Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no portals

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

• Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 5 disambiguation pages) and the various Talk: namespaces
• Userboxes, regardless of the 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

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

Deleting pages in your own userspace	If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?	Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
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.
Alternatives to MfD	Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

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

How to list pages for deletion

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted) Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process. I. Edit PageName: Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion: {{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}} for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}} or {{mfd|GroupName}} if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page. If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox. Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages. Please include in the edit summary the phrase Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion. Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit. Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone. Save the page II. Create its MfD subpage. The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry" Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page. Insert this text: {{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically. Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate. Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done. Save the page. III. Add a line to MfD. Follow   this edit link   and at the top of the list add a line: {{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}} Put the page's name in place of "PageName". Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. Save the page. If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add {{priorxfd|PageName}} in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions. If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page. For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add {{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~ to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion. If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages. If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	19	19
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	0	0	5
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	6	42	48
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Discussions

Active discussions

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

2008-04-23

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Many-see below. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Klostermankl/CareFlash

Enough time to build after speedy, canvasing for links, and using Wikipedia for COI Website on SPA account. Wikipedia ia not a storage server. If after more than a month the editor has not endavered to build the article with WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS it needs to go. speedy delete Igor Berger (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: There is currently a DRV here. I'd suggest waiting for the outcome there. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree; deleting this at the moment would derail the DRV. A decision on the page should be deferred until the DRV has been closed. BlueValour (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

- This matter is stayed pending DRV closure. If DRV results in the article remaining deleted from the mainspace, re-list this discussion at the top of the page. Discussion should not be finally closed until 5 days after re-opening but should be archived with 10 April 2008 archives.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Clerk note: DRV has been closed as "keep deleted" --Enric Naval (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not know what all this means. What is DRV (deletion review?). Is it likely that this page will be deleted? If so, what can I do? Thanks, Klostermankl (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. I am just starting and learning about wikipedia. This is not my full-time job, so I may not be as quick to comply or understand, but please don't take that into consideration when reviewing the page for deletion. Also, I've had trouble with the pictures... and have sent in an approval, but am still not sure if they are ok under a copyright. Additionally, I do not work for CareFlash and am not the CEO. I think this is a great resource for sick individuals and caregivers and would like to help aware others of this resource. Thanks for your advice and constructive criticisms. Klostermankl (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deletion Review of the article closed as "keep deleted", the matter of whether the draft in userspace may remain or should be deleted is now ripe for discussion here.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - storage of article on non-notable website; the links are weak (and horribly malformatted). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for now (Per DGG's comment, there *might* be some notability on the cancer hospital thing, and DGG says that he's going to help the author to improve the article) Delete Looking at sources, only this 2007 history on Houston Business Journal is somewhat notable, and it's only one agreement with one hospital to use their product. In isolation, this does not establish notability except to a local level. The rest are press releases, that don't count per WP:SELF self published since their wording is not neutral at all (and full of buzzwords too) "This cutting edge alliance empowers patients (...)with the most credible specialists in the sector (...)in the rich, focused circumstances that they are dealing with at that minute of their lives(...) the most comprehensive library of healthcare graphics and animations anywhere in the world.(...)world-class 3-D quality and accuracy(...) delivering unprecedented, world-class, advocacy and education(...)provides a common place on the Internet(...)3D healthcare animations on hundreds of disorders, procedures and anatomical functions, all produced with world-class quality and accuracy," [1]. The rest of sources are passing mentions that don't establish notability. It fails WP:CORP notability per size and impact. Also, appearing on lists of web 2.0 companies looks like "trivial coverage" on WP:CORP. The author has actually made some improvements [2], but unfortunately for him they don't really address the concerns at DRV, like written as advertising and notability. I assert that the article can't describe notable feats of this company on neutral tone but the article doesn't currently have any such feat, let alone covered with secondary sources. The author has had plenty time to provide those sources, and has only produced regurgitals of press releases and trivial coverage. I suggest becoming more famous and then trying again. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I see one thing additional to that--the page for the MD Anderson Childrens Hospital This is a cancer center of the highest possible reputation & if they are partners with that hospital they might in fact be notable. So I think an article could possibly be written. Leave it there, & I'll help the author. I'm going to now remove some excess as a preliminary. DGG (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the help very much. I had a list of alliance partners earlier with their repective links, but it was suggested that I delete this section, so I did. Could these alliances to notable foundations and companies provide notability? I'm also wondering why other companies that do a similar thing have pages on here that sound much more like advertising and they are ok. Caringbridge is one of them. Should some of the links be deleted b/c they aren't notable. If so, that's no problem. I thought the more the better, but I must be wrong. I appreciate all of the help. By they way I'm a female... :) Regards, Klostermankl (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The link might be helpful. [Caringbridge] Klostermankl (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I don't think we should remove pages like this until there has been a full chance to improve them. this is not a abusive use for advertising, but a genuine attempt to build an article.DGG (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Since it doesn't seem like the page is being used for advertising, and there seems to be some reasonable potential for it to become article space content. -- Ned Scott 04:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Could someone help me with the pictures... I don't know what else I need to do to have them post to the site... I've sent the email with permission to the correct wikipedia group. I appreciate it. Klostermankl (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Flyguy649 per the user request below. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:HouseOfScandal/Adam4Adam

Copy of Adam4Adam per Wikipedia:User_page#Copies_of_other_pages, last edit 8 February 2007, not needed in userspace.

See also - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam4Adam

See also - Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_31#Adam4Adam
Hu12 (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

- Please delete, thanks! - House of Scandal (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete per consensus Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:The Ian

Vanity user page created in July 2006; user's only significant contribution. User hasn't edited since. Wikipedia is not MySpace. —Bkell (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete And its not like people are even going to look at this page. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please}

What I mean is this: What is the point of having a vanity or biography if no one is going to look at it? If this editor doesn't have any contributions, why would anybody be on his page? Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 20:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - After all, it's not like people are even going to look at this page.--WaltCip (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - with the user long gone and no useful content here, it seems like a clear waste of Wiki-space. Terraxos (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Erm, deleted material stays in the archives, so deleting it doesn't free up any "Wiki-space". Plus, we're not supposed to worry about space anyway. Just clearing up a common misconception about why we delete pages. Walton^One 11:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as vanity/spam. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Macy (Review me!) 21:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I'm surprised this never ended up in the mainspace also. Paragon12321 (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - abuse of Wikipedia as a social networking site. The images on this page, Image:Iangreen.jpg and Image:Games.JPG, should also be deleted. MER-C 04:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Although it is a rather entertaining read, the user doesn't appear to be active and he seems to have misunderstood Wikipedia userpace as some sort of a blog. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2008-04-22

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted per CSD G11. Nakon 01:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Investec

Per WP:UP#NOT, this user page is being used for advertising or promotion of a business or organization unrelated to Wikipedia. This user has no other edits. SWik78 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Left a notice on user talk. Agree that this is rather spammy, could probably fit under WP:CSD#G11. Any takers? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - as per above & CSD G11; page is blatant spam for the company. No controversy here, especially given the user's lack of other edits. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |Contribs 22:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Proposed it for speedy deletion under criterion G11. Terraxos (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep per SNOW. There is no real or clear reason to delete. I've looked over the relevant policy for this discussion and have concluded that this does not specifically violate it.

1. There is no specification to who it is directed to other than "God" (which is actually in all caps, and is not localized on one specific "god"). So we cannot assume it is name calling.
2. It is not a personal attack (including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs) or even derogatory to another editor, its just an opinion.
3. It is not profane, nor is it Taunting or baiting.
4. And last but not least, it is not disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Conclusion: only editors who have a biased opinion on wikipedia will be offended. These editors should look the other way, and simply ignore it. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Jeff dean/Userboxes/Atheist

I know this is just a userbox... but I think using the words "myth" and "superstition" to refer to god goes beyond a statement of belief and becomes an insult, which, according to WP:CIV, is incivil. (I used "Twinkle" to submit this, so don't get mad at me if it messes up :P)  Moo  Chat  19:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Amen per nom. Fine. This does violate WP:CIVIL in my POV. I'm conservative and not that religious, but this is still somewhat offensive to me. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 19:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is essentially PERNOM. Do you have anything else to contribute to the discussion (other than "amen", which is wholly unnecessary and may be as offensive to atheist users as this userbox seems to be to the nominator)? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Wikipedia is not censored. This nomination reminds me of the Mohammed images hysteria.--Svetovid (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTCENSORED shouldn't necessarily apply to userboxes IMO, since they're not encyclopedic content; they're part of the community's resources, and it is certainly acceptable (and supported by extensive precent) to delete them if they are excessively divisive and inflammatory. However, I don't think there's such an issue in this case. Walton^One 21:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I see nothing uncivil about it. I also see no references to the Christian God. --Carnildo (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - I'm not really happy with this userbox personally, but we do allow controversial religious and political userboxes (in userspace) provided that they aren't inflammatory and don't attack editors or groups of editors. This one comes close to the line, being somewhat objectionable, but I don't think it actually promotes hate and I see no reason to delete it. Walton^One 21:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • But what good does this userbox do anyone? To me, it seems like its main purpose is to name-call religions that believe in a god.  Moo  Chat  21:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, this simply demonstrates a misunderstanding of the words "myth" and "superstition". You're probably thinking that their definition is "Things that aren't true", which, as even Wikipedia will tell you, is not the case; and frankly, as someone who studies comparative religion, I find the implication that "myth" and "superstition" are negative deeply insulting. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Atheism ought to be treated equally to Theism on Wikipedia. Although I imagine that many Wikipedia editors may disagree with this user on the subject of God, I don't think anybody ought to be insulted on God's behalf. Wikipedia ought to be religiously neutral. --GHcool (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • ...So this userbox is "religiously neutral"? The userbox is more than a simple disagreement with the existence of God, it is insulting to those who do not believe in a god... I don't see any userboxes that refer to atheism similar to this one.  Moo  Chat  00:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia ought to be religiously neutral meaning that Wikipedia ought not to endorse or ban expressions of atheism, nor should it endorse or ban expressions of theism. Atheism is not a personal attack on theists, but a philosophical viewpoint independent of theists. If the userboxes said "This user hates theists," then I would agree with Moomoomoo. Moomoomoo is more than welcome to create a userbox that says something to the effect of "I believe in God," and no atheist would should be able to use the argument that the userbox is offensive to atheists. --GHcool (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, but this is different. This doesn't just say "This user is an atheist." That would be perfectly fine. But to call someone else's religion a "myth" or a "superstition" is another story...  Moo  Chat  01:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• But that's exactly what religions are; religion encompasses all belief systems regardless of their depth, lessons, or moral truths to be found within them. Mythological systems are advanced, depth-filled systems with numerous parables and life lessons to be had. The Greo-Roman system and Judeo-Islamo-Christian system are great examples of these; it isn't negative in any way whatsoever, and you do offense to those truth-filled systems by saying that they're negative. Superstitions are a somewhat lesser category, but they're still well within the purview of religion, in particular rural implementations of mixed religious systems and again, they shouldn't be taken as a negative term else you do a disservice to both those who hold them now and persons who have held them in the past. You just have to think beyond the narrow-minded viewpoint that they're negative terms, when they're not. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. WP:UBX states that:

All userboxes are governed by the civility policy.

Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks.

Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive.

Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.

This userbox could be considered to violate several of these provisions as it could constitute promotion of a religious viewpoint, might be considered uncivil, and is definitely divisive. However, the exact same arguments could be made against dozens of userboxes, especially those in the User:UBX/Userboxes/Religion and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics categories. There is definitely a precedent for allowing individuals to state their views on these issues and a large number of Wikipedians appear to have chosen so to do. I think that is perfectly OK and I do not take offence if another's opinions run counter to my own. On the other hand, there is clearly a line that should not be crossed. "Kill all foo people" or even "I hate foo people" or "Foo people are dumb" are clearly out of line. Still, I don't think this box crosses that line; it's close to the line, but I don't think it crosses it. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Again... correct me if I'm wrong... this goes beyond stating one's views and name-calls theists. It's perfectly okay to state one's views. I don't see any religious userboxes other than this one that are incivil like this one.  Moo  Chat  01:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It is, admittedly, a matter of opinion as to the civility. I don't see it as name-calling, though. Since the box does not address or accuse anyone in particular, any insult is an implied one and the negation of the opposite view is implicit in any statement of belief. The statement "I am a fooian" contains the implicit statement "I am not an afooian" which in turn indicates "I believe afooianism is wrong/incorrect." I admit, the wording of this box makes a stronger implication of such than if it simply said "This user does not believe in god," but it is still implied and as long as it remains implicit rather than explicit, I don't see it as insulting or uncivil per se. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 02:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Where is this "name-calling of theists" I hear so much about?! The UBX implies that the User believes God is a myth, but it does not directly say anything bad about people who believe in the myth. Conversely, if a Userbox says that the person believes the Bible to be literally true, while they are not saying anything directly bad about me, they are implying indirectly that me and most of my friends are going to burn in a pit of fire for all eternity. If we are going to fret about the indirect implications of userboxes, then let me ask you which is more slanderous: "You believe stuff that isn't true" vs. "You are going to PAY for believing stuff that isn't true"? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Christianity is full of myths. Not as many as the Greco-Roman system (the writers of Christian canon were much more conservative about what to include, the later Catholics especially so; Greek writers were much more liberal and inclusive). The resurrection is a myth. The flood is a myth. The destruction of Soddom and Gomorrah is a myth. That doesn't make them untrue. A myth is nothing more than a story which holds some kind of ethical or moral truth or lesson. Whether or not you take it as a LITERAL truth (i.e, whether you actually believe that people were turned were turned into salt or whether you take the story as an ethical guide about what is right and wrong) is up to an individual. But whether you believe in the literal text or not, it is still a myth. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete If this were worded positively, say "I do believe in verifiable scientific research" and had a picture of a Darwin fish, then it would be acceptable. This ubx is condescending to theists. For example, if it had the same wording with a red slash through the word "Allah" or "Buddha" or "Islam" or "Catholicism" instead of "God", it would single out a specific belief of God and would be deemed divisive among theists; this ubx is divisive among theists and atheists. What is the difference? --12 Noon ^2¢ 03:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you find it condescending to theists? I could see where you're coming from regarding individual "This user is not a Buddhist", et cetera templates, but it doesn't specifically singles out Jehova/Elohim/Yahweh and refers to deific entities as 'God' in general, and is a statement to the effect that the user doesn't subscribe to a particular mythological system or hold the minor beliefs (superstitions) associated with one. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong and speedy keep. Myth and superstition are not denotatively negative terms; in fact, the only people who really think so are those on the extreme end of the religious end. For the most part, myths themselves are respected parts of everyday lives of people through history and generally good mechanisms for passing on moral ideals held by a given community. Likewise, superstition, denotatively, refers to beliefs not grounded in empiric evidence; again, this isn't. The Judeo-Islamo-Christian mythology is still a mythological system just as much as the Greco-Roman system was, and Judeo-Islamic-Christian superstitions are just as much superstitions as their pagan counterparts. Statements of fact are not uncivil. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy and Strong Keep. If the userbox said something like 'Atheists are stupid', this debate wouldn't exist. But since it makes religion look bad, everyone's up in arms. *sigh*. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Although I agree that the userbox should be kept, I'm going to have to disagree with you on your latter point; we have had plenty of MfDs on controversial religious userboxes. If anything, I'd say there are probably more atheists/agnostics than religious people on Wikipedia, and the community is skewed accordingly. A box which said "Atheists are stupid" would most likely be speedied, or SNOWed at MfD. (Apologies for going somewhat off-topic here.) Walton^One 10:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • I don't follow the demographic make-up of Wikipedia so I can't comment, but I think we have our share of theists - we have plenty of MfDs on religious boxes but they usually fail. Since we're not censored his vote is moot in any case, no admin could in good conscience delete the userbox within current policy. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I've seen this userbox around and I've always considered it to be a little immature and offensive. Superstition is essentially an irrational belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation. Monotheistic belief systems are almost always based on serious studies made by serious people, calling every single theologian (from Plato to Pope Benedict XVI) ignorant and implying that maybe God should be under Category:Legendary creatures and Prayer under Category:Superstitions seems a bit offensive. But then again, each to their own sense of humour.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 11:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Webster definition describes a primitive, somewhat bastardized form of religion, which is essentially exactly what superstitions are. While some superstitions arise from a cultural rather than a religious background, for the most part, they are based on misunderstandings or loose interpretations of tenets of an existing religious system or survival mechanisms (i.e, the existing fear of Friday the 13th is academically considered to be grounded in the presence of 13 people at the Last Supper and the fact that Jesus was crucified the next day, a Friday), or a developing one (i.e, the superstitions surrounding 666; when writing Revelations, John of Patmos was writing in code to persecuted Christians about Nero; it was a defense mechanism for a not yet fully-developed religion). Prayer isn't a good example of superstition, although individual, unritualized praryer probably started as one at some point during the development of Christianity as a sort of last-ditch effort to stay alive.

No one with any theological grouding at all would be so stupid as to put prayer in that category; the belief that a given deific entity can hear your requests and appropriately respond in rooted deep in theological (Aquianas for Christians is an especially good example, the Iguvine tables are good examples of this for the Greco-Roman system) discourse and ritual. Also, it's a bad idea to place any deity under 'Legendary Creatures'. To do so would be to minimize the idea of that god; the word "creature" inherently implies sub-omnipotent status, which is something generally attributed to deities. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that anyone is going to add those categories, only that that userbox implies that they should. I shouldn't have suggested "legendary creatures" for God, "Category:Fictional deities" perhaps?. Also, following your argument, no one with any theological grounding should be so stupid as to use myth and superstition as synonyms of religion.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 15:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Myth and superstition aren't synonymous with religion, but they're related topics as well as being subsets, after a fashion. Myths and superstitions are forms and practices of religion; while they're aren't religion per se, they're part and parcel of it. Christianity has it's central myths (i.e, the flood, Soddom and Gommorah, etc). It also has its superstitions (the number of the beast, Friday the 13th, etc). You can't separate the two, because they're a part of any religion. What I'm saying is that there's nothing wrong with the statements because, contrary to what you seem to think, 'myth' and 'superstition' shouldn't be taken as negative or insults; they're extremely important parts of religious systems and to do so is to minimize religion, and frankly, as something that is so integral to so many people's lives, that's not a very nice thing to do. In a way, they're synonomous with religion when combined (that is, major mythology + minor superstitions = religious system). You just have to get over the "Myth = untrue in any sense" and "Superstition = something stupid that ignorant people do" ideas that you seem to have. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Fictional deities is for deities in fiction, with fiction being literature; that is, the gods of the Cthulu mythos, which isn't a real mythological system but one invented for the books of H.P Lovecraft. I understand what you're saying, but again, that's really only something someone grossly ignorant would do. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any ideas about anything, and I'm not looking for a philosophy/theology lesson, I'm just presenting facts and if you don't like Merriam-Webster's definition pick another one, we are not going to start annalizing what superstition means. It's simple: the userbox could offend people that believe in a God, plus it erradiates some pointless negative energy as it does not state a position but rather an "anti-position". As it is, I think this users are using the userbox in good faith and they should not be banned from using this userbox or any of the others. We seem to be on the same page so I really don't understand why you are being so defensive. By the way, you are wrong about Category:Fictional deities, it's not a category for Lovecraft characters but for every fictional deities, in fact God IS on this category, as is LeChuck and Aslan, so actually Wikipedia seems to agree with the userbox.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 19:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, I think a theology lesson is exactly what some of the people here need, as they seem to take offense with myth and superstition seemingly based on a belief that they are somehow "bad" or "untrue", and an introduction to mythology is a wonderful remedy for that. While superstitions are inherently irrational, being founded on mistaken interpretations of scripture. I'm not incorrect about Fictional Deities; I was using Lovecraft as an example of what would be found in there. I meant to put "such as" somewhere in that sentence, but I didn't for some reason. I'm sure there's a category somewhere for Elders in the Cthulu mythos, though, as an aside. Regarding the Narnian reference, while Aslan certainly represents God in the Narnian universe, I've never seen any evidence of anyone celebrating a religion based solely on Lewis' writing. You're grasping at straws with that. And I don't know who LeChuck is; he seems to be a video game character of some kind, so I doubt actual people worship him. But no, Jehova/Yahweh/Elohim, Allah, Shiva, et cetera are not on that list because they're actual deities, not fictional ones. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Were it not for the god strikout image, we would not even know it was reffering to atheism.

• Keep. We've generally kept userboxes for other religious viewpoints, if they weren't polemic or inflammatory. There's nothing wrong with keeping this one. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep and Warn nominator for intolerance When people talk about having a personal relationship with Jesus, and how great that is, there is an implicit denigration of everyone who "doesn't". That sort of thing is just normal and tolerated in our society. But when atheists dare to act like maybe they are the enlightened ones, suddenly its discrimination? Give me a break. I am seriously offended, disillusioned, and enraged that this is even under debate. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  Example of a Userbox that is in the freaking UBX gallery that is way more offensive than this one: User:DBD/Userboxes/Religion/User Christian. It took me ten seconds to find that. I'm sure there are much more blatant ones if I look. I am so enraged that this is even under debate. So when Christians think they have a monopoly on truth, that's just their beliefs; but when atheists think they have a monopoly on truth, it's prejudice?! Actually, yeah, that kinda sounds like the world I have to live in every single day. How freaking depressing. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Question Why is this offensive? it does not bad-mouth any group. Atheism and atheists do not bother me at all. So don't think I am nominating this just because I am offended.  Moo  Chat  21:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm offended because I think there is a double standard. Your example at the bottom about the Allah UBX is interesting, so I guess I see that you are not trying to implement a double-standard here. But I still think it exists. This MfD is just a reminder to me of why, for a long time, I told people that I was agnostic even though it was a lie. You tell people they are agnostic, and they nod and it's like, whatever. You tell people you are an atheist, and suddenly the room goes quiet. "So what do you think, um, happens after you die?" What the hell do you think, I just told you I was an atheist. ha ha ha ha.....

