against--highly against. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep. I cannot understand the claims that this box list is "contradictory". It seems to be a fairly consistent. As a believer in 'greater India' Lihaas can claim to belong to both India and Pakistan. Other boxes imply a Rosenberg-like belief in ethno-racial nationalism, hence the numerous endorsements of ethnic-nationalist separatist groups. Of course, one may find these views inconsistent, but many people have possibly inconsistent views about what nations should be united and what should be split. It's a fundamental paradox of ethnic nationalist ideology. I find his willingness to list his various beliefs useful, and no more contradictory than any similar inclusive rag-bag of ones personal beliefs would be. Paul B (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment — aside from the extensive list of userboxes on the page, I cannot see much wrong with the userpage itself (maybe at a stretch the "Why" section could be seen as harbouring old grudges). Its length should make no difference here — I refute any claims of "not a webhost" because I see no proof he's using Wikipedia as a webhost, merely listing his own political views (which can be seen as useful in that people can watch his edits in these areas). I am no apologist for Lihaas, and I could really care less about the outcome of this either way, but this is nothing more than a witch-hunt. Would it please people if he split his userpage off into subpages? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Come on now--a witch hunt? Thanks! A little good faith here, please. On the one hand I have an editor pissed at me because I won't block Lihaas, on the other I have Lihaas bugging me because I think their user page is not in accordance with the rules. First I defend Lihaas from charges of harassment, and then I supposedly turn around and start witch-hunting them? Give me a little more credit, Strange Passerby. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Not you, but the entire MFD in general has become a witch-hunt. I appreciate the initial intention was not to make it one. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    - We should add an "E" for "Escalation" to "ANI". See my talk page, its history, and now the block on Lihaas's counterpart. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Judging only by the Page itself and not the contributions of the editor (remember, argue the edits, not the editor). So far the only arguments for deletion have been one political Userbox (and the way I see it, if an editor can have a UBX claiming to be Center-left, then a UBX claiming an editor holds an unpopular political opinion has to be just as valid) and the length (on which there is no policy). Absent sound rationale to remove, WP:UP seems to suggest that this page can stay. Achowat (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not accurate. Many of the delete arguments have focused on the sheer amount of content on the page (223,000 bytes worth!) much of which is random userboxes. WP:UP is against "substantial content on user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, and the length of the page, as measured in bytes, can never be an accurate measure of how much content there is on a page (only a measure of how much server-space it takes up processing that information). I keep hearing this "content unrelated to Wikipedia" line, though no one has really ever gone about explaining what content the object to. It seems that people are caught up in the contentious manner in which the editor contributes, one potentially offensive UBX (that reasoning is the only one put forth in this discussiong that I flat-out refuse to accept as valid; Politics is politics and MfD can't be a place for us to say that one political idea is "good" and one is "bad"), and then just defaults to TL;DR. I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely convinced that there's anything wrong with this page at all. Achowat (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Blank With strong (imperative) suggestion that it not be repopulated in such a manner again. Collect (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We can do that now if an admin wants to do so. We don't need a community referendum. Buffs (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete The boxes are confusing and some are inflammatory. The objective appears to create conflict with other editors, which has happened and is therefore disruptive. That is not the purpose of user talk pages. TFD (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Then nominate the user boxes for deletion, not the user pages of those that use them. Any conflict with this user was because of their contributions, not their user page. Buffs (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete The userboxes may have intended to be humourous by their contradictory nature, but the user has turned their page into an absurdly huge WP:SOAPBOX that might inflame other editors. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 08:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Then nominate the user boxes for deletion, not the user pages of those that use them. Any conflict with this user was because of their contributions, not their user page. Buffs (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Given a number of the above-indicated issues, including wp:UPNOT and the needless soapbox and divisive nature of the userboxes. Runs against the purpose of userboxes, as a number of editors have indicated. I agree with the 20-odd editors above who suggest deletion.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Then nominate the user boxes for deletion, not the user pages of those that use them. Any conflict with this user was because of their contributions, not their user page. Buffs (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Ok. This whole thing is blown WAY out of proportion. Easy fixes are available and I truly find that this entire thing is a pitiful case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This entire thing can be fixed with a little editing (at worst). There is NO valid reason for deletion.

