Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals

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

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

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Module:, and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
  • Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own personal userpage deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}}. If you wish your user talk page (or user talk page archives) to be deleted, this is the correct location to request that.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers - sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

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

Administrator instructions[edit]

Administrator instructions for closing discussions can be found here.


Current discussions[edit]

Pages currently being considered are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

Purge server cache

September 19, 2014[edit]

September 18, 2014[edit]


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

article on user page, already available at The Social Contract with Business The Banner talk 21:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

User:SpikeJones/Top Five[edit]

User:SpikeJones/Top Five (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT, user is barely active. May or may not survive article space. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Xbox 360/about[edit]

Portal:Xbox 360/about (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused item. Created in 2008 and no edits since day of creation, only links are ones that I have create to keep track of it. Have tried to contact creator but they have been inactive since July. I can't seen a purpose for this existing. X201 (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) X201 (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

September 17, 2014[edit]

Portal:San Diego–Tijuana[edit]

Portal:San Diego–Tijuana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

stale portal, with an inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Tijuana. the content that can go here related to Tijuana is very limited. all the San Diego content, including the main article here, can be placed at Portal:San Diego County, which is older, better developed, and has just been made active by myself. many of the links here are to stubs and start class articles. i have added the few b/ga articles to the SD portal. not all the portal tags can redirect to San Diego, and i dont think losing this tag will matter much. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Pretty much duplicates the information at Portal:San Diego County, a more likely search term and a much better developed portal. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War[edit]

Russo-Ukrainian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Disambig page with zero valid entries. The only plausible entry proposed was 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. That article does not use the term "Russo-Ukrainian War", and English language news sources conspicuously do not apply the term Russo-Ukrainian War to this conflict. Alsee (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete – Not a valid disambiguation page, as one will see if one reads WP:DPAGES. This is an implausible name not used by any articles, disambiguating things that do not need disambiguation. RGloucester 02:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per RGloucester. There has never been a Russo-Ukrainian war in the past, nor do any RS use this naming convention. There is no such war unless someone is privy to a crystal ball. Nothing to disambiguate = no disambiguation page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominator. Alsee (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as a redirect, not disambig. page. A correct title would be Russian-Ukrainian War (currently a redirect page). Quickly looking at results of Google books search for this title [1] one can see that a disambing page for "Russian-Ukrainian War" (not Russo-Ukrainian War) could be required in the future because this term was used in the literature to denote different events. I would suggest keeping Russo-Ukrainian War as a redirect, rather than a disambing page for now. In addition, this talk page should be kept for future reference and possible development of the subject (this war is currently developing). My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
My very best wishesThe literature you've pointed to in your google search discusses either WP:CRYSTAL scenarios, or "Polish-Russian-Ukrainian War", or "Russian-Ukrainian 'war of decrees'". Only one discusses 1917 to 1920 as being a Russian-Ukrainian war. This doesn't merit a dpage being set aside. Should the term come into usage in the future, there's no difficulty in setting up a new dpage under whatever the correct WP:COMMONNAME might be. I see no argument for keeping such a page for its 'just in case' value. In fact, doing so contravenes multiple policies and guidelines. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh no, we can have articles about imaginary scenarios, such as World War III, if these scenarios are notable and described in multiple RS. That does not mean WP:CRYSTAL. There are multiple uses of the term under discussion in literature (one should also look Google news etc.). My very best wishes (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you understand the disambiguation page guidelines, which I've cited about fifty-thousand times at this point? Disambiguation pages are only to be used when multiple articles use the same name. Here, we have no articles that use these names, anywhere. Hence, no disambiguation page. It is not that hard to understand. "Russian-Ukrainian War" flies in the face of traditional naming guidelines for wars, which always use "Russo-", a combing form, unless "Russian" comes second in the name of the war. One will see this if one visits Category:Wars involving Russia. Regardless, none of this matters with regard to the deletion of this page. This page should be deleted because it is implausible, is not used by reliable sources, and is WP:CRYSTAL. RGloucester 18:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I suggested to keep it as a redirect page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Why? RGloucester 20:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
A redirect to what? Your example of WWIII is completely WP:OFFTOPIC. The WWIII dabpage exists because there are notable uses of the term related to literature, music, etc. There are no notable uses of Russo-Ukrainian War. I can't understand how you fail to comprehend this reality. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine obviously, just as Russian-Ukrainian War redirected right now. My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Again, POV-deletion-campaign by a couple of users to remove and hide as much as possible of Russia's participation of the war it started against Ukraine. Entries keep being removed by same users claiming there are none. removing disambig page creates confusion and in other languages there are more then 7 entries for Russian–Ukrainian War. Deletion in complete ignoration of sources, making misuse of the reality that it is much more work to write articles then to organise removal of content on wikipedia.--Niele (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
There are no entries, because none of articles use that name. None. Please read, for the final time, WP:DPAGES. RGloucester 18:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Niele, do not accuse editors of being involved in a conspiracy. You are arguing for the retention of a dpage based on the use of languages other than English (LOTE). Russo-Ukrainian War has not been used in the English language in English language sources. You are making things up as you go along. Please desist from continuing your tendentious editing practices. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Russian–Ukrainian War[edit]

Russian–Ukrainian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redirect to Disambig page with zero entries Alsee (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. Alsee (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Technically, redirects should be discussed at WP:RFD, but this could probably be speedied with {{db-g8}} if the disambig page is deleted. —PC-XT+ 06:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 06:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Again, POV-deletion-campaign by a couple of users to remove and hide as much as possible of Russia's participation of the war it started against Ukraine. Entries keep being removed by same users claim there are none. removing disambig page creates confusion and in other languages there are more then 7 entries for Russian–Ukrainian War. Deletion in complete ignoration of sources, making misuse of the reality that it is much more work to write articles then to organise removal of content on wikipedia.--Niele (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I would like to confirm Niele's accusation of a "POV-deletion-campaign". Not only have I nominated Russian–Ukrainian War for deletion, I have voted in support of deletion of the opposite-side-POV-push "Ukrainian Coup" redirect page. None of these terms are considered valid by English News Sources. We should not permit Wikipedia to be used as a battleground by either side. I'm not a fan of barnstars, but I would proudly wear a "POV-deletion" barnstar. Alsee (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

September 16, 2014[edit]


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

abandoned userpage (since 2009) that is functioning as an article on a likely nonnotable subject. this is an inappropriate use of a main userpage. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per meta:User:Kleuske/Miroslaw Magola Mark Hurd (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as a fake article. He might be notable enough for an actual article (I found [11]). But I current draft written as if he does have the powers isn't a suitable base to start an article -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of banned users[edit]

Wikipedia:List of banned users (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I recently started some proposals for change at the List of banned users, my first change suggested was that the entire list was deleted and I said that I would nominate the page for deletion if there was significant support. From what I've seen, there has been and I invite participants in this discussion, along with the closing administrator, to read the comments there.

In summary, I believe the List of banned users should be deleted because its costs severely outweigh the benefits. There are about 450 names in the community bannned list, 89% are over 2 years old and nearly 60% are over 5 years old. There are names on that list from 2003, over 10 years old. Wikipedia has significantly changed in that period. At present, these names are kept forever, with no prospect of removal. Consider that some names on this list are people's real names, recorded forever as "banned".

Each community ban has a bit of commentary associated with it. These include phrases like "too unstable", "shocking rampage", "competence issues", "made noxious and ridiculous claims". The commentary is written at times of high tension and often by non-neutral parties. It's inappropriate to keep such commentary on users, especially after they've left.

There are 3 arguably useful bits of information on this list, confirmation that the user is banned, the date it happened and a link to the discussion. We have other places to record the information, however, Arbcom bans are recorded at Arbcom cases, the block log is often updated, the users page and talk page, a fully searchable Adminstrators' Noticeboard, sockpuppet investigations pages, sockpuppet categories and more.