I'll try not to be so persnickety, but I do hope this MfD is closed very soon. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment It doesn't even matter what the definition of a myth is, because this idea that this is a negative userbox, while other ones endorsing religion are positive, is deeply flawed. The nominator says that this affirms that another's beliefs are false, rather than affirming one's own beliefs are true. But this is a cheat. If one literally believes in a monotheistic Christian God, then by definition one must also disbelieve in other gods. I mean, that's sort of the definition of monotheism... So when somebody said, "I am Saved! because I am Christian!", not only are they implying that, "My friend Jaysweet the atheist is wrong," but they are also saying "My friend Jaysweet is not Saved! like me", and therefore "My friend Jaysweet is in imminent danger because he disagrees with me." Wait, so which UBX is offensive again now??

This userbox, at least, only implies that other people are wrong, but it makes no implication as to what the consequence of this error will be. Many many other userboxes that we tolerate imply not only that other people are wrong, but they also implicitly threaten other people with all sorts of horrible things just because they disagree.

Ugh, will someone close this freaking debate before I totally lose it? I am seriously enraged and offended that this MfD page even exists. Heh, and since these days we are apparently deleting pages because they offend people, perhaps I should create Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jeff dean/Userboxes/Atheist? hehehe.... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

People have actually done that kind of thing before. :P Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I seem to have found This MFD, which deals with a userbox which to me seems much less inflammatory than this (they decided to reword it). Also, this very userbox was a significant concern in This failed RFA. Just thought i would point out some relevant discussion.  Moo  Chat  21:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but as a counter-example, I present Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:America Needs Jesus/world, which to me seems even more inflammatory than the Allah thing. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That could be perceived as objectionable... but it doesn't go as far as this user box does... If it said something like "America doesn't need atheism" then I would agree.

What if I made one that says "This user knows America doesn't need Jesus?". I still haven't seen anything that demonstrates to me how this is insulting. All I've seen have been "I find it offensive" based on mistaken, negative understandings of myths and superstition. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You may not find it insulting, but i would think for most people having their beliefs reduced to a "superstition" should be insulting. I don't think "America doesn't need Jesus" would be insulting because it's just someone's opinion.  Moo  Chat  01:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute... so I'm allowed to say "America doesn't need Jesus," but I'm not allowed to say "I don't believe in the myth of Jesus Christ"?! heh, so like, I can think whatever I want as long as I acknowledge the divinity of Christ and my eventual destination in Hell for thinking what I do.

I'm trying not to be as persnickety as I was yesterday, but why has this not been snowballed yet?!? --Jaysweet (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I dislike religion-based userboxes in general, as they only ever seem to provoke hostility - how many of the userboxes recently sent to MFD have been religious-based? - but since consensus is to allow them, we should keep this one. I certainly see nothing wrong with this one in particular: it doesn't even state that God is a superstition, simply that the user doesn't believe in myths or superstitions, and leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions. Nothing inflammatory about that, IMO. Terraxos (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep unless we are going to delete all userboxes expressing a religious point of view. I too find User:DBD/Userboxes/Religion/User Christian more disturbing. --Bduke (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I strongly disagree with this user's beliefs, however I respect his right to free speech (or what free speech has been previously allowed within Wikipedia). Monobi (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Calling someone's belief "myth" or "superstition" is hardly insulting. There are plenty of religions which are referred to as cults, which is even more insulting. These are subjective terms whose interpretation as "insulting" is dependent upon at whom they are directed. If you are secure in your beliefs, it doesn't matter what someone else calls them. This is like complaining that someone called you "stinky fish face", this nomination is immature and unnecessary. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not even like complaining something about that. It is more akin to complaining that someone called you a water-drinking mammal. If you were to be ignorant about it, you could probably figure out a way to read an insult into that, but the words aren't negative. If you choose to take them as negative, that's your problem. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, Sorry, I completely fail to see where the offensive side is. It's not against a particular religion, it's not being overly provocative about it. You can make anything offensive if you read too much between the lines. (If not offensive, then contradictory. For example, if you really want to lose your sanity, try to fully comprehend our policies! =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Super strong and speedy keep. This is exactly like saying that calling a black guy "black" or someone who has schizophrenia "schizophrenic" is offensive. --Taraborn (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Taraborn, the proper term is "African-American." Even if the person in question doesn't live in America.  ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol now that can be offencive. All native Africans are black, and most have never been in America :-p XD--TrueWikimedian (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Tweaked wording to conform more to content examples on WP:USERBOX, see diff. This should make it more acceptable. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Is it necessary? No? The only possible effect this will have is to breed ill-will between people and create an unpleasant atmosphere. No positives, only negatives. Damn. I hate it when people soapbox on Wikipedia. -- Naerii 20:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep it simply shows the user doesn't believe in religion, it does not attack any single entity or religion. Athiests are welcome on Wikipedia just as much as religious people are. Since when were the words 'myth' and 'superstition' considered an offensive insult?--Otterathome (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong and speedy keep i guess we could change "God" to "all deities" but i think even that is to drastic, the fact of the matter is that the word God is a generic term already and does not single out a specific religion. besides all religions fit in to the myth and superstition definitions quite well since none are actually based on any evidence at all, they can hardly be labled as fact. The fact of the matter is that NPOV doesn't apply here since this is a user box meant for a user specific page, which in turn is designed to let other wikipedias know about the users believes etc. how could a user accurately describe him/herself without POV. (1NosferatuZodd1 (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2008-04-21

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Wizardman 14:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:JackSchmidt/List of snowclones

Deleted, userfied, left lying around for no apparent reason. One edit since last year. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason to delete a userfied article. I assume its been userfied to keep it from getting deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 23:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It was already deleted in mainspace. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The AfD specifically said userfy was fine. The article needs a lot of work. If the current content somehow offends you, I can blank the offending part until I have time to sit down and work on it. Tracking down pop culture references is a bit tedious, and weeding through long history to find the decent versions is perhaps funny, but definitely tedious. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. What's the WP policy on deleting stuff in user space? Grover cleveland (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• The policy is that you can keep it for a while if you intend to rework it to comply with policy, but keeping deleted material in userspace indefinitely violates WP:NOT a free web host and is an end-run around WP:CSD#G4, so userfied deleted content that is not being worked on to resolve the issues which caused the deletion, is deleted. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The history information is useful and a pain to export. Most of the pages in my user space have few edits. I could blank it if it is causing some trouble somehow. JackSchmidt (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Question Was this at one point a sandbox or some thing? Was this used in preparation of an article? If the article is completed, delete. If it isn't, keep. If it's not for an article, delete. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 00:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a userfied undelete. The article is quite messy (as you can see), but during some points in its history is was (mostly) good. With well over 500 edits in its history it takes quite some time to go through them. Currently I am working on GA articles for WP:MATH, templates, and patches for mediawiki, not silly articles about 21st century culture, but this particular bit of 21st century culture is on the todo list. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep if it is still needed by the user, otherwise delete. Apparently still needed. No reason to delete if it's being worked on/planned to be worked on. It's not like this is a BLP issue or anything of utmost importance that it needs to be gone right this minute. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  (still needed) JackSchmidt (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• 'Keep if the user still wants it. See below for fuller explanation. Viridae^Talk 06:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Because it's not like we decided to delete it or anything, is it? Oh, wait, we did. I want to keep a copy of the original, long Daniel Brandt article in my userspace. OK by you? Guy (Help!) 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like it was no consensus, not delete. But yeah, personally, I wouldn't have any problem with the Daniel Brandt article sitting in your userspace if you were preparing it for re-entry to the mainspace. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh Guy, what a luvely straw man you just built. While' I'm sure you haven't missed it it should be pointed out that the brandt article was deleted after causing a hell of a lot of problems and about 17 separate deletion requests. This wasn't. So if someone wants to keep a copy of this around (its not as if it looks like the mainspace) so they can work on it at a later stage, why would we wannt to get in their way? Because wikipedia is all about the content isn't it? And it would be silly to delete someones project (however much it might languish while they are involved with other things), which will hopefully improve the content of the encyclopedia (remember that word - thats what we are here for Guy, content) at some point in the future, for silly reasons like laziness. Of course he might be lying to us and never intend to get around to using this - but since we have no way of knowing and the article is not harmful tehn we should of course allow him to keep it on the basis that it will be improved at a later stage. Viridae^Talk 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, we already know that your position is that deleted material can be kept forever in userspace. Or is that only the case when I advocate removing it? No, don't bother answering: there are only two possibilities, and one of them I would not believe from you, not at the moment anyway. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither. I advocate keeping harmless material that the user claims to be working on - or will work on. Thats what userfication is for... Viridae^Talk 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Userfication is not an end-run around deletion policy. This was not being worked on at all, and actually never really was: it's just been moved to userspace because of WP:ILIKEIT. Guy (Help!) 08:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete userspace is not an indefinite hosting ground for deleted content. Mr.Z-man 18:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. If you're still working on it, fine. Otherwise take it to your own web site please. howcheng {chat} 18:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  Still working on it, but it is low priority. I need the history information (which remains in the database no matter how many times it is deleted, just not easily viewable by me) to finish it. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm a writer, and I love this page. I've bookmarked it. I come back to every several weeks or so for inspiration. For the sake of its usefulness, please keep it. Laser813 (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - It's no more encylopedic than when we deleted it from mainspace, and indefinite storage of deleted material is not an acceptable use of userpages. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and consider if it possibly would fit into mainspace under a less idiosyncratic title & some citations. But as is, I think a user could keep a list of clichés around in userspace, just as a user could keep a list of common logical fallacies or grammar mistakes or spelling errors--and there are many such lists. DGG (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Jack said he'd even blank it if it was causing problems. Guess what, most of my sandbox pages contain at least some deleted content in their history. Guy and several other users seem to be missing the spirit behind the userpage policies that normally discourage this kind of stuff. It's not causing problems, so no reason to give people a pointless deadline. -- Ned Scott 04:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject TimeSplitters

This is an subproject of the Video game Project that has been tagged as inactive for over a year. The project's scope is only five articles in one category. Other inactive projects have been assimilated into task forces within the VG Project, but the scope of this one is too small to operate as either a WikiProject or task force.
See also discussion on VG Project talk page and inactive VG projects cleanup page for details. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

• Delete - per nom. John Carter (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: What should be done about its redirect page Wikipedia:WikiProject Timesplitters? I assume this should also be deleted? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC))
• Redirects to deleted pages generally get deleted as well. John Carter (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No redirects needed as project isn't being downgraded to a taskforce. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 07:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no need for an inactive project with such a small scope. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wal-Mart

Malformed FAC listing that hasn't been touched since December. No FAC listing on article's talk page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not malformed and it's not a FAC listing. It's a prepared FAC listing. There are zillions of these out there. What an absurd MFD. Gimmetrow 05:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a bizarre MFD; can the person who submitted this please explain the misunderstanding? This is not a malformed FAC; this is a FAC listing prepped for the next submission, linking to the last submission. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Presume TPH is confused...this page is there becuase the previous FAC has been moved to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wal-Mart/archive3 (more links on that page), as such, it acts as a "home page" for future Wal-Mart FACs, should they come up. Basically, what Gimmetrow and Sandy said. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability/Listing by project

I don't think that this page and it's subpages are necessary. One all of the information is available elsewhere (Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability). Another thing is that this page, and all subpages (see below) seem to be contrary to the definition of a wiki (filled with "don't edit these pages" messages). Three, due to the above mentioned problem, when Wikiprojects are deleted such as WP:Wproj it "cannot be updated".