Would ANYONE have an issue with a user page like this? Put the user boxes on a linked page and voila! Problem solved. Right? BTW, if you have a problem with a user box(es), nominate THEM for deletion, not the user pages of those who use them. Buffs (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

@Buffs: Please look at the code for Lihaas' user page, you'll see that the "National Socialism" userbox is not a template transcluded to the page from elsewhere, but is coded directly on the page. Thus, it cannot be MfD separately from the page. This is true of several other userboxes on the page as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to me, as ive already indicated on my talk page an dother usersf rom here have supported. Except to keep the links open. (for personal use)Lihaas (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. If a user page has become a source of serious controversy or conflict, that's a fairly clear indication that it probably does need to be deleted. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So in your opinion, how many editors need to not like something for it to become clear that the page should be deleted? So far there has been little, if any, attempt to justify deletion with policies or guidelines. Achowat (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

All of the examples at WP:IDONTLIKEIT concern articles. Userpages involve rather different issues. Serious reasons for not "liking" userpages - eg, that their content seems perhaps willfully disruptive and harmful to Wikipedia as a project - are a good reason for deleting them. I wouldn't suggest that any specific number of people had to find a userpage disruptive before it gets deleted; actually, if a userpage is blatantly disruptive, then it could be deleted if even a single admin finds it disruptive. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What WP:IDONTLIKEIT and all the arguments to avoid exist to remind us that consensus isn't built on numbers in support/opposition but rather by the strength of the arguments provided, as it relates to Policies and Guidelines. The contention, if I may opine, seems to be based on the actions of the editor himself (in which case I would remind you that, in this forum at least, we should be arguing the content and not who made it) or one Userbox with an unpopular political opinion (in which case, I would remind participants in this discussion that WP:NPOV isn't just a Policy, it's one of our pillars; disagreeing with someone's political opinions is not a reason to delete their User page). Achowat (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come on. WP:IDONTLIKEIT involves a specific set of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions related to articles; I see no evidence that it was intended for this type of situation. WP:NPOV is likewise about articles, and was never intended for user space issues. The bottom line is that if a userpage looks disruptive, then yes it can be deleted, either at the discretion of an admin, or because of community consensus. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not "Arguments to avoid at AfD", but WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussion. By disagreeing with my assertion that WP:NPOV prevents us from censoring (for lack of a better term) a userbox of one political opinion and allowing userboxes proclaiming adherence to others? This is a serious question. And I disagree that admins are entrusted with the authority to unilaterally delete a Userpage, but this isn't the forum for that debate. Achowat (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It strikes me that a strong majority favor deletion here. The margin appears to be over 2-1 at this point, in favor of deletion. Many editors favoring deletion have pointed to policies and guidelines. Others have pointed to common sense. I understand that some editors may not agree with the consensus, but it appears to be strong and based on policies and common sense -- which, after all, editors are permitted to consider.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Reading through the delete comments, the only arguments brought up that are based on policy were WP:NOTWEBHOST (which was based entirely on WP:SIZE, see Buffs' comments to that end) and WP:UPNOT, based on too much content unrelated to the encyclopedia (though no one has actually pointed to what that content is). What there is, however, is no fewer than three people saying things akin to "the policies this violates have been detailed above". Sorry, as I've said before, even if 30,000 people don't like something that is in keeping with out policies, it's still WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Achowat (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that if the 2-1 keep !votes were not in keeping with our policies, we would ignore consensus. But they have indicated in many cases why they believe the material violates various policies -- even the nom began the discussion with reference to the guideline WP:UP -- though I understand you disagree, there, with their interpretation and application of policies. Others based their delete !votes on not only WP:UPNOT, but also on Wikipedia:NOTWEBHOST, WP:POLEMIC, and WP:SOAPBOX. They have also indicated why they believe the material should be deleted with arguments consistent with wp:COMMONSENSE, and why they believe on a cost-benefit basis the material is more disruptive than it is beneficial. And that in addition to being divisive it is offensive, nonsensical, unrelated to the editing of Wikipedia or its goals, and a waste of server space. You, I understand, disagree on those points as well. But the arguments are based on both policy and on common sense, and what is in the interest of the Project. It has received a great deal of scrutiny, by many editors, and the overwhelming consensus is to delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Well, I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this issue, I guess it's going to be tough for the closing Admin (I don't envy hir) to figure out where the Consensus is (remember, 2-1 support is not necessarily a according-to-Hoyle consensus). Achowat (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, at least I'm pleased that we have found something to agree on. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Delete some of the more inflammatory userboxes too. Paolo Napolitano 21:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Shunning