NB: This is the 6th nomination of this page. Looking at the previous nominations, they were often made by people with a vested interest and SNOW closed. As I said before, there has been some discussion on the talk page of the list, sufficient to lead me create this nomination. Please do take the time to read it. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I obviously support deletion as nominator. I've been an administrator for 4 years, and on Arbcom for 2 and not once have I had need to use this list. Whenever I've needed the information, I've used other sources, primarily user talk pages or search functions of AN, Arbcom or SPI. Publicly keeping what can only be described as "negative information" on people for over 10 years is unacceptable, no matter what they've done. WormTT(talk) 09:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    In addition, I'd like to include this statement from User:Jimbo Wales at Wikimania 2014 "A lot of users cost more than they're worth, and they should be encouraged to leave, and not in a bad way. One of the things I've always believed is letting people walk away with dignity. We don't have to shame them and scream at them and make them leave and then they're sad and annoyed and then they make sock puppets and then they come back and harass us for years."video This list does not allow people to walk away with dignity. This list causes more problems than it solves. WormTT(talk) 08:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Is this last bit "pulling the ol' Jimbo card"? As in: Jimbo might endorse your side of the dispute, so we should all give that a lot of extra weight? Tut, tut. Doc talk 08:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Jimbo does endorse my side (per Benmoore's argument below), but the statement resonated strongly with my point of view and was worth mentioning. WormTT(talk) 08:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
There is not even a rough consensus to delete here. So... we can keep it open for many weeks; but there still will not be a consensus to delete the list, for the 7th time. And, we must keep it if there is no solid consensus to delete it. Therefore the only viable option is to modify how it is maintained. Doc talk 09:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
This has only been open just over 24 hours, consensus is still emerging. Numerically, I agree it's tending (but not overwhelmingly) towards keeping, but I'd say there are more and stronger arguments to delete. It's not an MfD I'd be keen on closing. WormTT(talk) 09:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The very fact that this is the sixth time the page has been nominated for deletion suggests that deleting is a bad idea. If the page were really harmful, and any harm was obvious and uncontroversial, then it would have been deleted long ago. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    Not really. This only demonstrates that so called wikipedia community is not mature and not sane enough to stop harming itself and its site by stopping an absolutely needless bullying. (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    Please do have a look at the previous nominations before making that assumption. 3 of the previous 5 were made "in bad faith by a sockpuppet". The facts that consensus can change and that there has been significant support on the talk page means that this warrants a genuine discussion, and dismissing it as "it would have been done" is a poor argument. WormTT(talk) 09:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    If your suggestion is that socks nominating the page for deletion would bias the resulting discussion, then I'm not necessarily sure that it would be correct. I have seen cases where an article was nominated for deletion by a sock, the sock was eventually discovered and blocked, and the article wound up being deleted in the end anyway. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    My suggestion is that you read the previous nominations, and their closures. WormTT(talk) 09:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, I've glanced at them, but I'm still not sure what your point is. The fact that you would agree with the socks of the banned users that the page should be deleted is not particularly encouraging. ImprovingWiki (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, you're dismissing my arguments on the basis that "banned users" agree with them? I suggest you focus on actually discussing why this page should or should not be deleted and stop trying to discredit the nominator. This essay may help you. WormTT(talk) 10:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    No, I'm not dismissing your arguments for that reason alone, simply suggesting that agreeing with socks of banned users is problematic. As I said, there would have to be a better reason for deleting the page than any negative consequences it might have for people who have been banned from the site. ImprovingWiki (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep on the grounds that the page is useful, and that people are responsible for their own actions and the consequences thereof. Deleting the page would be a drastic step, and there would have to be a better basis for it than any alleged negative consequences the page's existence has for the banned users. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per my comment at Wikipedia talk:List of banned users#Option 1: Discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC).
  • Keep - List provides an idea. People who have been suggested about site ban, they would like to know about others who have been banned from You get some idea about the consequences that would lead to site ban. In many ways this list is helpful. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 09:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
OccultZone, could you clarify a bit? Is your reason to keep, then, that users who might get banned may instead use this page as a "research tool" and thus learn how to behave appropriately? I'm not sure how likely that is, but, even in that case, why is this needed for that purpose when Wikipedia:Banning policy, WP:CONDUCT and other such actual policy pages exist for such "research"? You seem to be saying the little mini-essays added about individual users are the most useful thing about the page, when even several voting and commenting to keep (here and in the talkpage discussion) seem to see them as problematic, and agree they could be removed, leaving a name and link to ban discussion only. Begoontalk 10:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per my comments on the talk page. I am supportive of changing this into a less descriptive list per option #2 of the talk page. The list can be improved; its outright removal is to me unnecessary revisionism for no good convincing reason. Doc talk 10:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep It helps to have a list of users which have been banned, so the community knows. Users whose names do not belong on the list can be removed, and other problems can be dealt with by editing. Users who do not wish to have their name on this page should not do things they knew would get them banned. --Jayron32 10:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. This page aids in maintaining institutional memory. The overly negative descriptions can be tweaked as needed. Binksternet (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep The nominator has provided no evidence regarding the supposed "costs" and he and other editors have pointed out how the list is useful. Suggesting search is a possible replacement disregards how bad search is when it comes to noticeboards. A less descriptive list removing inflammatory phrases is the way to go. --NeilN talk to me 12:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Serves no useful purpose. The editors are banned, so even if they return under another name this list is not helpful. If there are still issues with such editors via sockpuppetry etc., then WP:LTA is a more relevant venue. I am particularly wary of the fact, per nom, that many of these entries are under real names and contain non-neutral or even pejorative language. If this MfD does not result in a Delete outcome, I strongly recommend a refactoring of it per option #2 on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep The given rationale appears to tie in closely with the right to be forgotten, which Jimbo was quoted as saying would lead to "an internet riddled with memory holes". A more salient point is that while WTT says keeping … "negative information" on people for over 10 years is unacceptable, it should be noted that these are accounts rather than people — in the case of a renamed banned user who edited under their real name, I'd have no issues with the renamer updating the relevant username in this list at their discretion (not necessarily with a note, as some have now). benmoore 12:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but that's just profoundly unconvincing. The rationale of the nomination seems like the right to be forgotten so therefore we should impute the dangers of that policy when looking at whether or not to keep an individual page on wikipedia? No. This is just a discussion on whether or not the usefulness of this page (which near as I can tell has been asserted but not proven) outweighs the real cost of keeping a permanent shit list for banned editors. Whether or not a law which compels search engines and content providers to scrub information at the behest of subjects damages or improves the internet as a whole is not germane. As for the name/account distinction, I'm not sure that's doing as much for us as we might think. First, account names are often personally identifying. If an account name on wikipedia is shared by the same person across multiple sites someone can recover that person's name from a concerted search, correlating information across disparate resources until they get at a first or last name and location. That's not a theoretical concern. And I'm sure we have "noindexed" the page, but that's not really a solution. Second, insofar as an account name is not identifying, the value of that list item drops dramatically. A banned editor will as a rule have to start under a new account, so listing the old account here isn't useful in maintaining that ban. Protonk (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not trying to convince anyone, just adding my comments to the discussion. Drawing a parallel between this and "right to be forgotten" is not a rationale for my keep, I'm just pointing out the similarities—perhaps it will save us some time when we realise we are arguing around a pre-existing divisive issue. benmoore 14:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep but strip down to names and links, removing the opinions. It does serve a purpose, but only needs to only serve that purpose and not be a grave dancing page. Dennis 12:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not convinced, after a lot of consideration, that any explained "utility" of the list outweighs its negative aspects, both as a "name and shame" list with little mini-descriptions of how "dreadful" these people were, and also, as a potential "shrine" for the type of disruptive user who would like to "get on the list" as a trophy to show how "successful" their disruption was. The potential for real names on the list magnifies these concerns greatly. The nominator has explained that other options exist to find out about bans, there is a category which can be maintained and used if desired, and at least one admin has opined on never having had a need to consult this list in several years of dealing with these matters. We just don't need this, and it reflects badly on us as a community, making us appear vengeful and unforgiving. We can do better. If it is, nevertheless, kept, then trim to name, date and link to ban decision. No mini-essays/ad-hoc descriptions. Begoontalk 12:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. As BK notes, the editor is banned, not the account. Listing account names is largely pointless (as the individual accounts are already blocked). As for the usefulness of the page, is this a resource which is regularly referred to by admins and editors to keep tabs on banned users? Are we actually using it or do we just think it looks useful? I'm pretty skeptical that the page "aids institutional memory", partially because that claim is too vague to be falsifiable in any sense but also because I don't see how it does that. I've been an admin here for a long time and I've never heard of this page until today. Not once. I've never seen it linked in AN/I (though I'm sure it has been) nor have I seen anyone comment that they're off to update this list following a community ban discussion (likely because they've never heard of it either). And if this page doesn't serve a useful function, what the fuck is it doing on the encyclopedia? It's certainly not a benign project page. I can learn nothing from it that I wouldn't be able to learn elsewhere and I should I rely on it for information I have to trust that it has been tended properly and kept up to date. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. As for the proposals to trim the list to just names and links, that's "better" in one sense and worse in another. It's better because we no longer have to patrol the page for sections of prose but worse because now the purported usefulness of the page shrinks even further. Again, the accounts are already blocked indefinitely so unless someone shows up on a new account and says "hey, I'm Willy on Wheels!" this list provides no real information on whether or not the human behind the new account is the same. Finally, I'm skeptical of the value which comes from recording bans for all time which were made by what is essentially a very different community. If we banned someone in 2008 and they return to a new account tomorrow, I'm not entirely sure why I should care. Yeah, Banned Mean Banned™ and all that but if no one remembers why they were banned or anyone who does has retired what's the value of saying "I found you on this list so it's off to the cornfield with you"? Protonk (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I meant to mention that, actually. I've been an admin for seven years now and I don't think I've ever used that page. If a banned editor is mentioned I tend to look at their userpage for information. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt I can't see where this would be useful at all, aside for the curious newbie. LTAs belong at LTA. Socks belong at SPI. Most people who have added entries here have a vested interest in that user being banned and staying banned. KonveyorBelt 15:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep It does serve a purpose by having all the names in one spot rather than making editors (old or new) search for the other two or three areas where the names might be found. I agree with Dennis Brown that it should be stripped down to names and links, removing the opinions. MarnetteD|Talk 15:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete or, failing that, at least get rid of everything but username and link to discussion, per Dennis. I don't actually see much value in having a list of banned editors; the only ostensible reason is to match socks up with banned masters, but I personally have never understood why that is important or helpful; if they're misbehaving, they should be blocked for their misbehavior regardless of who their master is, and if they're not, who cares?