Also these pages should be deleted as well.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability/Listing by project/Page 1

Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability/Listing by project/Page 2

Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability/Listing by project/Page 3

Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability/Listing by project/Page 4 Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 03:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep -- this is a maintenance tool and is quite a useful and well received sub-project of WikiProject Notability. See discussion. Response from the projects notified has been very positive. I really don't see the point in deleting something that has proved very useful in combatting the massive (15,000+) article backlog. Jfire (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. If Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability finds it useful, then it should be kept. The reasons for the nomination do not stack up. It is the main space that is the wiki. Projects pages can have non-edited pages if they are useful. All lists taken as a snap shot of the database are best left unedited. --Bduke (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep (note: I created those pages). First, the information is not readily available elsewhere - it's the result of a database query which takes several hours to complete, and cannot be performed on the live Wiki. Second, the pages shouldn't be edited because they cannot consistently be updated manually, and also because changes might be overwritten at any time, whenever a data update is posted. This is explained on the page - however, if there's really a problem with the "don't edit" messages, I can certainly alter them. Third, as explained on the very page, the listing shows a historical snapshot, and thus may (consistently) contain listings for deleted Wikiprojects. These will be removed with the next data update. --B. Wolterding (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep it's a very useful set of pages. Involving the Wikiprojects in notability problems in their areas is a step along the way to doing deletions rationally. DGG (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - The pages are used to support an innovative approach to tackling the notability backlog -- involving relevant WikiProjects. As for the restriction on editing, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability/Listing by project#Listings for an explanation. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong, even speedy, Keep No formative reason given to delete, and I can't think of any other reasons why these lists should go. Keep arguments here are valid and convincing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2008-04-20

Wikipedia:WikiProject Warcraft/Manual of style

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Warcraft/* pages to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games (I did it to the closest thing I could find: Article guidelines, Deletion, and Peer review). Delete the templates. - Nabla (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Also:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Warcraft/Deletion
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Warcraft/Review
• Template:WPW_Announce
• Template:WPW Review
• Template:WPW Subpage
• Template:WPW Talk
• Template:Warcraftbox contents
• Template:WPW Navigation

Requesting deletion as the project is being downgraded from a project to a taskforce. Project has been inactive for over a year, project mainpage has been redirected to the new taskforce page. Gazimoff (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Project moving over to WP:VG, not much need for these things. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per G6 you don't need to list this here for a wikiproject section, the project just asks an admin to do it for them, so speedy delete per CSD G6, uncontraversial housekeeping.--Phoenix-wiki 12:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  Cleaning, yes, uncontroversial, apparently not. Keke. --Izno (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect of the two Wikipedia pages serves clean-up needs without losing history. Martin (talk)
• Redirect might be the best way to deal with this. I'm not sure how useful the page histories are, but redirects are cheap, and it would be easy to retrieve something if needed later on. -- Ned Scott 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The templates shouldn't be template spaced, for one, two, I see little use in the top two items. They can be edited on the task force page, rather than some separate pages. --Izno (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • On second thought, possibly keep the MoS; we can use it as a basis for the task force. --Izno (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Note that WP:VG, which this has been devolved into a taskforce of, has it's own supporting MoS pages. It makes the Warcraft one surplus to requirements.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 21:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

      Surplus is not bad. =). It's not a point I will argue with, and will work with whatever result comes of this mfd. --Izno (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • T:Warcraftbox contents is now completely redundant to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Warcraft/to_do. I edited out the red links and such, and summarized what needs to be done. --Izno (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - seems relatively redundant to the respective WP:VG material. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the MoS for historical purposes and delete the rest. Add a notice to project page and MoS page about them being predated by WP:VG before closing this XfD --Enric Naval (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Hut 8.5 11:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Insoportable pero bonita

This user page is an exact replica of the article on association football. There is no need for such a replica. – PeeJay 09:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This, that and the other _[talk] 07:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete How hard can it be to look up football (or soccer to me)? Really? Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 13:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This page wasn't even created by the user whose user page it purports to be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2008-04-19

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep per snow. Unlikely to be deleted and its time to close out. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou/Battle of Jenin

A second fork of battle of Jenin in the userspace of one user. As with User:Jaakobou/Temp2 there are no non-bot edits for months, the article is not locked and has changed since this copy was taken, and the encyclopaedic purpose of maintaining forks from point-in-time versions of contentious articles is far from clear. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Recent discussion on AN is here and also on ANI here. SynergeticMaggot 11:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment, page is in the middle of a re-work which includes writing of side articles. Articles regarding side events have put this one on hold, but this is not a POV fork and certainly not a "second" povfork. The encyclopedic purpose of keeping this page was to be able to work in a more neutral and better phrased sections without the months of fighting with disruptive editors such as PalestineRememebered and a few anon. clones/his friends, who for months tried to persuade that the Palestinian claims of a massacre (widely rejected by the international community) were true. I'm currently involved in a similar (7 month long!) debate with Nickhh and Eleland on Saeb Erekat, and therefore, didn't have the time to continue the needed changes on the article so that more sections of it can be introduced into the wiki main space. I have however, already introduced (quite successfully) several sections of this page, and there's more work to be done. In short, this page is most certainly needed and has many content related advancements that were not yet implemented in the main space. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC) typos 12:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobu, "in the middle" is scarcely plausible when you had two copies and had not edited either for months. Your last edit to this fork was 4 October, 2007 - that is not "in the middle" by any reasonable definition. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I had one copy of an in progress article rewrite and one copy of a 'other controversies' section which was edit warred out. No fork intentions, please check the explanation and disclaimer/suggestion at the bottom of this page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• DELETE. last content edit 4 October 2007, per Wikipedia:User_page#Copies_of_other_pages --Hu12 (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Allow me to explain again.
    I had to stop work on the page once a few problems occurred on other Israeli-Palestinian articles. I've also inserted small parts of the text into the main-space and started writing two new articles to support the advancements made on the text. However, I've had to deal with problems created by PalestineRememebered (talk · contribs) and a few of his friends, which led to this material being placed on hold and to ANI's, an ARBCOM and a few MEDCABS. If you want, we can place a disclaimer at the top that this is a personal user's in-progress work and hopefully/probably, parts of the material will be later added into the main-space.
    It would be a huge hassle to work on this complicated article from a text file and I request to keep my work on the text on site; to remind, portions of it were already admitted into the main article, but I've stumbled into a number of conflicts.
    So, would placing a disclaimer at the top work for you? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep We don't have idle timers on sandbox pages. I've had some stuff sit around in mine for months at a time before I got enough time to work on them again. -- Ned Scott 03:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Ned Scott and especially after Jaapkobou added the "NOTICE" at the top of the page. --GHcool (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per ned and per the addition of the notice. Viridae^Talk 06:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2008-04-18

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep without prejudice against the blanking noted below (as an editorial action). — xaosflux ^Talk 01:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Consular

The user's only edit(s) were to this page... WP:NOT#WEBSPACE and all that. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - Probably could've been done via CSD tag. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:50, 18 Apr 2008 (UTC)
• I know of no policy that states a user can't go inactive. The page certainly looks reasonable, and not "Myspace-like" in any way. Hobit (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't read what I wrote! I said that if his only edits were to a cosmetic page that's not an article, it needn't have a presence here. Any reason not to delete it? :-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 12:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - it's been there since September 2005, in which time the "editor" has made no edits, except to upload a non-licensed image supposedly used in the German Wikipedia, and long since deleted. I think this can go. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per above, no contribs outside userspace and no contribs at all since 2005 [how could this have been here for 3 years without anyone noticing?!] ><RichardΩ612 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Editor has made no edits in mainspace, also has been inactive. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 21:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per obvious WP:NOT#WEBSPACE --Enric Naval (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Very strong keep The userpage is nothing like a social networking site page. There are two boxes with latin phrases and a painting. That's certanly an alright userpage It definitly doesn't violate WP:NOT:

Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your resume, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. Humourous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace, however.

• He has no personal details whatsoever on his userpage, so it isn't an obvious breach. And if he had even a few edits, I'm sure this would be snowball kept, so why do things change when the user is inactive?--Phoenix-wiki 06:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

He has never worked on the encyclopedia since he only made ever made two edits to his user page (see his contribs), so he has no information relevant to his work, and anything on that page is automatically on breach of WP:NOT --Enric Naval (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, those two edits were in 2005. It is extremely unlikely that the editor will return after 3 years, so there is no need to keep the UP. ><RichardΩ612 10:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• This MfD is pointless. On the one hand, I won't cite WP:EM here, since it is abundantly clear that the user, who made two edits in 2005, is not going to come back and make constructive contributions. On the other hand, there's no actual point in deleting the page; deleted material stays in the archives anyway, so we aren't saving any server space. Time would be better spent working on the encyclopedia than discussing pages like this. (Amusingly, despite this MfD being pointless, I'm here participating in it instead of working; this may appear somewhat illogical, but I just wanted to make a point.) Walton^One 14:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - nothing inappropriate about this user page; no reason to delete user pages just because their owners aren't active. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And no reason to keep it either. And this is his only "contribution". —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• keep Show me where it says that a user page should be deleted because the user isn't active, then I'll say delete. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 13:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• I was bold and blanked the page. Editors who have made little or no edits to the encyclopedia for several months can have their user pages prodded, so to halt this discussion I was bold and blanked the page with an edit summary stating that if the editor returns then he can by all means restore the content. Hopefully, we can now move on. --12 Noon ^2¢ 03:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Hut 8.5 16:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Ishahwright

Goes beyond what is usually allowed per Wikipedia:User page (see Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page?), violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as it is essentially an unreferenced biography of another person (the user's daughter) which also defames other living persons. Wyatt Riot (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete User is using WP to Soapbox, or run for office, or something...it's pretty much a mess all around LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like a personal web page. Wikipedia is not for that. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 21:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Recreation on userspace of a speedily deleted article (see User_talk:Ishahwright). It also appears to be a hoax. Google mentions nothing about any "Geri GiGi Ross" or "Gigi" joining Mensa, which would have been hugely notable, specially if she joined "prior to reaching 12 months old". Also, "Albert Einstein's IQ is said to be around 140, in comparison" is a big fat load of bullshit given how IQ is measured. The statements about the mother having inmunity and legal powers are also obvious fat bullshit --Enric Naval (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep my page please. It is important to me. your policies mean nothing. why are you interfering in MY life. Malmoron (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please see WP:OWN and WP:USER. Oh wait, that won't work, policies mean nothing to you. You'll certainly get very far in Wikipedia.--WaltCip (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. WP:COI visible.--WaltCip (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete the confusion. Left helpful comments to the user. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Fireflycaptain