An incredibly provocative essay suggesting a way to drive editors away from Wikipedia. Seems this essay is mostly cited for the purpose of harassment and not out of any virtuous interest in improving the project. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say keep, but weakly. It's a salvageable idea, stepping away from a Dispute to clear the juices, it just needs to be fleshed out better. (A better name wouldn't be the worst idea, either). Achowat (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment I find the above description that the purpose is for "harassment" baffling. The essay advocates ignoring particularly disruptive editors/trolls. It seems to me ignoring someone is the exact opposite of harassing them. Yobol (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

We have an essay for "do not feed the trolls" and that focuses on vandalism. This specifically suggests it is not about editors who are trolling, but about editors who seem in the opinion of another editor to be "more interested in fighting" than in consensus. We have essays like WP:LETGO, WP:STICK, WP:COOL, and others that emphasize stepping away from a situation if you are having difficulty remaining patient. The guideline on disruptive editing suggests ways to deal with disruption. This appears to be nothing more than a suggestion that editors ignore anyone they cannot come to an understanding with in the hopes the other person will be frustrated into leaving. "Shunning" all on its own has a negative connotation regularly associated with various forms of bullying and harassment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep - it's an essay, and we permit a lot of leeway in that area. In this case, while it might be unfortunately titled, I think the message of this essay is not a bad one: if you don't get on with a certain editor and frequently find yourself in disputes with them, often the best thing to do is simply to ignore them and avoid interacting with them in the first place. If more of us followed that advice, WP:ANI would be a much quieter place. Robofish (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Reasonable essay by a prominent Wikipedian. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep I can not find any policy saying that only 'correct" essays are permitted. Brings no disreoute etc. on Wikipedia, so not actual reason to delete. Collect (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment The problem is specifically that it suggests groups of editors do this to drive away others and has been used with that intent. Many essays address this question of stepping from conflict without suggesting a scarlet letter approach reminiscent of high school bullying.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep. I and User:Noetica used this precise technique with each other after a massive dispute several years ago. After around a month or so of "I do not see you, you do not exist", we talked again, found common ground, and now get along famously. It's like a micro-WikiVacation you can take from arguing with a specific other editor, and can be very helpful. Yes, you can also be a WP:DICK about it, too, but that's true of anything. To the extent its extant wording may raise a pro-WP:GANG issue, the "Edit" link exists for a reason; just fix it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jahshan

This user has made zero contributions to articles and is simply using his user page as a personal website. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. WP:NOTRESUME. Achowat (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
He does seem to be a notable figure, looking at the content of the page. --He to Hecuba (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete for the page. But what should be done to the files uploaded by the user? Is there any encyclopedic value for them to remain in WP or be deleted. Sumanch (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- If he's notable use the information on that page and make an Article about him. If no such page is created, the images simply become orphaned and should also be deleted. Achowat (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  - I will copy his user page over to my sand box and try to create an article. Sumanch (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ceedjee/Battle of Latrun