    Expanding on my !vote: I don't think that there's anything wrong with wanting to consider banned users as human beings--albeit human beings that "we" don't want around here anymore--and, in fact, there's quite a bit right about it. This list is something that works against that, and I don't see any actual benefit to us in return that might make up for it. Those that are saying that we need to keep this list for institutional memory or to keep track of banned editors or whatever might do well to ask themselves: why is that a thing that needs to be kept track of? To what end? Sure, this list allows users to more easily locate the names of banned editors--but why do they want to look for banned editors in the first place? Writ Keeper  15:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bottom line, this list is not needed for administrators to quickly determine if a specific user has been banned. Any elements of the list that may be helpful for identifying long-term abuse should be migrated to WP:LTA. 28bytes (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Many of these editors are rightly banned, but it's time for Wikipedia to move past keeping a trophy case. Andreas JN466 17:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep We need to keep a record somewhere. Bans aren't as simple as blocks which are automatically logged, so why not have a page to list bans? If you don't like it, don't look at it. Rcsprinter123 (speak) @ 18:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Keep per Binksternet. This list serves a purpose. Destroying this list will only serve to hide Wikipedia's past. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Binksternet and above and further no policy-based reason for deletion given.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't understand why lists of facts and evidence are being targeted recently, I see no policy based reason for it. We need to keep track of these things. If there are specific issues with how it is being used then it can be edited by consensus. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 17:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete It's shameful that something like this still exists on Wikipedia in 2014. This list is not now, nor has it ever been objective and complete. Instead it amounts to an "pwned" list, in many cases for people to publicly mock their "enemies", and at best to publicly shame and punish those who have been deemed to be not good matches for the project. Wikipedians should not be assholes, and keeping this list that amounts to little more than public shaming makes us just that. The right and good and humane thing to do is to delete. We already have LTA for long-standng problematic trolls. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 17:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What about our external link blacklist? That blacklist is used by countless forums and search engines. When we put a site on that it actually is "shamed" in that search engines penalize it and forums block it. Is that also being an asshole?
  • Saying that someone came to Wikipedia and acted so disruptively that we had to ban them is not a "public shaming", it is a record of shameful behavior in public. These people shamed themselves. Calling us assholes for banning and recording that ban is nothing more than blaming the victim and frankly a personal attack against those that created the page. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 17:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • URLs aren't humans, while most or all of the people being shamed at the ban list are, so I don't find this analogy persuasive. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 17:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Apart from the fact that websites are not people, the blacklist serves a purpose, because the entry on the blacklist itself is what implements the block on adding links. If a URL is on the blacklist, users are physically prevented from adding it to an article; if it is not on the blacklist, users are not. But here, banned people are banned whether they are listed on this page or not, and the ban is usually indicated (and subsequently looked up) by the standard ban notices that people are so eager to place on the banned user's userpage. What actual purpose does this list of banned editors serve? Many people have said that it's necessary, or that it serves a purpose, but nobody seems to be saying why it's necessary or what that purpose actually is. Writ Keeper  18:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • If a user is banned, how do we know when and why and for what reason a person was banned? What is an easy way to find that information, unless we have it all in one place? --Jayron32 19:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Go to person's userpage, where the {{banned user}} template will presumably provide all the information you require. It doesn't need to be centralized. Writ Keeper  20:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The EL blacklist is a great example because it's a resource which is incredibly valuable and serves a purpose nearly every minute of every day on wikipedia. The list of banned editors doesn't seem to do anything remotely as useful. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Like I said on the talk page, one banned editor from 8 years ago was socking extensively as recently as last year. The majority of editors are not capable of identifying ban evaders from X years ago, myself included, so why make it even harder for people? —Xezbeth (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    Could you please clarify the comment you made here? Are you saying that a banned user was socking and vandalizing Wikipedia for a number of years, and only half a dozen editors at most were capable of recognizing the edits as vandalism? Also could you please explain how this list could help to recognize a banned editor, if one isn't sure what editor to look for? (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    Anyone is capable of figuring out this particular ban evader since they have so many patterns. But if you've never heard of them in the first place, you're not going to suspect anything untoward unless someone familiar with them points it out to you. Historically, only two admins really dealt with SU, both of whom went semi-active at around the same time, meaning SU quietly racked up thousands of edits using hundreds of IPs and sockpuppet accounts over several years because of it. Obviously most of the names on this list aren't going to be doing anything like that, but if someone who was banned years ago decides to cause trouble, only the users who were involved at the time will be able to notice. In my opinion, having all the relevant links in one place should make it easier for people who aren't familiar with them. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    So, in this scenario, how does this list help? Someone who is familiar with the sockmaster in question doesn't need the list, and someone who isn't familiar doesn't realize that they could look at this list or even that there is anything to look up. Either way, this list doesn't help. (And really, that's what LTA is for, anyway; if that's the only reason to keep this list, then the relevant parts should be moved to LTA and the rest deleted. After all, you yourself said that most of this list isn't useful for that purpose.) Writ Keeper  19:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    Exactly, how does this list help? Isn't it much easier to revert vandalism, any vandalism, versus trying to figure out who did it? Vandalism is vandalism either it is done by a new user or by a sock of an old one. So could you please provide the links to let's say 10 edits out of thousands SU quietly racked up? I'm simply trying to understand what kind of edits you're talking about and how the list helped you in this specific situation. (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - per my previous comments here. BMK (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't see how this list would be helpful, and it's unfair to those whose real names can be deduced from it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This word "unfair"... I do not think it means what you think it means. If someone disrupts Wikipedia to the point of being banned, it would be unfair to help them sweep that information under the rug and help them pretend that they hadn't actually done it. There is no relationship between "fairness" and what you seem to think it means.—Kww(talk) 01:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - per most of the Delete comments above. No convincing benefit to be had from maintaining this list. TheOverflow (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep this page is extremely helpful if you have to deal with someone evading a block. It provides confirmation that the individual concerned is definitely banned and provides background for editors unfamiliar with that person. The suggested alternatives in the nomination are not remotely comparable, especially the suggestion that people search the very large administrators' noticeboard archives where a name often crops up frequently instead. The fact that someone was banned years ago doesn't mean they aren't still considered banned, or even that they aren't still evading that ban to edit. Hut 8.5 20:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • While I am undecided about the future of the page itself, I strongly agree with Worm (and many other commenters) that at the very least, we should remove the notes/comments and slim it down to a more neutral name(s)-date-diff list. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  21:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    Why is being "neutral" an issue here? Neutrality is a reasonable policy when we want to be fair to two sides in a dispute, each of which has a legitimate position or claim. But banned users don't have a legitimate position or claim. They're prohibited from taking part in the project, and we don't have to be concerned about being "neutral" to them. Of course the information on the page reflects badly on them - and so it should. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    I couldn't disagree more that because an editor is banned, being disrespectful is justified. Link to the discussion closure diff and let it speak for itself. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  03:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    It's not about being deliberately disrespectful or rude or saying mean things just for the sake of it. It's about providing helpful information, easily available to all users (unlike information buried deep in ANI's archives), that is useful in preventing banned users from editing. If that information reflects poorly on the banned users, then that's too bad, frankly. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Limiting the information we publicly hold on blocked users simply means that it takes more admin time to deal with them as admins have to spend more time getting up to speed.©Geni (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unfortunately, this is an essential tool, and, as has been pointed out by others above, some of these editors keep coming back after 7 or 8 years, never mind 2 or 5 years. Bans should be the last resort - it would be nice to see them happen less often - but covering up the fact a ban has happened is not necessary nor indeed deserved. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    This list is a very, very useful tools...for bullies. (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    Preventing banned users from editing is not bullying. Actually, as the list makes clear, a number of the banned users were banned for harassment, among other things. Harassment is a form of bullying. You're inadvertently making a good case for keeping the list. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete With particular consideration to SlimVirgin's rationale. There are entries that are under people's real names and many more from which a real name can easily be deduced. Keeping this list brings to mind a significant question of our priorities and ethics as a very popular website. Many of the people saying the list should be kept say it is important for administration, but I see no indication that LTA and the banned templates wouldn't be much more useful. This list seems to serve little purpose except to permanently disparage those listed and given that it's continued existence flies in the face of the concept that a ban is preventative, not punitive. This list is nearly 100% punitive from an ethical standpoint. Useful information should be migrated to LTA and this page should be deleted and salted. I see no evidence at all that this list prevents banned users from continuing their abuse, and in fact it may have the exact opposite effect in many cases. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. We must be kind and responsible in our treatment of other contributors. In general, long-term bans are unnecessary, and virtually no one ought to be banned for a decade or more. We shouldn't be treating people this way, and a page like this is just scribbling graffiti onto tombstones. Let's show some decency. Everyking (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but I really can't accept that. There are large numbers of users whose behavior makes it unmistakably clear that they need to be banned forever. There would have to be a better rationale for getting rid of the page than the alleged undesirability of long-term bans. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    I did: "We must be kind and responsible in our treatment of other contributors. ... We shouldn't be treating people this way, and a page like this is just scribbling graffiti onto tombstones." In other words, it's mean. Everyking (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    So the argument now is that being "mean" to people who, for excellent reasons, have been banned from editing Wikipedia is worse than the meanness involved in deleting a page that a large number of legitimate users have made clear that they find a useful resource? I don't see that as being even slightly reasonable. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    It actually is very reasonable, because this page isn't a useful resource for anybody and it perpetuates a vicious culture of exclusion, division and demonization. A great many banned users were banned for very poor reasons under very questionable circumstances, and it's about time we confront that reality instead of continuing on this self-destructive path of slurring our own contributors for years and years. Everyking (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    In other words, you accuse those who say they do find the page useful of lying? ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons given by WTT. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as lets be honest we do need a list, IMHO we ought to preserve things like this not delete it. –Davey2010(talk) 13:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep I do not see how we will know which user is banned if we do not have a page for this. Ban is not block so unless we have some other way to know what is the status of some editors I am in favour or keeping this list. Discussion on long-term bans is no the subject of this Mfd. Here we discuss the existence of the page based on the current status/consensus. Also the discussion on whether is list is up-to-date should be done on the page's talk page and not here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Essential site maintenance tool. It is fine to make this invisible to Google search, but the list needs to exist and be visible to WP volunteers. Carrite (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per Protonk: "As for the usefulness of the page, is this a resource which is regularly referred to by admins and editors to keep tabs on banned users?" As a reasonably busy admin for around 4 years, often tied up with complex SPI and tracking other trolls, serial vandals, and spammers, my answer to that is 'No'. Over the years I have added three or four names to the list but quite honestly while doing so, I couldn't think of a reason why I was doing it apart from following what I assumed was supposed to be done. Don't get me wrong - I have zero sympathy for anyone who ends up on that list, but where it's best not to feed the trolls, I see no reason either why we should feed a lust for bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    I find it to be extremely strange that there would be any support for deleting a page that non-banned users say they find useful on the grounds that banned users might be upset by its existence. How can anyone reasonably say that the page is not useful when people have said clearly that they find it useful? ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