Bizarre role playing game see Virtual firefly editor continues to add to user pages. its ok in a sandbox but this is not the only example. Delete and warn or explain about sandboxing articles. -- BpEps - t@lk 05:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - on top of everything else, this game is thoroughly non-authorized by Joss Whedon or any of the Firefly trademark holders. It's a non-notable fan thing, not appropriate here in any shape, style or form. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC) (Just sayin'...)
• Delete Gibberish, transfer from talkpage. Non-notable sandbox. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 21:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 13:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Old business

2008-04-17

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. ➪HiDrNick! 20:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Staffwaterboy/thanks

Uses the random acts of kindness barnstar to reward signing a guestbook. Encourages WP:MYSPACE, rewards a behaviour that has nothing to do building an encyclopedia or helping other editors to stay and improve articles, and devaluates the purpose of the kindness barntar. See other similar guestbook barnstar deletion debates at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_March_19#Template:The_Guestbook_Barnstar and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wwesocks/guestbook/barnstar. Enric Naval (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - there is a strong precedent for deleting these 'you've found my secret page/signed my book' barnstars, and with good reason. They encourage WP:MYSPACE-ish behaviour [there is a case that guestbooks alone may do this] and foster cabal-building. Barnstars were created to reward people for encyclopedic work, not something that is superficial and takes in the region of 5 seconds to do. If every user had one of these personalised guestbook-barnstars and gave them to everyone who signed their book, not only would user pages become immensely cluttered, but that 'doom-and-gloom' vision of a wikimyspace would finally be true! ><RichardΩ612 09:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Hmm, tricky - I strongly oppose the deletion of guestbooks (and I don't think citing WP:MYSPACE is a strong argument), but I do think this is a misuse of the barnstar concept. Barnstars are intended to reward good encyclopedic contributions, and this kind of thing simply devalues them; since we don't pay people to write for us, and contributors are our most important resource, it's important that a barnstar, being one of the few rewards we can offer people, should be a genuine badge of honour. and should not just be given out for signing guestbooks. Weak Delete accordingly, but I am open to change if someone offers a persuasive argument for keeping the page. Walton^One 09:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Barnstars are rewarded for work to the mainspace or other process, not for simply putting your sig on a page. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 21:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I strongly agree that editors matter, but I do not believe that a barnstar for signing a guestbook is appropriate. Acalamari 23:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Takes guestbook sillyness to a whole new level. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment author placed a "hangon" template, which I removed, see [3] --Enric Naval (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral As per above its not very importent to me thought [4]

Staffwaterboy ^Talk♂ 02:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Unlike a normal article, the reasons for prohibiting long term archiving of deleted articles are not present in lists, a list is much more likely to be used for valid collaborative purposes in userspace. (Also see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Markaci/Nudity_(3rd_nomination) for a list nominated on other grounds) This page has none of the ordinary aspects of a personal webpage. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

OH NO.. ITS THE THOUGHT POLICE... LIBS RUN AND HIDE-- FROM YOURSELVES.. STOP CATEGORIZING AND DIVIDING PEOPLE, WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER

User:Dwain/Republican Celebrities Page

Somewhere between free web hosting and inappropriate advocacy. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Excessive use of userspace for things not related to the encyclopedia. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:50, 17 Apr 2008 (UTC)
• Any page featuring Ann Coulter has got to be awesome. And I was also pleased to learn that one of the stars of one of the greatest TV series ever made is a sound conservative. :-) In seriousness, though, keep for now, and ask the user what he plans to do with the page. If it's material for an article, then keep it (seeing as it's all sourced, and must have taken ages to compile); if it's just for decoration, then I have no opinion. (Though I don't see that it constitutes inappropriate advocacy; it's simply a list of celebrities who've donated money to Republicans or identify as Republican. And, per my reasoning in Wikipedia:Editors matter, I don't really see that it needs to be deleted even if it is purely decorative. Since it's sourced, there are no BLP issues.) Walton^One 18:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep User:JzG seems to be on some sort of crusade against conservative/libertarian users. He just deleted an article on my own userpage, which I had kept as a backup to work on a new artticle, without any reason or without even asking me before. Now he refuses to restore it which I find very disturbing to say the least. /Slarre (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strike the ad-hominem argument above. Delete per nom.--WaltCip (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• After looking at this again, I don't see how this can particularly harm the userspace, let alone the mainspace. If anything it should be a benefit to the encyclopedia. This is not advocacy as it does not propose an opinion in spite of the title, and "free web hosting" only applies to MySpace-ish content and POV forks. Keep per Walton One.--WaltCip (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Walton One. --Bduke (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Exorbitantly long procedural/historical comment I'd likely support keeping even if this page didn't exist toward any specific encyclopedic end, but if it is to be used as (and adjudged in the context of its use as) a, it is probably worth noting that there is a rather significant procedural history underlying this and similar pages. Once situated in mainspace were List of Republican celebrities and List of Democratic celebrities; each survived a VfD (here and here respectively; the arguments for deletion advanced were not identical and might have been in part applicable to one specific article, but the substantive debate focused each time primarily on whether "List of XX celebrities" articles might, at least in some form, be appropriate for inclusion) but was ultimately deleted consistent with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Democratic Party, which incorporated by reference the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrities with links to the Conservative Party of Canada. The content of each was userfied to MisfitToys in order that he might, under a strict construction of "links" and with precise sourcing, attempt to address certain of the concerns that were raised at AfD; each (including the Republican list, which is nearly identical to that of the instant page) remains in his userspace (which is, of course, altogether fine). In the meanwhile, List of Hollywood Republicans was created, including many entries found also the deleted article and from List of Republican celebrities of the past (which was itself deleted and which now exists in userspace, ostensibly in order that it too might be improved and taken to DRV); the article was kept after a rather complex AfD, in part, one supposes, because "Hollywood Republicans" was understood as a more restrictive and more significant (the intersection of Hollywood and politics is explored in many secondary sources, as in the phenomenon of the rare "Hollywood Republican") classification than was "celebrities with links to the Republican party". If, then, this page is not intended only to host content that is not destined for the encyclopedia (were it, again, I'd likely have no objection, per the inestimable Walton), interested editors might want to attempt to merge the content found in User:MisfitToys/List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Republican Party, User:Kestenbaum/List of Republican celebrities of the past, and the page at issue here (there exist a good many sourced entries each present in all three). Joe 22:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Walton One. -- Comandante {Talk} 22:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see how this violates BLP, or WP:NOT#HOST. This is actually sort of interesting. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 21:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)~
• Delete, this should be a category Ha! You hadn't thought of this, eh? This sort of lists are unmaintaneable as they become longer and longer and get more and more vandal and POV additions and become just a time sink, so it needs to be a category. Also, see essay WP:Listcruft, which saves me from having to explain how lists violate wikipedia policies and are unmaintainable --Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Walton One. Dwain (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this and all ones like it (regardless of party), as indefinite storage of deleted content in violation of our userpage guidelines (as quoted by Enric below), "not intended to indefinitely archive... previously deleted content.". --Orange Mike | Talk 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

article already debated and deleted

• Userfied article that is past due date See this edit from June 2006 "(moved List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Republican Party to User:MisfitToys/List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Republican Party: userfying AFD'ed content for data retrieval)" [5]. User has had enough time for data retrieval, I think. See the deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_celebrities_with_links_to_the_U.S._Democratic_Party that Joe already linked but nobody read because of long comment (closing admin, go read Joe's comment), it even has a sockpuppet --Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

similar pages

• Comment These also probably need to follow the same destiny as nominated article or be merged together:

• User:Kestenbaum/List_of_Republican_celebrities_of_the_past
• User:MisfitToys/List_of_celebrities_with_links_to_the_U.S._Republican_Party
• User:Pitchka/Republican_Celebrities_Page
• User_talk:Kestenbaum/List_of_Republican_celebrities_of_the_past

--Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep No policy or guideline violation, no need to put a time limit on how long we can use our userspace as references for past content. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

violation of WP:USER guideline, he asked 27 months ago on January 2006 to userfy the page for data retrieval of a deleted article, and it has since become an active article copied on several userspaces. I quote "this space (subpages in this case) is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host.". These pages need to be integrated back on the encyclopedia or deleted. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#WEBHOST is talking about putting stuff up that isn't Wikipedia-related. We've actually done this kind of thing for WikiProjects in the past, were we had a list of something that wasn't appropriate in the article space, but made a nice work list for a project to find articles to work on. As long as it has meta-space value, I see no reason to be upset about this, and endorse its existence. -- Ned Scott 03:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep its kind of a dumb page, but I can't think of any guidelines it violates or indirect ways in which Wikipedia can be harmed by it (except perhaps promoting the Republican party ... just kidding!).  ;-) --GHcool (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Doesnt resemble most pages on personal web sites, and neither is it advocacy to have a list of republicans. One could look at it as a call to celebrate their deserved prominence or to do something about their undue dominance--it cuts both ways. DGG (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2008-04-15

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

User:Thenetcentinell

The result of the debate was keep, considering the page's current state is fine.

I ask editors to be polite to each other, it helps a lot in discussion, thanks.