Article space taken up by banned user Geewhiz (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User is not blocked, seems like a perfectly acceptable use of a personal Sandbox. Aside from the block, is there any other reason to believe that this usage is fit for deletion? Achowat (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The creator has stated themself retired (and hasn't edited in two years) and we already have a Battle of Latrun article which created and developed by Ceedjee her/himself. I don't think it's unreasonable to delete - judging by the edit dates, Ceedjee developed a draft in userspace and then gradually took it live so it's not like anyone's losing anything. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
delete. Ceedjee has not edited for more than two years and this draft is in French. The article was created and was developed in 'main' after. This draft is useless. By the way, Gilabrand shoud be sanctionned for falsely stating that Ceedjee had been banned. What is Gilabrand's problem with her ? 87.65.243.169 (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Cask of monte cristo

I can't imagine why anybody would search for this. Then again, apparently 20 people looked at it yesterday. Most google hits seem to be derived from this page. – hysteria18 (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete, per WP:CSD R3. Implausible typos or misnomers. Achowat (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, the correct action in this case it Relist at WP:RFD.Achowat (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. WP isn't a directory of malapropisms. And this isn't a redirect so I don't see what RFD has to do with anything. R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- The page is a Redirect and WP:Redirects for discussion is a better place to discuss redirects than here. Achowat (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  - No, I'm sorry, the page is not a redirect. A redirect is a page that starts with the special instruction "#REDIRECT". This page clearly is not one of those. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    - Well, trout my silly and call me a doughnut-hole, I just confused Disambigs for Redirects; I need me a WikiBreak (or at least a nap). Achowat (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
According to my Google search, a certain famous retailer had 50,638 items matching the term "Cask of monte cristo". Sadly, they turned out to be lying bastards. I guess we'll have to delete as a ludicrous search term. If people get Poe and Dumas confused then they deserve to wind up on the wrong article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for the equivalent of a Jeopardy! "Before and After" response. Collect (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per WP:PTM, despite how delicious a cask full of Monte Cristo sammiches sounds right now. "Cask of monte cristo" can't plausibly refer to either of the things it disambiguates; it's too much of a change in the word meanings. As Suriel says, would anyone *really* think that Dumas's book is about a barrel? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 5, 2012

[edit] User:TheRealMichaelCruz

A userfied copy of a deleted article. Was userfied in April 2009, and never edited again by the user whose space it is in. Several flawed CSD noms have been declined, but there is obviously a WP:STALEDRAFT situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete We are not a web host. 72.137.97.65 (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete WP:not#WEBHOST --It's Atreem (From the planet Venus) 00:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete This needs to go - it contains quotes without citations (which is a WP:V no-no) and appears to consist solely of unsubstantiated BLP material. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete - WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:BLP-vio. Achowat (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Per Staledraft.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:David-Sarah Hopwood/Healthy multiplicity

Very stale userspace draft, delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST (I feel it's a bit too soapbox-y to keep it here). The "article" suffers from massive amounts of OR and POV; any of the legit references don't actually mention healthy multiplicity and the external links and so go to some random people's personal websites -- no use can be made of this draft. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

By your comments, are we to assume you've looked into the 3 listed Treeware sources? Achowat (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The draft lists three sources that are offline (made of paper - trees - treeware); you mention that there are no references that mention "Healthy Municipality" and I'm wondering if that means you've actually read the 3 offline sources. Achowat (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that my above question has not been answered, I'm going to !vote Weak Keep. The draft my develop into something, and the claims of OR are unsubstantiated. Achowat (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think people are supposed at least read the article (if it's not too long) before voting on its AfD/MfD. Just look at the statements that the books are supposedly references to, then look at the books, and think if having those statements (supposedly) referenced from these books actually gives this article any legitimacy. No, I haven't read through those three books, I hardly believe that's required of me. What is is reading through the article to determine whether there's anything salvageable. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have, in fact, read the article, which is something you should assume I have done. You made a bold claim, that of Original Research and outright stated that the sources don't mention what they claim to. By your own admission, you haven't checked these sources, and as such, I don't think that claim can stand. Achowat (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you require me to explain to you how having those books as references doesn't help prove the noteworthiness of this subject ("healthy multiplicity")? I thought it was fairly obvious to anyone who'd take a look so I wasn't going to waste my time. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I don't require it, but it would help the closing Admin understand your reasons for deletion. Achowat (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The statements:

1) "Some contend that the unity of the self is an illusion and that everyone is fundamentally multiple (an opinion similar to the observations of William James and other modernist writers)[1]." (ref to book William James on Exceptional Mental States, 1983) -- this looks like synthesis, the writer zirself guesses that opinion is "similar" to that of William James, also the particular opinion itself seems to be only vaguely, generally related to the concept of "healthy multiplicity" (which in reality actually refers to people who like to roleplay as different characters with their own names and personal histories and appearances and all that, and claim that these characters are "real" and that the person who does this is not insane -- but "healthy" (as opposed to having DID/MPD or delusions); this is way too vaguely related to legitimate philosophy on the Self).

2) "For example, people in nonwestern cultures who are multiple do not express their other selves as "parts of themselves", but as independent souls or spirits." (ref to a medical journal article titled "The interface between multiple personality, spirit mediumship, and hypnosis.") -- to me this looks like synthesis: the people who claim to have "healthy multiplicity" call themselves "multiples", but the people that are referred to here -- people from non-Western cultures who seem to communicate with spirits -- clearly don't self-identify as such, and it's not believable that the journal article referred to them as such either or that it mentioned "healthy multiplicity", which is actually a new invention by some random people and not a legitimate concept in psychology -- "healthy multiplicity" does not inherit its notability from Multiple Personality Disorder.

3) "There is a fair bit of cross-cultural evidence to suggest that a small but persistent fraction of humans everywhere experience themselves as multiple. Many religions recognize shamans, people who claim to communicate with and be possessed by gods or spirits." (ref to book Trance and Possession in Bali) -- it looks like the ref is for the second sentence only and it's the editor's synthesis that shamanism is connected to "healthy multiplicity".

On a separate note, the link/reference to paganwiccan.about.com didn't work so I did a search in that particular About for "healthy multiplicity" and found nothing.

— Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Healthy multiplicity and recent inactivity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per Jeraphine Gryphon's wonderful synthesis. Achowat (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amar Kanwal

Article is currently in mainspace, though probably not for long. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete I'm fed up of seeing this content now. Please also consider the same content at Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Amar Kanwal. -- role^player 20:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've deleted that, since Amar Kanwal is also deleted now. Deleting is just a matter of protocol--maybe a passing admin can find the appropriate guideline. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete as "looking promotional" without thrid party sourcing from reliable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Elvisekofisk/Ecological economics

Original research essay. I userfied this from the (new) author's user talk page, and have explained to him why it is not Wikipedia material. JohnCD (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Refer user to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets and delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have already referred him there, and suggested Wikiversity as one possibility - their article says they do accept OR. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not our job to identify which alternative outlet. He may need his own website. The point is that Wikipedia doesn't include everything. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 4, 2012

[edit] User:EMasonAssoc/Aida Rodriguez

WP:STALEDRAFT by blocker editor Magioladitis (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Aida Rodriguez. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I don't see any point to a redirect, nobody is going to find it via that route. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

Centralized discussion

Proposals	Discussions	Recurring proposals
RFC on appropriate handling/removal of non-free images that breach WP:NFCC policy #9. RfC on the proposed cessation of selective delete (other than history merge fixes) and resulting changes to deletion policies, including the removal of a Revision Deletion criterion. Invitation to comment on candidates standing for 2012 Audit Subcommittee appointment 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 Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive · talk · edit · history · watch