  • Question could one of the supporters please describe a situation where they've actively used this list? WormTT(talk) 07:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I just now saw the same IP making multiple comments on this MfD using broken English and multiple particular key phrases like "dirty lies" and "bullies", and I therefore visited Wikipedia:List of banned users to remind myself whether User:Mbz1 was banned or merely indefinitely blocked (and why), before removing a comment that had not been replied to per WP:BAN. That's just in the last few minutes, and I imagine some active administrators may have reason to use it more often than I do (for example if they often deal with sockpuppets of returning banned users). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    I find it difficult to believe that you have the ability to identify a user by key phrases but not recall if they are banned or blocked. WormTT(talk) 07:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    Especially as you have reverted the user before as banned[12][13] and even raised a request for the banned account to "disappear". I'm asking this genuinely, is there a situation where this list has actually been useful? WormTT(talk) 07:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    I think we've just had a good faith demonstration that the list is useful. Indeed, if some editors say they find it useful, why would anyone reasonably question that? ImprovingWiki (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    It's not an unreasonable question to ask how it's useful. "I find it useful" is helpful as "I like it", again, not a valid argument in deletion discussions. If the answer to how it's useful is "so that I can do X, Y or Z", that's fine. If the answer is "so that we can keep a record", I'd argue that it's not. WormTT(talk) 13:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    If someone wants to confirm whether or not an editor is banned and not just blocked why can't they just visit the userpage? If this editor is considered a long-term abuser, why can't they be added to LTA? If an IP is posting abusive comments at the noticeboards or elsewhere about "dirty lies" or "bullies", it seems RBI would be used in most cases, whether or not the IP could be tied to someone who was previously banned. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I've used it when I clerked at SPI more than a couple times (research), and twice to verify that someone was actually banned after someone put a "banned" banner on their page. In both cases, they weren't banned, the editor just took it upon themselves to plaster the badge of shame on their page because they felt like they were de facto banned. So yes, it prevented badges of shame from being put on blocked user's pages. Dennis 13:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks Dennis. Though, as the list is incomplete - how could you be sure that the editor in question wasn't banned? WormTT(talk) 13:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    You can't prove a negative with that list, although the list is pretty complete over the last few years. You can also use the list to research who was banned in a particular time period, which can be useful for reasons that would take more space to explain than is necessary or reasonable here. Granted, these aren't daily uses and not something every editor would do, but still useful. I don't think it is necessary to prove the page is the most useful page we have, just reasonably useful. Dennis 18:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    Well, I don't think "reasonably useful" is enough of a bar: I think one should make a case that such a list is "worth it"; that is, whether such a list is useful enough to outweigh its downsides. (I know that there are many among us who don't think that the feelings of those we've chosen to exclude from Wikipedia are worthy of consideration; I am not one of them.) The list is pretty complete, yeah, but it's not actually any more authoritative than ban notices on one's userpage--it's just as easy to put a false entry/delete a true entry from the list as it is to do the same to a userpage, so to be honest, I'm not sure it really provides any particular value there that can't be found anywhere else. I'll concede your point that the list could be useful for research, but then the question becomes: how much benefit do we get from such research? Is it worth it? It seems to me that it is not, though as always, others can and will disagree. Writ Keeper  19:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    That is a slippery slope. "Worth it" is in the eye of the beholder, thus entirely subjective, and if used, would be hung over dozens of pages here, including many useful and/or humor pages. You would be creating a new standard that has never been used at MFD before, something I think would be a grave error and doesn't have a basis in policy. No one is forced to edit here, no one is forced to conduct themselves in a manner that eventually leads to a ban. I disagree with a number of those bans as being too premature, but there are no saints in that list, and at the end of the day, the list represents consensus. By virtue of accepting the extra bits, you and I have pledged to respect consensus, even if we disagree with it. We shouldn't grave dance about it, but it is entirely reasonable to have a central page that both lists banned persons and substantiates that status via a diff. Everything else should go away, which I've already stated in multiple places. Dennis 20:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    The slope ain't that slippery. Of course it's subjective, but that doesn't mean that we can't come to a consensus about it. (As an aside, how is the conclusion that something is "entirely reasonable" not subjective?) If a sizable group of editors comes to a consensus that a page is not worth it during an MfD, why shouldn't we delete a page? If a consensus forms that a particular humor page/useful page isn't humorous/useful enough to outweigh any downsides it has, why shouldn't we delete it? Let's not get lost down the "not-policy" rabbit hole; as you said, we pledged to respect consensus (we respect policy because it's a reflection of that consensus, not just because it's there); if a consensus forms that a page is a net negative to Wikipedia, why would we not implement that consensus and delete the page? I mean, this isn't article space, where the mere existence of an article is reason enough to outweigh many ills; this is MfD, where, at the end of the day, no pages are needed for an encyclopedia to be a thing. And I know you don't really mean it to be disingenuous, but saying No one is forced to edit here, no one is forced to conduct themselves in a manner that eventually leads to a ban is disingenuous, nonetheless; that implies that all bans are deserved and that bans are never placed in error. I'm not willing to assert that; are you? Writ Keeper  20:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    Saying we need nothing but article pages is hyperbole, so I don't see the point. Same for implying I'm saying something that I'm not. I've been clear in my position, I don't need yet one more person putting (misleading) words in my mouth. Anyway, this isn't a hill I would choose to die on (nor would I suggest anyone else). I've stated my perspective and out of respect for Worm, provided additional information to add some clarity, something I now regret and it is turning into badgering. I'm really not up for a debate or a discussion where we just talk past each other. Dennis 00:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Santa Barbara County task force/Participants[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Santa Barbara County task force/Participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