I also note that policy may change due to practice, so it is OK if anyone argues differently. Off course we may always (try to) change *that* policy... :-)

Nabla (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete - This was previously nominated for deletion. This user set up a single Wikipedia page to advertise completely non-notable software that he wrote for a class. It was unanimously deleted. This user has spent months tweaking his userpage and doing nothing to build the encyclopedia. Given his previous (subsequently deleted) contributions to the mainspace, the fact that he links to this userpage as if it were his homepage, it is clear to me that this should be deleted. Most of the "keep" rationales on the last MfD were based on the presumption that we should give this user time to do something besides set himself up a pseudo-myspace page. He has not done so. Cheeser1 (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, seems to be used purely for self-advertising purposes. User has only one (minor) edit outside of this page and its deletion discussions - I don't think we need to worry about losing a valuable contributor here. Terraxos (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - using userspace as a social networking/blog/profile page, no other significant contribs. Agree about 'not losing a valuable editor'. ><RichardΩ612 14:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not MySpace. MalwareSmarts (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep — User has made a single valid good-faith contribution to articlespace. That is enough to justify doing our damndest to keep him around. One is better than none, after all. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • So if someone makes one genuine contrib to main space, we have to keep their userpages around even if they never contribute [and, indeed, never intend to contribute] again? By this logic, someone could make one GF edit and then use their userspace as a blog or a pseudo-myspace for months afterwards. This doesn't really hold water. ><RichardΩ612 20:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, of course it should stay. Tell me, how is Wikipedia made better off by deleting this userpage? Do the benefits really justify the trouble you and I and everyone else are all going to? We're not here for bureaucratic masturbation; we're here to make sane decisions. To hell with the rules; the only thing that matters is: does the benefit to Wikipedia make it worth the trouble? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Rich, I'd advise that you just ignore Kurt. His main Wikipedia activities consist of voting "keep" on every AfD he can find, even for reasons that blatantly contradict community-accepted standards, and voting "oppose" on every self-nom RfA, even though self-nomination is a perfectly accepted practice. DFTT applies, as far as I'm concerned. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
      • He is not a troll; he's a good-faith editor who happens to have views which lie outside community norms. Disagreeing with the standard viewpoint does not make someone a troll. And in this particular case I happen to agree with him. He is making a sound argument, which I advise you to read and seek to address, rather than attacking Kurt. Walton^One 07:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Fine, you want to talk policy, we'll talk policy - the problem is, we have policies like WP:NOT and Kurt (and you apparently) refuse to acknowledge them. It's impossible, I'm afraid, to address your "rationale" without pointing out that you, personally, have decided not to make a rationale based on policy. It's impossible to address your rationale without referring to you personally because it's based solely on your personal opinion. I cannot rebut with policy-based opinion what is not a policy-based rationale. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
          • The most important precept, above and beyond any individual policy, is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We should therefore focus on doing what is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. In cases like this, it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia not to delete the page, because in many similar cases editors have been driven away by aggressive deletions of userspace content; in contrast, policy tells us that we don't need to worry about server space (and deleted material stays in the archives anyway), so there is no automatic benefit to Wikipedia from deleting it. WP:NOT is indeed policy, but it's too vague to provide a definitive answer in a case like this, and it's well-established that users who contribute productively are allowed a certain amount of latitude in their userspace. Policy is not a trump card, and citing more policy acronyms than your opponent does not mean that you automatically win the debate; citing policy isn't a substitute for rational argument. Since userpages are not part of the encyclopedia, any argument in a userspace MfD should seek to address the question of whether the deletion will constitute a net benefit to the encyclopedia, since the encyclopedia is undoubtedly the most important thing. Improving the encyclopedia is more important than rigidly applying a strict interpretation of WP:NOT. Walton^One 08:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
          • "well-established that users who contribute productively"???? UMMM HELLLOOO? This guy is a spam-artist. He wrote one article about 110% non-notable software that he wrote. He has not established himself at all as an editor, let alone "well established," and is not productive nor a contributor, in any way shape or form. Check the facts... --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
            • I didn't say "well-established" with regard to the editor, I said that it is well established that users have been driven away. However, looking again at this user's contributions, I think you do have a point as regards this individual case. Walton^One 09:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Break 1

• Weak Keep per Kurt Weber, whose argument here is similar to my reasoning in Wikipedia:Editors matter. However, my Keep is weakened by the fact that this particular editor has only made one constructive edit and seems to have little interest in contributing. Walton^One 07:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral - normally I don't advocate the deletion of userpages, but this particular editor seems to have little interest in contributing anything except vanity material. Walton^One 09:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep -- As the page stands today, there's nothing objectionable about it. And I generally find second (third, etc.) nominations to be mean-spirited and indicative of sore losers/winners. -- Atlant (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  You assumed bad faith on my part the first time, and now you're doing it again. What's your problem? Who woke up today and kicked your dog, huh? This was re-nominated because the first AfD closed as "give it time" - DUH. Please don't be a jerk on purpose, it makes you like... well, like a jerk. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep not out of proportion in its current version. DGG (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Current version [6] seems fine. —Moondyne click! 17:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The moment we start legislating user pages out of Wikipedia is the moment we lose our own credibility. C'mon it isn't an actual article, and it seems the person kicking the proverbial dog seems to be the nominator, the the editor. Regards. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 18:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  Please note that his user has a history of Wikistalking me, and he is apparently unaware of WP:NOT#MYSPACE and WP:USER. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

  Or perhaps, like me, he's quite aware of it but simply doesn't buy into it. Please stop calling into questions the motives and expertise of others simply because they disagree with you. I think you will find that I am quite aware of just about everything there is to be found in the Project space, and I recognize that neither I nor anyone else am generally obligated to agree with it or abide by with it. Rational arguments trump alphabet-soup citations. Forget about the "rules"--just worry about what, in your own judgment, is best for the encyclopedia. If that happens to be in line with the "rules", fine, but it's absurd to argue that we should or should not do something simply because the so-called "rules" say so. It defeats the whole purpose of a collaborative wiki. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  To boil this all down: in ANY issue brought up, the discussion should not be "What do the 'rules' say to do?" but rather "In this particular situation, would it be in the best interests of the encyclopedia to do action X, which the 'rules' suggest? And if not, what would be the best solution?" Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, and why don't you let the closing admin decide whether our community-accepted, consensus-backed guidelines and policies will decide this MfD, or whether Kurt Weber's personal genius will override them. At that, I suggest you graciously refrain from further comment, sir. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  That is a horrendous straw-man. All I'm asking is for people to make actual arguments rather than citing alphabet soup, which is all you (and many others) seem willing to do. I don't expect people to agree with me; I do expect people to make arguments based on what's best for the encyclopedia rather than based on meaningless and irrelevant so-called "rules". Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  That's not a straw-man - a straw-man is a kind of analogy, and I made no such analogy... I'm not sure what you're getting at there. As for your point, these "so-called rules" are actually the guiding principles of Wikipedia and are not here to be ignored. They are not meaningless, nor irrelevant, and if you can't even come up with better reason to disregard the five pillars than for the sake of doing so, I don't think your little !vote is going to get you very far. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  A straw man is most certainly not necessarily an analogy; I'm not sure why you would think it is. Anyway, you just built another one, as I never said ignore them just for the sake of ignoring them. I'm arguing that we should ignore them because (a) they're not really rules anyway, and (b) it would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. You are merely arguing we should do X and Y because some so-called "policy" says so, without bothering to explain why it would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia to do so. That's where your problem is. If what you happen to think is in the best interests of the encyclopedia also happens to be what these supposed "rules" say, then fine--but argue for it because it's best for the project. Don't just argue we should do X and Y because the "rules" say so--that's completely anti-wiki, and means you are shirking your primary responsibility by substituting recitation for critical thought. Please be better than that. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  Comment to closing admin Kurt's comments should not be taken into account by the closing admin per the rough consensus section on wikipedia's deletion guidelines since they "contradict policy, (and) are based on opinion rather than fact". I agree with Cheeser1's comment above, and it looks to me that Kurt is just trying to weasel out of abiding to wikipedia's relevant policies --Enric Naval (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  I'm trying to weasel out of nothing, beacause there's nothing here to weasel out of. The emperor has no clothes. See above.

  Here's the thing. You're both relative newcomers to Wikipedia. Back when the project was first starting out--and certainly when I joined--EVERYONE understood what I'm arguing right now: we don't have any actual rules, the so-called "policies" are merely descriptions of what has happened in the past that maybe can be taken as suggestions but are certainly non-binding. Ask anyone who's been around since 2003 or before--they'll tell you exactly that. The problem comes with the newer generation of editors, who take these so-called "policies" as gospels and blanket proclamations and use them as a substitute for critical thinking or rational judgment based on what's best in the given situation. These people simply don't "get" Wikipedia in an abstract, conceptual sense. It's a problem--a major problem--and I'm trying to stop it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  You're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I won't link to the relevant guideline because THE GUIDELINE DOESN'T MATTER - YOU SHOULDN'T BE DOING IT AT ALL. Guidelines are here to show us what the broadest, strongest consensus supports. Even if you reject that (crass as that is), there are still numerous people who disagree with you here, and you have no rationale to keep other than for the sake of keeping. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  I am disrupting nothing. Simply disagreeing with you, or even everybody, is not disruption. That's absurd. As far as "broad consensus", it doesn't matter what the broad consensus is "in the abstract"--what matters is what the specific consensus is in a particular situation. Anything else is an abandonment of one's obligation to think. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  The thing is, Kurt, that you simply can't reason with this editor nor editors of his ilk. They apply guidelines with broad strokes when it supports their arguments and then cry "foul" whenever their position is jeapordized by logical support. Simply allow him his last word and allow this process to continue on so that he'll have some other article to hijack.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 03:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  stop with the "ad hominem" falacies both you and Kurt. Calling us newbies or saying that we only only apply guidelines when they support us doesn't help the discussion. Kurt is trying to downplay the consensus behind guidelines and policies, and you saying that we are applying them with broad strokes doesn't help unless you explain how we should apply them instead. If your arguments are really supported by logic, then go read rough consensus section on wikipedia's deletion guidelines and make a logical argumentation of how it's suggestions don't apply on this specific case. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  Curious that you do not ask Cheeser1 to "stop with the 'ad hominem'" which he made above as to "wikistalking". Any editor can edit any individual page on Wikipedia they would like, and his ad hominem doesn't encourage constructive discussion. Will you kindly ask him also to stop with the "ad hominem"...I know it may not be convenient to do so but it would help you to come across as less hypocritical.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 19:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  I hadn't seen that comment. Actually, when I just went to Cheeser1's talk page to give him a warning for that comment, I ended up giving him also a civility warning for a different matter. Now, please, remember that other editor's misbehaviour is not an excuse for misbehaving yourself, so let's stop the ad hominen stuff --Enric Naval (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  Enric, I agree that two wrongs do not make a right. It seems, however, that on each occasion (and they are isolated instances, to be sure) he persists in these ad hominems rather than discuss the issues. That said, ignoring his attacking dialogue would be for the best.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 00:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with you. Still, try to make arguments based on policies just I said above because it gives more of a chance that the closing admin will take them into consideration. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  Also, using WP:IAR to override policies or guidelines (not "rules") does not work if you haven't previously especified what policy or guideline you are overriding, and why overriding it helps wikipedia to reach its goal of building an encyclopaedia, or why not overriding it does not help wikipedia to reach its goal. Extra demostration effort for policies that are one of the 5 WP:PILLARS, like WP:NOT is --Enric Naval (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  I'm not saying "ignore all rules"--I'm saying there are no rules to be ignored in the first place. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  Dude, the policy is called "Ignore All Rules", and I think that the quote by Jimbo is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". Interpreting that there are no rules to ignore is stretching it a little bit too much. Also, the world "rule" links to Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  So, to invoke IAR, you would have to must specify which rules you want to be ignored, how they are preventing you from improving wikipedia, and how ignoring them will no longer prevent you --Enric Naval (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete User is clearly using wikipedia to have a free personal web page, which violates WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. User should contribute more in mainspace before starting to explain his life on his user page and and become a valuable editor before using wikipedia to freely host joke images of him --Enric Naval (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Break 2

well delete it if it is not an article useful to wikipedia. this is a user page not an enciclopedia article. i have made some edits on posts seen in wikipedia but admins delete them or rollbacked such as the one made in kubuntu linux. is dificult to make some post or arrangement in a post and be kept by admins in wikipedia. THE NET CENTINELL 23:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)thenetcentinell