very ancient, inactive page listing former participants of the Santa Barbara County task force, now put up for MFD. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep and mark as inactive/historical given that this was part of a once functioning and active wikiproject. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Whpq. Seemed to be active a few years ago with active content work, seems to downfall since then. ///EuroCarGT 23:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment i have no problem with keep as historical. i just want to make sure people arent tagging articles on the talk page with this project for no reason. seems like keeping the project as historical can help.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Santa Barbara County task force[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Santa Barbara County task force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

completely inactive wikiproject task force. all the articles are of course tagged with the cali wikiproject, so nothing will be lost but this specific, now useless tag. the editor list dates to 2007. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep inactive or redirect to WP:CAL if needed, same with participant list. No significant benefit to deleting an inactive project. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and mark as inactive/historical given that this was part of a once functioning and active wikiproject. -- Whpq (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment im definitely ok with keep as historical, as long as links are redirected to the cali project.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Reply - I'd say that what happens to the links need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. The links in article talk pages are presumably from {{WikiProject California}} tags with "santabarbaracounty=yes" set. These would need the santabarbara county tags removed assuming WikiProject Californis agrees. The link from Wikipedia:WikiProject California is already noted there as inactive and would need no change. Other pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities which refer to it as if it were still active should probably remove the link, and user talk pages should be left as is. -- Whpq (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the good info. that helps, i didnt want people too easily using it if its inactive.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject California/California Delta task force[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject California/California Delta task force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

completely inactive project. the last 2 editors are now inactive on WP. the last edits were all by me, trying to fix up the descrip. i now understand projects better. i am asking for this page and any subpages to be deleted as cleanup. I will make a note of all the pages linked here (no articles) and delete those redlinks if this is deleted. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep and mark as inactive/historical given that this was part of a once functioning and active wikiproject. -- Whpq (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment what about links to it? do we keep those?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Morenooso/WikiProject CA Delta userbox[edit]

User:Morenooso/WikiProject CA Delta userbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

userbox for a wikiproject that is completely inactive, no editors or edits, no articles linked to, etc. see above. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep - This userbox in userspace is in use on the user page of the user who created it. -- Whpq (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Central Valley/Categories[edit]

Portal:Central Valley/Categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

abandoned subpage of deleted Portal:Central Valley Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Central Valley/Counties[edit]

Portal:Central Valley/Counties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

abandoned subpage of deleted Portal:Central Valley Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Central Valley/Related portals[edit]

Portal:Central Valley/Related portals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

abandoned page from deleted Portal:Central Valley Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

September 15, 2014[edit]

Draft:Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range[edit]

Draft:Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Already covered in Dietary Reference Intake, and a redirect exists. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. ///EuroCarGT 23:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Jkitchener/Naturopathic Medical Student Association[edit]

User:Jkitchener/Naturopathic Medical Student Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT of a non-notable student organisation. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Kazi Nazrul Islam[edit]

Portal:Kazi Nazrul Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal on a subject for which we have only a few articles. While this topic might justify a portal on an indian language WP, there isnt enough content here. this entire portal could be duplicated with "see also" links at the few articles on him and his creations. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Though, the portal has some few articles, but some pages have created by other Wikipedians a few days ago. I created that page within a short time and when I get time, I will try to expand this portal. Other Bangladeshi wikipedians will also try to expand the page. Because of the importance, this portal shouldn't be removed.(Mohd. Toukir Hamid (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC))
  • its not that the portal has few articles, its that the topic has few: List of works of Kazi Nazrul Islam, Kazi Nazrul Islam, Nazrul Geeti, Chol Chol Chol, Bidrohi and marginally Firoza Begum (singer) and other singers of his works. This isnt even enough for a navigation box, though if that was created, it would allow for any future articles to be put there. Generally, portals are for topics for which there are hundreds, or thousands, of articles, with the portal highlighting the FA, GA, or perhaps B class articles (and not stubs tagged for notability), and providing for category trees and other navigation aids. again, this topic doesnt need any of that. for someone, every single topic on WP is important. we dont create a portal just cause someone likes a topic (I like Jim Starlin and Neem Karoli Baba, and i dont need portals for them). I know this person is important to bangladesh, not just yourself, but WP doesnt have a portal on Mahatma Gandhi either, who is unarguably more notable than this subject. creating a portal gives the impression that a topic must be of huge general importance. that can qualify as promotion and POV pushing if taken too far, which this portal does. when i saw his name listed in the poetry portals, i said "oh, cool, that must be a whole genre of poetry i had not heard of, someone must have done a great job of fleshing out hundreds of articles. imagine my surprise when i discover its one person, and definitely not a poet to be ranked next to shakespeare (in terms of english language coverage), who has a portal. ps: There is too much quoting of his poetry here, i think its a violation of copyright.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


User:Gregbh78/vincentjamesbrown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft for a non-notable educator Ricky81682 (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:MjZstargirl/Laura Whitcomb[edit]

User:MjZstargirl/Laura Whitcomb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft, later created at Laura Whitcomb but no history connection so suggest delete. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Rnorman345/Patrick Appleford[edit]

User:Rnorman345/Patrick Appleford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userdraft that was userified in 2009 although rather than deleted from Patrick Appleford. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Rexstone11/Rex Stone[edit]

User:Rexstone11/Rex Stone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned userspace draft for possibly now a college or amateur athlete. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Tomanderson71/Vance Lawless[edit]

User:Tomanderson71/Vance Lawless (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Looks to only be in independent circuits and doesn't pass WP:ENTERTAINER (for professional wrestlers). Ricky81682 (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Rowingfan123/Heather Johnson[edit]

User:Rowingfan123/Heather Johnson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userdraft. Amateur under 23 finalist does not pass WP:ATHLETE Ricky81682 (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Smooth jazz[edit]

Portal:Smooth jazz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

over four years in existence, and the only thing it does is link to the article on smooth jazz, which is itself highly problematic. any content which could possibly fit here can go in the Portal:Jazz, which is now an active portal. besides, this is more of a marketing name, not a real subgenre of music, sort of like having a Portal:Quiet Storm. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Smooth jazz clearly a topic that has hundreds of articles..the reason we have portals. Not harming fact its a great jumping off point for the topic at hand. As for the personal POV that its not a real topic...just need to do a google search to see the truth. Deletion of peoples valid contributions is one of the main reason we are losing so many editors. -- Moxy (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


User:Hnry0den/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft of a How-to guide with no references. Not suitable for merge into any main space article. Whpq (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


User:Viveksagar007/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale promotional draft. Whpq (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

September 14, 2014[edit]

User:Jo piyush/sandbox[edit]

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

Copy of Sonic hedgehog, hasn't been edited in two years. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


Draft:Cust. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Lists out TV channels for a specific service. Unlikely to be converted to an article, and would just be deleted (WP:NOTDIRECTORY) if it was. Also, I think it's intended more as a personal thing, so WP:NOTWEBHOST should apply as well. Ansh666 18:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Creator responded on talk page, but I don't understand what they're trying to say. Ansh666 06:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a television channel guide. This draft is not ever going to be acceptable as a main space article -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not encyclopedic. — xaosflux Talk 02:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT, completely out the project scope. ///EuroCarGT 23:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


User:Rod017/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a web host for fantasy reality game shows. It appears there may be some multiple accounts at work as this material is similar to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rodrigol17/sandbox (2nd nomination). Whpq (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per other page, we are not a web hosts nor do we document the imaginings of our editors. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 15:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per above & NOTWEBHOST, I'm somewhat lost as to why the creator's since blanked the article [14]Davey2010(talk) 04:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It was not the creator that blanked the page. -- Whpq (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
      • ...Staying up at 4am clearly doesn't agree with me!. –Davey2010(talk) 14:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Veraciful/Good Coffee[edit]

User:Veraciful/Good Coffee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userdraft for an attempt article on a nonnotable company. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Fifa2010/Danny McMurray[edit]

User:Fifa2010/Danny McMurray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userdraft for a nonnotable athlete. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


User:Mg169706/SATURN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Staleuserdraft. I'm not sure if it's notable enough on its own. The only other mention is this addition at the disambiguation page for Saturn. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Fountain Posters/The F-Word (magazine)[edit]

User:Fountain Posters/The F-Word (magazine) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userdraft for an article now at The F-Word (feminist blog). No evidence of connection in histories so suggest delete rather than any merger. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Michaelhoward9/John Dennis Howard (graffiti artist)[edit]

User:Michaelhoward9/John Dennis Howard (graffiti artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userdraft. Even if the article was notable, there's no reliable sources making it a problematic BLP. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Marisa858/Wayne "Tex" Gabriel[edit]

User:Marisa858/Wayne "Tex" Gabriel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userdraft for a possible non-notable musician. Even if it is notable, there's no sources and WP:BLP would suggest deleting and starting over. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: User:2601:B:80:299:F5AA:CFC4:403A:9F1F posted this comment at User talk:Marisa858/Wayne "Tex" Gabriel. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Taylor Michaels/Dan Elconin[edit]

User:Taylor Michaels/Dan Elconin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userdraft for a non-notable author. Author's article was later deleted (seems to be a separate editor) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Elconin. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:South Z Crew/ South Z - Rapper[edit]

User:South Z Crew/ South Z - Rapper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userdraft for a non-notable musician. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Recreation following the deletion at South Z - Rapper. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


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

WP:FAKEARTICLE BOVINEBOY2008 05:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

September 13, 2014[edit]

Draft:Athanasios Fragkos[edit]

Draft:Athanasios Fragkos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Find sources: "Athanasios Fragkos" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

This is essentially advertising for a non-notable dermatologist. The draft has been rejected three times by three different editors, and has been submitted yet again There does not appear to be any indication that any possible improvements in the article are likely to show that the individual will pass the notability requirements. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that MfD is the place for this. The author is still working on it, albeit without much current success. THat may be because Athanasios Fragkos isn't notable or it may be because they lack experience. While I am entirely unsure that the draft will ever be good enough to accept I have no access to original language sources. I suggest we keep and allow the WP:AFC process to continue. Have we actually helped the author at all? Fiddle Faddle 14:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Cristina Voinea Andreea (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Hello. Thank you very much for all the comments and remarks you guys have made. I am still trying to find sources in english, although I am not sure I will be able to improve the references very soon. I have tried to improve my article, and I do not necessarily want it to be published in the actual form. If you won't proceed with the deletion of the draft, I will continue to work on it. I am not sure if the deletion was proposed because I am not allowed to submit an article for revison more than three times, but if this is not the reason, I would suggest to let me improve it. If it is not good enough it wont be published, but maybe I have a good chance of creating an article suited for Wikipedia and moreover I would like to get the necessary experience to create further useful articles. Hopefully there is no harm done in my (so far) faild attempts. Cristina Voinea Andreea (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

September 12, 2014[edit]

Wikipedia:What you won't learn in new admin school[edit]

Wikipedia:What you won't learn in new admin school (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"What you won't learn in new admin school" is far from an unofficial and irreverent guide to new admins. It's a poisonous rant which is likely to discourage both new and established users. Telling new admins that "there is almost certainly something better you should be doing" and praising those who "go out with a blaze of glory" is detrimental to the community. Note that page crator Toddst1 (talk · contribs) has blocked himself indefinitely.- Gilliam (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep It's an essay and doesn't require you to agree with it. Why didn't you post an RfC on the talk page and ask about userfication rather than start this MfD? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep a legitimate expression of opinion which doesn't strike me as at all dangerous. According to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Role if it is found to contradict widespread consensus it should be userfied, but I certainly don't see any reason to delete it and I suspect a lot of people will agree with much of it. The author's unusual retirement method doesn't have any bearing here. Hut 8.5 18:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I would also find it appropriate to userfy the page in this situation.- Gilliam (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep – Serving as an admin leads to all kinds of surprises. This essay draws attention to some of them. I disagree with many of the opinions but they seem harmless. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete or Userfy per OP. Especially in its original form which has been subsequently euphemized, this essay with its "us-versus-them" mentality and posture is clearly contrarian to any notions of professed WP values like "collaborative editing" or "collegiate WP community". It's inherently divisive, more consistent with WP:BATTLEground. The fact that author is admin is the tickler. (Another essay with similar problems is WP:DICK, inherently a name-call and consisent with WP:NPA. Which will be more readily apparent no doubt when someone has the balls to author its companion piece WP:CUNT.) The amount of hypocrisy in stated-policy/values-versus-practice is high, and removal of this essay is but a drop in the bucket, but to keep this admin-authored essay in WP space lays the hypocrisy out on the table and should not find approval or sanction since it is obviously "unbecoming of admin" for reasons already explained. p.s. The alternative is to get rid of policies WP:NPA and WP:ADMINACCT. (I wouldn't be opposed, since those are clearly irrelevant and exist-on-paper-only, used against one's enemies as convenience or at whim.) To have both justfies "WP is a bunch of hypocrisy" claim, but not due to dysfunction, but intention. (IMO a keep !vote here exemplifies said intention.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd certainly prefer this userfied. I complained about a section in 2012 that was quite simply insulting. At the time, I didn't realise it was the work of one user. Giving it the "Wikipedia:" namespace legitimises the opinions in the piece and so it should be moved to the user space. WormTT(talk) 11:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is an essay, an opinion piece. It is bitter and cynical, perhaps, but it is about Wikipedia and it makes valid points here and there. Deletion of this would be a simple matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and best, censorship of dissent at worst. Carrite (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a discussion, right? If so, I don't censor anyone. (And in fact, I don't particularly like any of the WP policies and essays in WP space. [So, like or dislike is irrlevant to my considerations.] My point above was simply that the obvious "us vs. them" WP:Battleground attitude which produced this essay, is inconsistent w/ what is considered becoming of admins per WP:ADMIACCT expectations re collegiality/community, and the fact the essay came from the pen of an admin, all the more so. So it is a matter of consistency of professed WP values and expectations re admin, nothing subjective or personal as you've twisted here.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


Portal:Nudity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal contents have not been significantly updated since its creation in 2006. the content is minimal, is essentially abandoned. the associated Wikipedia:WikiProject Nudity is inactive, and has not had significant progress for a while. all the portal links to this portal can easily be replaced by Portal:Sexuality or if its nonsexual nudity (not really a concept, as all nudity is an expression of a persons attitude towards sexuality, if its not sexual per se), a portal for society topics or other portals, would do fine. The web resources subpage has been MFD, and kept, but w/o this portal, it should go, or be added to the nudity article if not already. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

September 11, 2014[edit]


User:Neme81/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a webhost for your fantasy versions of Big Brother. This was previously nominated and kept based on the editor's assertion that it was purely used to practive editting for contributing to Big Brother. Since that time, the editor has made a few main space Big Brother edits, and spent most of his time creating fantasy versions of Biog brother seasons. At the time of the first nonination, he was doing one season. We are now up to season 3 of these fake Big Brother shows. This is well in excess of what one would need to practice editting an article. Per the closing editor's comments from the first deletion discussion, I am renominating as it does not appear to be used for practice. Whpq (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete We are not a webhost for this type of material. — xaosflux Talk 02:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

September 10, 2014[edit]

User:Edward1967/turas [edit]

User:Edward1967/turas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Userspace draft about a NN religion. Article Turas faith deleted at AfD, repeatedly re-created and salted. Previous MfD for this page in 2009 withdrawn as only a few days had elapsed; but nearly five years have now gone by without improvement. Delete as WP:STALEDRAFT. JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as old deleted content (not as STALEDRAFT). NB when I said five days days was too short a time to nominate at MfD, I didn't mean to imply that the wait should be five years. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiGoals[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiGoals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nobody is participating in this. Nobody supported this "project"'s proposal. Why should it continue to exist? Rcsprinter123 (parlez) @ 19:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - In the nicest way possible - It seems pretty much like a failed wikiproject that no one even cared about, Unless the creator can do something useful with it then I see no point in it being around. –Davey2010(talk) 20:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Mark historical. Generally, failed proposals are marked historical so they can be revisited and improved upon at a later time, should the desire and need arise. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, no need to mark historical since there's barely anything here. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — I would actually be interested in joining this, but for two things: I am planning to go on wikibreak, soon, and when I come back, the absence of this project will not keep me from setting goals. The project may provide a place to share those goals with interested users, for encouragement and other support, but there may not be enough users, yet, for this to be practical. I don't know if the project has, or will have, very much advantage over simple personal goals on our userpages, or if advertising it would be worth it. —PC-XT+ 00:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete project has no active participants Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggestion Might this be something that could be rolled into a task force of WikiProject Editor Retention? Unless it's already redundant to something the Editor Retention folks are doing, of course. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 11:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Draft:2014–15 Glossop North End A.F.C. season[edit]