(centinell, your post was not reverted by an admin, but by another editor like you) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Are we now out to bully editors simply because we don't think they've worked hard enough? It's a pretty new account too. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions, he has worked a lot, actually. First, he spent February creating promotional pages for his program (his user page and a deleted article). Then, on April, he became active again to save from deletion his user page that he uses a personal page on the internet. He needs to stop doing only this and start improving the encyclopedia if he doesn't want his user page to be deleted as being only free hosting space for him --Enric Naval (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. In sum, User:Thenetcentinell wastes less space, time, storage capacity, energy, and other resources than this request for deletion does. Maybe Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thenetcentinell (2nd) should be deleted instead of User:Thenetcentinell. Pi in my face (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  That's not a valid rationale, keep or delete. Taking up too much space is not a consideration, and neither is the converse. You could use that rationale to allow any sort of self-promotional or not-contributive user to place ads, profile pages, etc. as if this were myspace. The size of this deletion debate, nor the size of the page in question, should have any bearing on this debate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  Maybe not, according to those links in blue capital letters the honorable Wikipedian likes to quote ("violates WP:ABC", "doesn't fulfil WP:PQR", "per" (ugh) "WP:XYZ"). But then, my rationale is more valid to me. Now say WP:"CHEESE" and give us a smile :-) Pi in my face (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

 Remark: This discussion was closed by a non-admin here and reopened by the nominator here. Discussion regarding the close is on the talk page to this deletion discussion.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Current version isn't out of proportion. Lots of developers on Wikipedia indicate what software they work on in their userpages. Discussion probably should have stayed closed. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2008-04-14

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, with the exception of User:ScottAHudson/2008 Weight Loss, which is to be deleted. Encyclopedic sandboxes are considered mostly harmless. ➪HiDrNick! 20:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:ScottAHudson's subpages

User:ScottAHudson/Extra Info (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:ScottAHudson/2008 Weight Loss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:ScottAHudson/Dancing with the Stars - Season 6 (US) Test (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:ScottAHudson/TheBiggestLoserSeason5Test (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:ScottAHudson/Australia Biggest Loser 3 Test (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:ScottAHudson/SurvivorPearlIslandsTest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:ScottAHudson/SurvivorCookIslandsTest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:ScottAHudson/SurvivorMicronesiaTest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:ScottAHudson/BigBrother9(US)Test (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:ScottAHudson/TheAmazingRace7Test (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:ScottAHudson/Top Chef - Season 4 Test (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:ScottAHudson has a history of using his userspace for non-Wikipedia purposes. I previously nominated his user page for deletion; during the MfD he promised to adjust his editing habits, but has utterly failed to do so. ScottAHudson continues to use his userspace to host formatting forks of articles on various reality TV programs. A few weeks after his user page was cleaned after the MfD, ScottAHudson created a number of subpages appearing to serve a similar purpose. After consistently placing fair use images on these pages, and proceeding to harass User:BetaCommand after his bot removed them, ScottAHudson was blocked for 72 hours. ScottAHudson claims that these subpages are "test pages," but on the rare occasions that he has contributed to articles he has shown that he has no interest in discussion or consensus. As a result, he was blocked for a month in November 2007. At that point ScottAHudson had his user page and his subpages deleted, but less than two weeks later decided to return and continue his behavior. I would now like to quote User:Rjd0060's message at ScottAHudson's talk page last month, which I feel captures the situation rather well.

"Looking at your contribution summary, it shows that you still would rather be editing your own personal subpages, rather than working anywhere else. As you know, WP:USERPAGE states that "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." . The content within your subpages isn't helping the articles that they correspond to; they only contain your preferred versions of articles. Wikipedia is not a free web host and I fail to see how these subpages benefit the encyclopedia. Also, your recent contributions show that the concerns I raise are active concerns."

To emphasize, ScottAHudson has made over 500 edits to his userspace in 2008, and 54 to the article namespace. Beyond the subpages devoted to seasons of reality TV shows, he also has a single page devoted to various useless tables, and a page on which he records his weight loss for this year. Even more than the others, these subpages definitely do not contribute to the creation of an encyclopedia, and should be deleted as well. Maxamegalon2000 22:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• So your argument is basically, the editor sucks so his contribution is invalid? Strong keep, completely normal to keep article forks for work in progress. Continued encouragement/pressure towards mainspace editing and discussion would in my opinion be more beneficial than taking his subpages to XfD. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - most of these seem to be encyclopedic content which is under development in his userspace. Deletion is not punitive; we don't delete legitimate userspace content just because of the user's behaviour. Userspace content should only be deleted if it's a blatant misuse of userspace, or actively harmful to the encyclopedia. Those editors who have concerns with the user's behaviour should continue discussing it with him, and if no improvement is seen, should take the issue to ANI or another appropriate forum. Walton^One 12:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I should clarify. I'm not citing his behavior so that his subpages can be deleted as punishment; I'm citing his behavior as evidence that the subpages are not meant as works in progress for the benefit of the encyclopedia. The encouragement/pressure towards mainspace editing and discussion that has already occurred has not accomplished anything. The pages are a blatant misuse of userspace: this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. "Under development" implies that these pages will eventually contribute to the encyclopedia, but ScottAHudson consistently states that upon completion the pages will merely be deleted. --Maxamegalon2000 15:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, you know the user better than I do. If the pages are simply to be deleted on completion, then this constitutes abuse of Wikipedia as a webhost, which is not acceptable. |Delete, unless some reason for keeping the pages can be suggested. Walton^One 00:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Changing to Keep again per arguments presented below. (Sorry to be a flip-flopper.) Walton^One 07:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: The editor Hexagon 1 is right when he says that the editor sucks and I don't. So, I don't I should be punished because I feel that I don't suck. ScottAHudson (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. There is absolutely nothing wrong with keeping forks of works in progress in userspace. Dragging in negativity completely unrelated to the issue at hand will not help the nominator's argument. --WPholic^(user)(talk) 09:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Like the above user says, I think forks or works in progress do not need to be deleted.ScottAHudson (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Each editor only gets one vote. When you say "forks or works in progress," are you saying they're not the same thing? Because if your forks aren't works in progress then I'm not sure why they should continue to exist. --Maxamegalon2000 20:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was just a typo. --WPholic^(user)(talk) 10:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I agree with WPholic, Hexagon1 and Walton's first response. Personally every once in a while I look at his pages to see how he does things with tables. I have to admit that because of his pages, they have helped me in learning more about them. The talk here is to delete or keep the pages. Past or present issues with the editors performance on Wikipedia main space should have no value in whether the pages should be kept or deleted. Maxamegalon2000 above did state "I'm not citing his behavior so that his subpages can be deleted as punishment". But yet he/she did bring it up in his/her argument for keeping or deleting the subpages. There are many other user pages/sub pages on Wikipedia that probably should be also deleted (like can you find my hidden user page). I am truly sorry for saying this, but this looks like nothing more then a witch hunt (The term "witch-hunt" is often used to refer to similarly panic-induced searches for perceived wrong-doers other than witches.) to me. --_pete 23:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we close the debate because it looks like three votes are STRONG KEEP, which means the consensus was strong keep. 98.17.116.65 (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

— 98.17.116.65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Additionally, two other IPs from the same ISP (98.17.118.37 (talk · contribs) and 98.17.116.219 (talk · contribs)) tried to close the discussion early [7][8]. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This debate is bogus because we already have a consensus. Let's just say it is a keep, although there seems to be a tie between keep and strong keep. ScottAHudson (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This debate is over, do not attempt to make any more votes. ScottAHudson (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

MfD discussions are normally held for five days. Five days has yet to expire, so the debate is not over. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete some Comment on others - User:ScottAHudson/2008 Weight Loss should be deleted per WP:NOT#BLOG. I was going to say Weak delete on the others as to me it appears that Scott is keeping a forked copy of the articles on his user space in violation of WP:USER#Copies of other pages. An example being the copy and paste of the episode descriptions I wrote into User:ScottAHudson/SurvivorMicronesiaTest using a format that is no longer used for Survivor articles. Similar issues exist with User:ScottAHudson/BigBrother9(US)Test and User:ScottAHudson/TheBiggestLoserSeason5Test where whole portions of the mainspace article have been copied into Scott's test pages with just minor formatting changes. Instead of deleting, I really encourage Scott to participate in the writing of articles in the mainspace instead of maintaining a fork. Scott, pete left you a good piece of advice on your talk page and I strongly encourage you to think about that piece of advice. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The MfD messages were removed from all of the pages. I have restored them. --Maxamegalon2000 00:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Sandbox pages in teh userspace!? what will they think of next? -- Ned Scott 06:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep These pages act as sandboxes, what is the problem! Close the debate, it has seemed to have surrpassed the five day mark. 75.89.232.128 (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

— 75.89.232.128 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Same ISP as 98.17.116.65 (talk · contribs) above and again attempted to close debate [9]. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: Again, nothing wrong with having these pages, they act as sandboxes. I was just asking if this debate has passed five days. It seems that it has been six or even seven days. ScottAHudson (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)--An anonymous editor with an IP address similar to the other IP addresses used changed the signature to User:Survivor1992, User:ScottAHudson's alternate account. --Maxamegalon2000 21:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the attempted signature [10] change by 98.17.117.235 (talk · contribs) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange that all the anonymous ips on this page are all coming from

Hostname

h128.232.89.75.ip.alltel.net

Geo-Location Information

Country United States

State/Region SC City Lexington

Latitude 33.9434

Longitude -81.2445

_pete 02:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's where ScottAHudson is from. See User:Survivor1992 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Knoll High School. --Maxamegalon2000 17:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No One's commenting!!! Shouldn't we close if no one is voting anymore!!!!!!!ScottAHudson (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should be closed. However, neither you, nor I, nor these sockpuppet anonymous IP addresses should close the discussion as there are inherent conflicts of interest in closing it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

75.89.238.54 (talk · contribs) attempted another sockpuppet closure [11]. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2008-04-13

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the page ➪HiDrNick! 19:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:GHcool