Draft:2014–15 Glossop North End A.F.C. season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This Articles for Creation submission about a football club's season was last declined on 19 August 2014 after extended discussion about the notability of the topic. Since then, no attempts have been made to improve the article to enable it to demonstrate notability (for example with references)... instead reports of individual goals in individual games have been added, multiple links to the club's own website and so forth. The page therefore appears to be in use as a free webhost to maintain information about the club's ongoing fixtures, not as a draft article intended to become an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia:NOTWEBHOST and Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE therefore apply. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep not sure I understand. If a club is notable enough for an article, then its results within a season are notable enough for a forked article. Lack of references isn't a reason for deletion of a draft, just that it needs to be improved. Time is better spent finding references than all this process-mongery. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • KEEP I was told that it would be submitted if the season was extraordinary and notable, and by the end of the season it will! We have got further in the F.A. Cup than usual. our attendances are way up on previous years, our start to the season is second only to Runcorn, and by the end of the season it will be our best since 1899. i.e. second ever promotion. if we fail then i will submit a deletion request myself....just as I did with the Derbyshire cup final page.
To take issue with the complaint by Arthur goes shopping....maybe he should go more shopping..... there are no extra links to the website...but links to match reports of the matches, with the stats of the individual games.....just like all the other "season" pages. It is an ongoing page, which at the end of the season will give a "draft article intended to become a WIKI article" All the other 2014-15 season pages are just like this one....filling in the games and stats as the season progresses, and in the end will show the complete extraordinary season. I know its not a web host and it is not indiscriminate. (GNEbandit 19:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, on the basis there's general agreement that we shouldn't have extensive articles listing football results for every minor league football team. If the author thinks things will be different by the end of the season (May 2015?!) then by all means copy it somewhere for reference (though I don't hold out any hope). In response to The Rambling Man I'd say that, personally, I'd make exception to having an article about this minor team because of its extreme longevity. But any notable successes/failures can be mentioned there, without an excessive article split. Sionk (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I am amazed at the suggestion that this will be an "ongoing" draft that will be kept in Draft space for eight months, constantly updated, without any further attempts to submit it for review during that time. What other sorts of topics have this sort of web hosting provided in Draft space for topics whose notability is not established? Non-notable political candidates whose campaigns have got off to a good start and we can report a succession of week-by-week opinion poll results about them in Draft space and then only decide whether they are notable when the campaign is over more than six months later? It seems very strange. Draft is not a place for things that are not notable yet but could be in eight months. Best to take it straight to mainspace and let it stand or fall on its own merits. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Userfy - clear consensus at AFD that these articles of non-league clubs are not notable, and this one is no exception - however it should probably be userfied to allow the creator the chance to add references and prove it meets WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 11:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Keep for a very good reason. When Wiki or whoever resolved to categories football with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues and decided who was important enough to record information for future reference, such as season stats, it was done at a time where only the top 4 leagues mattered. They are the ones with all the money, the highest fan bases, to teams who need their history recorded because they were the 'only teams' in football. BUT times have changed, and attitudes to football have changed. Grass roots football is now more important to....well football.... as much as the bigger teams/leagues. The fan bases for teams at lower levels are growing and teams at Glossop's level have histories that out stretch some bigger teams (Sheffield FC for example....oldest team in history...but only in step 4 football so not allowed a season stat page on Wiki!!) and for that reason teams have fans based all around the world who access Wiki pages.
I think Wiki and its boffins should take a look at football again, and not from a boffin point of view, but from a FOOTBALL point of view. I know there must be a limit to what gets recorded as Wiki as its not an endless pit of space, but how many more pages would be on here for "season stats"......half a dozen?? Its factual information, its not rude, pointless, useless, slander, hurtful or harmful.....and i know this page would be more interesting to people compared to who some Z list star from Towie is now dating!!!!! Non league football has national (poss international) press publications. It has radio programs dedicated to the lower leagues....these are teams for "everyman" not just the rich who can afford to go watch top flight football. They are not just some Sunday league pub team who turn up for a laugh, they are local teams for fans to get involved with, not just be another bottom on a seat/another dollar in the pocket of a faceless boss.
If Userfy allows it to stay here so it can be updated as the season goes along(just like all other season stats pages), and at the end of the season when it is proved that it is a historical/exceptional season for Glossop i will re-submit and hopefully have it accepted (and maybe some heart/thought can be put into the football category so it can be reclassified so to allow lower teams to record such pages without be looked down upon as lessor entities) (GNEbandit 23:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Second !Vote struck out. By the way, this issue has been discussed extensively, so if you want to generally involve yourself in changing Wikipedia consensus you should maybe try WikiProject Football (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Notability). Sionk (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@GNEbandit: Sorry to burst your bubble, but as well as being one of the Wiki "boffins" you mention, I'm also a supporter of a club playing at a similar level to Glossop (you can probably guess from my userpage). However, I acknowledge in the grand scheme of things that whilst the club itself is notable, players and seasons are not. Number 57 19:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - per comments above re low-level of club subject in addition to clear WP:NOTSTATS issues. Agree if this were in the mainspace, would almost certainly be AfD'd and deleted based on previous consensus. Fenix down (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

September 9, 2014[edit]

September 8, 2014[edit]

Help:Used to and didn't use to[edit]

Help:Used to and didn't use to (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One user has created several pages of general "grammar dos and donts" in the Wikipedia help space. Help space should be used for Wikipedia specifically, not general spelling guides. SFB 19:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Related nominations

  • Delete Blatant misuse of help space. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 22:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all of these. — xaosflux Talk 04:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all- this is not what the help space is for. Reyk YO! 08:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete the lot since it's all blatant misuse, Anyone needing help with things like Grammar should read the relevent pages ... or Google them!. –Davey2010(talk) 20:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep but userfy. Not for HelpSpace, but fine in userspace. Not fundamentally different to User:Giraffedata/comprised_of. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


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

Unsourced draft with WP:BLP violations. Unlikely to be a valid article due to sourcing issues. I am unable to find any similar articles—porn actors known for specific traits—across the project. Woodroar (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:BLP, unsourced and likely unsourceable. JohnCD (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Royal New Zealand Ballet[edit]

User:Royal New Zealand Ballet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipepida user pages are not for publishing copies of articles. See WP:UP#COPIES Whpq (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

September 5, 2014[edit]

User:Dezidor/Simon Mol[edit]

User:Dezidor/Simon Mol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned draft, we have a main article now in any case. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. - not needed, and parallel versions are undesirable. JohnCD (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ///EuroCarGT 23:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

September 4, 2014[edit]


User:Cleduc/Pligg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dead draft/abandoned userspace holding of article deleted via AfD (problems that led to "delete" consensus not resolved). Notified user months ago, no response (User talk:Cleduc#Pligg article). Original mainspace (Pligg) was salted after being a magnet for inappropriate edits, and this userspace (or its talkpage, and spreading around that user's pages) seems to have the same problem. DMacks (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2, 2014[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/References[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/References (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page is a collection of sources for "conservative" content, defined largely in terms of present-day conservative politics in the United States. There is nothing wrong in principal with having a WikiProject resource subpage with sources about political or other content, but this page rests on the basic assumption that some sources carry a "conservative" POV and thus are listed, whereas others that have opposing POVs or are simply NPOV should not be included. The edit history of the page shows that non-"conservative" mainstream reliable sources such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times were repeatedly deleted by the now-inactive editor who founded the WikiProject. Although it could be argued that a more balanced selection of sources could simply be added back to the page, there is no reason to do so for this Project other than to remove the appearance of a POV. The page rests upon a basic assumption that there is such a thing as "conservative" source material that is also compliant with Wikipedia policies, and as such, really cannot be fixed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I've notified the WikiProject. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Lists of sources about a subject or lists of publications that promote a particular point of view are best presented as articles or parts of articles. There is for example Bibliography of conservatism in the United States and Conservatism in the United States#Media. It appears the purpose of this list is to help conservative-minded editors find sources that will present the views they think articles require to counter Wikipedia's "liberal bias." Certainly this approach is not beneficial to the project. TFD (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an issue for the WikiProject, not for random editors. I don't see any problem retaining this list, especially as Wikipedia probably lacks conservative viewpoints needed to be truly "neutral." Really, this is another element of countering "systemic bias" eg leftism found in en-wp. I'd also like to point out, if you want to delete this get ready to delete Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Resources, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The point of having a conservatism project is not to ensure that conservative views are recorded in Wikipedia but to help improve articles about conservatism. Similarly we could have a project about fascism and its role would be to improve articles about fascism, not to ensure that fascist views are represented across a range of articles not specifically about fascism. TFD (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I also want to point out to Chris Troutman that I am not a "random editor" and that WikiProjects do not get to carve out a space where Wikipedia policies do not apply to them. If Chris Troutman sees the purpose of the nominated page as being to counter systemic bias, then that is exactly equivalent to arguing that its purpose is to push a POV. I do realize that every POV disagreement involves two POV "sides", but even if there is a need for editing to counterbalance an existing POV imbalance, the solution is not to designate a page where sources are cherrypicked. The nominated page is contrary to policy, and no WikiProject can exempt itself from policies. (The LGBT page is WP:OTHERSTUFF.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per TFD. "Balancing out bias" is essentially WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, and entirely inappropriate. RGloucester 19:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Nowhere in the article does it state its intention is to "balance out bias". Please read the article that is being discussd for deletion. --Pudeo' 22:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you know who created the page? Have you seen this essay he wrote? He mentions in that essay that this page that is up for deletion can be used as a source for what he calls "alternative references". His intentions were made very clear in that essay, and with this page. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the history of this "project", but this is just one in a long line of serious problems with "balancing out bias". RGloucester 19:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Please let us not begin this tired argument of attacking this WikiProject and editors who have contributed to it, and evaluate the subject of this MfD on its own. It shouldn't matter who created this list, the question is can it be useful to editors?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep This is purely WikiProject Conservatism's issue (of which I'm not a member of). That Wikiproject should achieve consensus on what kind of a resource list is useful. It should of course consist of RS sources, but it's not a problem if those sources have conservative slant. Contrary to what some editors above me write, it is actually useful to collect sources for opinions too: in many articles a "conservative" and "liberal" opinion are both due so there's no reason why it would be forbidden to search for RS sources specifically from conservative publications. As for Wikiprojects being used to gather "same-minded" editors it's probably true - that's what I dislike about their idea - but that's not limited at all to WP Conservatism nor this references list. --Pudeo' 21:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Then we very much disagree as to what policy allows WikiProjects to be able to do. And I find it significant that none of the discussion so far disputes the fact that the nominated page reflects a deliberate POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I'd say it's inevitable due to their nature, and policing them outside in cases like these doesn't seem like a good idea. But really: "List of conservative periodicals" could even warrant a Wikipedia entry. Exactly what is the problem with WP Conservatism listing conservative periodicals and Internet sites? You make it sound like that page said "Wikipedia has non-conservative bias! Always use these sites!" which it doesn't. It's just a list. I agree that it's almost completely US-centric, but that's their issue. --Pudeo' 22:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Actually, the way that I would put it is that it says that edits should be made in an organized way to either correct a bias or to create one (depending on one's perspective). If, hypothetically, there were a project that would also draw upon liberal-leaning sources on pages with a conservative POV-imbalance, as well as drawing upon conservative-leaning sources on pages with a liberal POV-imbalance, that would be very different than what we have here. When the intention of the edits only goes in one direction, then we have WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps this would be a useful topic for WP:CSB. I am sure there are many articles with a liberal bias, as there are some articles with a conservative bias. However, that is not what this discussion is about.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is well within project scope. Perhaps a few annotations have a little POV peeking through, but the general idea that a sub page of a project page should be stricken because the sources listed are almost all from a single ideological tendency is mistaken. Similarly, if the Socialism or Christianity or Feminism or any other project did something of this sort with focused sources, there should be no rational reason for objection. Carrite (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I think that there is a distinction between sources that are about conservatism, which would be fine, versus sources that are about a much broader range of subjects but with a conservative POV. If other projects were advocating that content should reflect a Socialist or Christian or Feminist POV, instead of NPOV, that would be just as inappropriate. It's one thing to refer to the editorial page of a conservative news source for conservative opinions, but it's quite another to selectively refer only to conservative news sources for pages about events that have happened. When we have, for example, a biography page about a conservative politician, we ought not to rely only on conservative news sources for content about that person's political career. When we have a page about an election, we ought not to rely only on conservative news sources for content about that election. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Carrite, they are not sources for conservatism, they are sources for a "conservative" point of view for general topics. How does having a list of sources that can be used to contest "liberal" views on global warming, tobacco, evolution, etc., help people in the project improve articles about conservatism? In my example above, while it is useful to have a project about fascism, it would not be helpful for it to list sources that members could use to inject a fascist point of view into articles that had nothing to do with fascism. TFD (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, a list of reliable sources which any editor can use to find articles, papers, and essays to verify content within an article. Sure some of these sources could be argued as being WP:BIASED, but so can mainstream sources such as HuffPo, NYT, MSNBC, Fox News,, and WSJ. But let us look at what BIASED says:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

As editors, in order to provide balanced view points to a subject, may find it difficult to find these sources, this collection of links maybe useful to editors.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC) is a mainstream news source, comparable to The New York Times?? I wouldn't have nominated this page here if it were simply a list of RS that could be used to WP:V, and I agree that biased sources can be cited in unbiased ways. The problem lies in having a list of sources with one consistent bias for the purpose of skewing content. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I hope that the closing administrator looks at the arguments in terms of policy, and does not simply count !votes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete In principle, lists like this can be useful if maintained in a NPOV; this one isn;t, and is not likely to be. This sort of question is one which is absolutely not the sole domain of a Wikiproject--no wikiproject can override general consensus--its proposals are subject to the acceptance or at least tolerance of the community as a while. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep It's not an NPOV violation for WikiProject Conservatism to have a list of conservative reliable sources. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, Fox News and CBN listed as reliable sources?! Max Semenik (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    A source's bias doesn't make it unreliable. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well within project scope. Any difference over whether this source or that is "reliable" is (a) a matter of opinion; and (b) an editing matter, not a fundamental matter as to whether this listing is useful to project participants and within scope. Carrite (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Whoops, sorry, I see I've already given a recommendation above. Carrite (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I should point out that the rationale for my nomination is not about WP:RS. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

August 31, 2014[edit]

User:Nerdypunkkid/Dan Nainan[edit]

User:Nerdypunkkid/Dan Nainan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unnec.essary WP:FORK by somebody who edits the actual extant article Dan Nainan Orange Mike | Talk 22:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge into Dan Nainan, as there doesn't seem to be any work on the user space draft. A lot of people copy articles into their userspace to work on it without risking any damages to the actual article. Merge, as the userspace draft is good and should not be wasted. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not merge. This long-term userspace copy of the article is an attribution hazard. Sandbox working of articles is only for short periods. Merging complicates the attribution history considerably. Instead, copy these edits to Talk:Dan_Nainan, noting attribution to Halfdoghalfdeer (talk · contribs), a use who is already a author of the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete without merge per SmokeyJoe: attribution nightmare. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

August 22, 2014[edit]

User:2829VC/Peter Chapple[edit]

User:2829VC/Peter Chapple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not worked on in 24+ months. The editor is semi-active. The subject of the article does not appear to be overly notable. PNGWantok (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. You seem to be copying and pasting your comments in multiple articles at random. P A L Chapple was very relevant to the uk drugs scene at the time (do you know anything about it?) I have contributed quite a number of articles on this subject. This one is incomplete. I have not had the time to complete it. It is a draft and therefore not (easily) in public view. 2829 VC 10:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:2829VC. My apologies, I don't know much about the drugs scene in the United Kingdom. My nominations are being done by going thru the stale drafts category and doing research where needed to determine whether it might be worthy of discussion. In this case I did a search on Google for the individual and I could not find anything that would give them notability. There is no time limit here on Wikipedia, as I was told by an admin today, but I also understand that Wikipedia should not be used to indefinitely host articles in userspace. Ideally it would be great to move this to an article if the person is notable. I would be happy to help you with that if you like? Thanks, PNGWantok (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, however, as you say 'i don't know much about the drugs scene in the United Kingdom' so how to you reach the conclusion that the article is not 'overly notable'. What books have you read on the subject to reach that conclusion? What research have you actually done? Do you realise that google is just one of hundreds of web search engines? And there are many other ways of searching for information than just doing a web search. Lots of information, particularly articles from professional journals are not easily accessible by the general public through the Internet. Also, it seems that you don't understand that userspace is for the development of articles that are incomplete/ without adequate support (and likely to be contested) and which therefore people don't want to make readily visible.2829 VC 20:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:2829VC I have looked again at Google. I managed to filter out the results relating to the horse racing Peter Chapple, and you are right. He is notable. Would you object to the merge proposal by User:SmokeyJoe below? It will get the text into an article, which will then see it on Google results and others can help to expand as a result. Thank you, PNGWantok (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
User pinged to get input on this proposed draftmerge. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  15:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.