The user page of User:GHcool is being nominated for deletion per Wikipedia's policies against soapboxes, propaganda and advocacy, and opinion pieces. While user pages generally get a pass for expressing some degree of opinion, this page takes it rather overboard: it includes what is more or less a 7,000 word essay, or 18 pages in 12pt Times New Roman worth of material, of User:GHcool's opinions; it's probably longer than the average FA article. It is mostly a series of musings on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, intertwined with User:GHcool's analayses of the views or positions of other users instead of using the appropriate talk pages. Moreover, the user page's clear intent is to persuade, as GHcool insists that his positions are "the reality," whereas alternative positions are simply "accusations" against Israel. The "Views on Israel" section is wholly inappropriate and stretches the policies of user pages beyond their breaking point. I would withdraw the nomination to delete the entire user page if GHcool removes the entire "Views" section. Timour Derevenko (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Users are allowed to use their user space to express their views about matters relating to the writing of an encyclopaedia, and Ghcool's page keeps close enough to comment on the application of WP:NPOV to matters relating to Israel and Palestine not to require deletion. It can also help readers if others declare their stance and their own point of view. If the page was purely an expression views on Israel-Palestine issues in the wider world rather than on Wikipedia then it would be deletable. If the page was a laundry list of grievances alleging rule-breaking by other users, then it would be deletable. But it avoids both traps; the length of the page is a red herring; there are no size restrictions on Wikipedia so long as the content itself is legitimate. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The length was not a reason for deletion so much as the fact that the page is written in the format of a persuasive essay. Many things are discussed within the context of Wikipedia, but still boil down to blatant soapboxing rather than the discussion of editing disputes, as is the case here, for example. It is introduced in the context of an editing dispute, and then becomes GHCool's own philosophical musings on whether or not Palestinians have the right to call themselves "a people," comparing them to the Japanese, Romani, etc. and implying that they have no ethnic identity. Such a debate wouldn't even be appropriate for a talk page on the Palestinian people page, since it is entirely original research and provides no direction toward article improvement. Another such example has almost nothing to do with Wikipedia, outside of the fact that GHcool used Wikipedia to find out what apartheid means. One can discuss editing disputes on Wikipedia insofar that the debate has to do with improvements to the article, rather than expression of personal opinion. The section holistically reads like a persuasive political piece, which Wikipedia is not. -Timour Derevenko (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Regrettably, Delete. I say 'regrettably' because this is pretty well-written advocacy, much of which I agree with, but it is advocacy nonetheless and violates WP:SOAP. Not all of what is written here is contentious, but some of it is (e.g. User:GHcool#Was the 2006 Lebanon War a just war?, a question which has no simple answer), and in the contentious areas the author is clearly trying to convince readers of his opinion. Allowing this to stay risks it being perceived as an objective statement of undisputed facts, which it is not, and risks parts like User:GHcool#Are official Israeli sources reliable? being mistaken for Wikipedia policy. Ultimately, though this page appears like a 'neutral' series of questions and answers, it is really a subtle form of soapboxing, and as such should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, also regrettably. The subject of the essays do not directly pertain to improving the encyclopedia or a particular article. While his points may be persuasive and his cause may be noble, we're neither a webhost nor a place to publish original thought. No prejudice against content; I would be interested in reading a book, would this user ever pen one. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• chop off the essay in the first part of the page there's a complilation of articles he edited, keep that. Chimeric Glider (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Sam Blacketer. Israel-Palestine related articles are among the most controversial on Wikipedia, and this essay, as noted, is mainly set in the context of various editing disputes, and of refuting various allegations made by User:PalestineRemembered, among others. At times he veers off into irrelevant discussion, but this is a userpage, and we do allow reasonable latitude for users to express their opinions on their userpage. Walton^One 14:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Example: User:GHcool#Are_the_Palestinians_a_.22people.3F.22 - a reasonable statement of his position over a Wikipedia article naming controversy (viz. whether the article should be called Palestinians or Palestinian people). This isn't advocacy or soapboxing, it's a reasonable explanation of why the article should be called one thing and not another. As I said, other parts of the page veer into political advocacy, but deleting the whole essay is overkill IMO. Walton^One 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Walton One and per Wikipedia:Editors matter. Seems fair enough judging by the content I have seen on other userpages.--WaltCip (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per all the others who said keep. As Sam Blacketer wrote, the length of the page is a red herring. Also, despite what Terraxos wrote, I am under no illusions that my user page is a neutral statement of the facts or of Wikipedia policy. My user page represents my own views and opinions and I believe this is made clear enough. If it is not clear enough that my user page represent my own subjective opinions, I am open to suggestions about how to make it clearer, but deleting the page wholesale is counterproductive. In fact, I openly accept, respect, and welcome challenges to the opinions voiced on my user page and suggestions on how to improve it (including parts that can be trimmed or cut). In the past, when users have made good challenges or suggestions, I altered and improved my user page. I hope that my page inspires more dialogue like this. Deleting the whole page will hurt Wikipedia much more than it would help. --GHcool (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. i think users are allowed some latitude in what they post on their user page. I think this is a simple issue of free speech. Most importantly, I think this encylopedia is simply the sum result of what all editors of good faith say it is. that is the nature of a collaborative encyclopedia. GHcool is an extremely principled and articulate editor. he should be allowed to retain his user page as it may take shape. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a user page, and no one will be reading it as an encyclopedic source. Also, let's use timeless apple pie hypothetical example: if GHcool's discussion page said how much he loved apple pie no one would say it's soapboxing, although it would be considered soapboxing if he did it on the Apple pie discussion page. Why is he criticized for alleged soapboxing for doing the same with Israel? A user page is precisely the right place for the discussion of what kind of editor one considers oneself, and I, for one, am very glad that this discussion is on his user page and not on some discussion board. Screen stalker (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Because as of now, editors still matter. It makes me wonder why GHcool was singled out. I feel stupid voting on something that shouldn't have been put to a vote in the first place; but as a result, I read all the pertinent articles of Wikpedia's policies and guidelines and found them contradicting each other and many times contradicting itself in the same article. What we have is a hodgepodge of ideas (well meaning on the whole) by many editors; with many contradictions in them; but with no clear guidelines to be found, and the rules keep changing. What I find troubling is that the minute we won't be needed; the rules will drastically change; and editors will not anymore count. Fellow Wikipedians; enjoy it while we still count; soon after it had milked everything out of us and used us as guinea pigs; we will put out to pasture. Remember we're still needed; therefore editors matter; the minute we won't be needed; the rules will change. Itzse (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In what way do the policies of Wikipedia contradict one another? And WP:Editors matter is an essay; it is not actual policy, whereas soapboxing is, in fact, against Wikipedia policy. These types of user pages set a terrible precedent; what if, for example, someone responds to GHcool's user page by creating an extended rant about how "Israel is an apartheid state"? This genre of discussion is simply not appropriate for the user page; Wikipedia is not a personal space or a blog. Moreover, certain things on the page can even be deemed as libelous (e.g. calling Norman G. Finkelstein anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, and a psuedoscholar in a user page), which is explicitly against Wikipedian policy and can even merit blocks if it is inserted in a living person's biography. GHcool says that these are explicitly his opinions; yet such statements actually happen to be written under a heading titled "reality." Is that not an assertion of fact? -Timour Derevenko (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You're judging an essay by its face value - you can't do that. If a consensus exists in support of an essay, as we have seen in plenty of other MFDs... it's only a matter of time before it becomes a guideline. Again, Wiki policy, particularly that of notability and verifiability, only apply to the mainspace.--WaltCip (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Timour Derevenko's argument is a form of begging the question. Please refrain from committing logical fallacies in the future. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not brought up verifiability or notability as problems with his page; those were the least of my concerns, actually. As far as I am aware Wikipedia policies still apply to user pages, only some leeway can be given. Leeway doesn't mean that one "owns" his or her own user page (as Wiki policy states), nor does it mean the user page is able to function as an open blog or a personal website. Here is a policy that you should probably read. You also ignored some of the points I brought up in my previous post, notably the issue with his contentious statements about Norman Finkelstein (see WP:BLP). I also mentioned other things in my previous post, but I feel no need to repeat whatever statements that you felt no need to entertain. I don't completely dismiss the essay, but it does not seem to be a valid excuse since we are dealing with multiple issues (and, after checking, soapboxing and BLP are both explicitly mentioned within Wikipedia policy as applying to articles off the mainspace; BLP issues can even result in blocks depending on the severity, although this is a rather small situation).

As a side note (there was an edit conflict), proposing a question about how future situations would be handled is not "begging the question," since I did not imply a conclusion based on any specific assertion or presupposition; rather, I was troubled by the precedent that this would set. Perhaps we are looking at different statements? Please explain in what way I am "committing a logical fallacy"? The bulk of my argument has been policy-based; policy that you seemingly wish to not address. Perhaps that is the issue here. -Timour Derevenko (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Policies are set ground rules that have been established by reaching a consensus. That means that the consensus can change.--WaltCip (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - or, preferably remove the essay section. Yes, editors matter, but creating a polemic essay in userspace is a blatant violation of the userspace policy and it does not aid collaboration or foster a sense of community [it could potentially do the opposite]. Whether said essay is on the merits of Apple Pie or Israel, it matters not. Wikipedia is not a free webhost and should not be used to archive essays that do not relate to WP. ><RichardΩ612 16:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep freedom of speech is a basic human right. Monobi (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You are perfectly correct. However, Wikipedia is not the place to exercise said right. Wikipedia has policies against potentially divisive content or content which is non-WP related in userspace and it is for this reason that the pages should be deleted, not in an attempt to suppress free speech. ><RichardΩ612 16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep What do you think userboxes are for? Stating your opinion. On his talk page, I saw that he got a barn star for maintaining a NPOV regarding the subject. If he wants to voice himself on his user page and not in the article, more power to him.

comment I may have been adhering to WP:IAR. I wasn't trying to but... Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 14:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep No Comments --SkyWalker (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not closed keep yet? Seriously... John Nevard (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The more an editor chooses to reveal about themself, the better for all to evaluate their other wikipedia contributions. -- Quartermaster (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

2008-04-22

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Epass (Speedy Delete per G7)

2008-04-21

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox (Speedy Delete per G7)

2008-04-20

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UK Debate (Nomination Withdrawn)

2008-04-19

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cyclonenim/Contributions/Archive3 (Speedy Delete per U1)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cyclonenim/Contributions/Archive1 (Speedy Delete per U1)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cyclonenim/Personal/Sandbox (Speedy Delete per U1)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cyclonenim/Contributions/Archive3Entrance (Speedy Delete per U1)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cyclonenim/Contributions/Archive2Entrance (Speedy Delete per U1)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cyclonenim/Contributions/Archive1Entrance (Speedy Delete per U1)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:74.225.135.179 (Speedy Delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jaakobou/1929 Hebron Massacre (Speedy Delete per U1)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jaakobou/Temp2 (Speedy Delete per U1)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jaakobou/Celebrations(Speedy Delete per U1)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sherurcij/cars (Speedy Delete per G4)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ed Gauthier (Speedy Delete per G10)

2008-04-18

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Image talk:Doublejointed.jpg (Speedy Delete per G2)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:HouseOfScandal (Nomination withdrawn)

2008-04-17

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Lovato45 (Nomination withdrawn)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Hazardous Matt/Sandbox (Speedy Delete per U1)

2008-04-16

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:RyRy5/Friendbook (speedy deleted per author request)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:America Needs Jesus/world (keep)

2008-04-15

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:What the Wikipedian saw (speedy userfy)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Great User Awards (Speedy Delete per G7)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TimAlderson/2019 (Resolved)

2008-04-13

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Main Page/Test (keep)

2008-04-12

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WIKIVUE Detroit/Logo Gallery Petition (Delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WIKIVUE Detroit/Nielsen DMAs & Major TV Stations (Delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WIKIVUE Detroit/Top 20s (Delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:65.2.36.121 (Speedy Delete)

2008-04-11

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editors willing to make difficult edits 2 (No consensus)