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	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	5	28	0	33
TfD	0	1	10	0	11
MfD
FfD	0	1	1	0	2
RfD	0	0	100	0	100
AfD	0	0	2	0	2

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.

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.

2009-06-30

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:King Sweaterhead/Userboxes/Female Superiority

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 discussion was delete as CSD G10 (attack page). Chillum said it best: while I am not personally offended by it, it is still a divisive and inflammatory userbox. Such userboxes are not allowed on Wikipedia. I am sorry if you liked it. —harej (talk) (cool!) 05:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC) User:King Sweaterhead/Userboxes/Female Superiority I have nominated this userbox for deletion because of the following concern: intended to be a gender double standard and dishonest opinion. If it is unacceptable to have a userbox stating male superiority, then it should be unacceptable to have a userbox stating female superiority. Gender double standards have been an issue to others and myself. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC) I agree. I do not believe that there should be any userboxes on Wikipedia that would promote any kind of discrimination, including that against men. I think this userbox should be deleted. Jprulestheworld01 (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC) This MfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 16:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I agree with the nominator - delete. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Speedy delete Wikipedia:CSD#G10.--Otterathome (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Keep - I'm a male, and I'm not offended by this whatsoever. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Keep I'm in the same boat as Julian. -T'Shael,The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 22:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Question: Was there a male superiority userbox/MFD? can someone link it? –xenotalk 23:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Delete Perhaps this was meant in jest, but if taken literally it is basically offensive sexism. WP:USER makes it clear that Wikipedia pages are not for polemical statements. Perhaps most males feel very comfortable with their status and may not be offended but we can't assume that of everyone. Deciding it should be kept because it does not offend you personally sort of misses the point. Reverse the male and female roles in this userbox of its offensiveness becomes clear. Chillum 00:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I am a bit surprised to see how this is going. If it was claiming men were superior to woman, or that whites were superior to blacks then I don't think it would be going the same way. There seems to be a double standard where sexism against men is considered harmless. Chillum 13:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Keep Unless, of course, we would bar songs from "Annie Get Your Gun"? Collect (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Keep. This a neutral statement of opinion. While the opinion itself is not neutral, allowing editors to state it benefits the encyclopedia by documenting their potential biases. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Comment what about the transgenderers? Are they superior to both, inferior to both, or somewhere in the middle? MickMacNee (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Delete My lack of offense to this doesn't make this inoffensive. There seems little upshot in keeping the box, with plenty of potential downsides. Matt Deres (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2009 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pakalomattam/joel osteen

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 discussion was keep with a userpage tag up top. It is possible that the page is indeed a sandbox, so I have notified Talk:Joel Osteen in case they want to merge anything. —harej (talk) (cool!) 05:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC) User:Pakalomattam/joel osteen Abandoned userspace draft; user has not edited this page in over a year and has not edited at all in over six months. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Keep - per no good reason given for deletion. –xenotalk 15:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Uh... what part of the reason is bad? The page has been abandoned and is an external linkfarm. It's also being used as a free webhost. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Page appears to have been used as a sandbox for the mainspace article of the same name. What's to say the contributor won't return? NOINDEX seems to be a better way to deal with it if there are other concerns. –xenotalk 15:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Merge anything worth keeping with the main Joel Osteen article then replace with {{userpage}}.--Otterathome (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Blank. User can unblank if he wants to work some more on it. No point fussing with the unreliable NOINDEX for something that no one has a reason to look at. No need to delete, it doesn't hurt by exisitng in accessible history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2009 (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 discussion was speedily deleted per U1. –xeno^talk 21:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Elfworm/SuperSecretHiddenPage

Pointless and defunct secret page. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. User is an active contributor [1]. We do and should allow large latitude in userspace. Secret pages and other play things have educational and community building benefits, and should be allowed where they are incidental to the serious contributions of the user. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Question: Was the user consulted about whether he/she might be willing to delete the page, before this MfD started? There are arguments pro and con allowing "secret pages", as noted in the MZMcBride arbitration decision among other places, but any argumentation is moot if the user would be willing at this point to live without the almost-two-year-old page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This user is an alternate account for Selfworm (talk · contribs). Though this account is marked as "inactive," Selfworm should be notified; I have done so. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 14:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Hi, I'm the owner of the page in question and since I have no use for it anymore, since it is an orphaned page, and since I don't know how to delete it myself, I would like for it to be deleted. Thanks and take care. selfworm^Talk) 17:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I move for a speedy delete per CSD U1. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 17:04, 30 June 2009 (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 discussion was withdrawn by nominator.--Aervanath (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians

This page is a prime example of Wikipedia bureaucratic cruft. On one hand, it is a memorial, so please see WP:NOT. On the other hand, it's a rather pointless list of people who have simply stopped editing for one reason or another. There is zero reason for such a list. If there is an argument that we need to keep a list of "people who were important", well, how do you measure importance? This is just a general list. Finally, it could very well constitute a privacy issue, as some people may have stopped editing for privacy reasons, and adding their username to a tally sheet isn't helping them to disappear. Even if they don't necesarily want to "disappear", people should not be adding the usernames of others (particularly editors in good standing) to lists of names. This should be deleted as it does not help the encyclopedia and may even be harmful. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I created the page. It's now a part of Wikipedia history. I suggest perhaps listing it as historical. While I appreciate the desire to clean up our meta pages - in fact I may enlist your help in dealing with certain related matters - that is not to say that setting oneself up at the woodchipper and throwing various things in should be considered helpful. -Stevertigo 03:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and continue. Read Wikipedia:Editors matter. WP:NOTMEMORIAL doesn't apply to wikipedians in userspace/project space. See a relevent recent discussion, and the current wording of WP:NOT. Keeping track of our colleagues, having a care for them, is important for the community of editors. There is nothing in the list warrenting the nom's concerns of measures of importance. Privacy concerns can readily be dealth with: You can remove your own entry; you can mail wikipedia where it will be dealt with responsibly and respectfully. Please don't start acting on imagined privacy concerns of people your don't know. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It hasn't done any harm so far and I doubt it will. It's useful for historical purposes so I'm not opposed to tagging it with historical or even moving it to the meta site but deleting it wouldn't serve any purpose. And anyone who doesn't want to be listed can easily remove their name or request that it be removed. The first nomination was a unanimous keep and I say keep for most of the reasons listed the first time. -- œ^™ 05:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the above reasons. As pointed out, WP:NOT doesn't apply, and privacy matters are easily dealt with by the opt-out nature of the list. It is useful as a chronicling of the early days of Wikipedia, and continuing it will ensure that it also helps in the chronicling of current 2009 wikipedia in the years ahead. Grutness...wha? 06:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The pricacy concerns are very real. If someone is "missing", they are likely gone, so how can they opt out? Furthermore, people shouldn't have to opt out. This is like an unscrupulous telemarketer who calls trying to sell someone timeshares. The person says "why are you calling me, I have no interest in this product and the telemarketer says "well, you can opt out at any time". That's not the point... the point is, the call (or in this case, the addition to the list) should never have happened in the first place. Editors in good standing should not be added to lists on the basis that they can later ask to be removed (IF THEY EVEN KNOW THE LIST EXISTS!). This is a bad precedent. We need to be proactive, not reactive, when it comes to privacy and the rights of editors in good standing to not have their usernames added to lists. The only way to make this right is to allow only the editors themselves to add their names, which would, by default, make the list irrelevant as they would no longer be missing. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be the simplest thing in the world to create a template saying something like "This user has left Wikipedia. For privacy reasons, do not add his or her name to Wikipedia: Missing Wikipedians". Any editor wishing to leave WP and not be traced could simply place this on their user page when blanking it as their last edit. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, how would they know this particular page even exists? I didn't, until just last week. And again, people should not be added to lists on here unless they do it themselves, unless they're some kind of blocked troll or abusive vandal who administrators need to keep logs of information on. Lists of names are not good. Doesn't anyone out there see this? If I were to stop editing, I would not want someone to come along and add me to a list somewhere simply because I stopped editing and they decided I was "missing". This could certainly happen for a number of reasons and I'm sure it happens every day. If I hadn't stumbled on this accidentally, I would never have known it existed. It seems nobody agrees with me, so I'll just leave it at this: nobody should ever add anyone else to a list anywhere unless they're a troll/vandal. Editors in good standing don't need to be kept track of. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason you didn't know about this page is that you are not someone who is likely to become a missing wikipedian with major privacy concerns. It seems unlikely to me that anyone wishing to remove all traces of their Wikipedia activity (which anyone leaving WP in circumatances where privacy is an issue would almost certainly do) would fail to check user name policy pages such as Wikipedia:User name. The page Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians should be mentioned there, along with methods for avoiding listing. As for being a troll/vandal, I've added names to Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles; which do you consider me to be, a troll or a vandal? Grutness...wha? 01:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A misunderstanding: I meant that only trolls and vandals should have their usernames added to lists. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Multixfer, you have this backwards, or perhaps WP:DENY has got this wrong? We want to recognise that who have worked postiviely for the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Although this doesn't quite work this way all the time. As in the case of Kurt Weber where he made a request at the talk page for someone to edit the comments about him because they were too negative. If we keep the page we must take precautions so that this can be avoided. Dr.K. logos 03:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Apologies - I did misunderstand you. Mind you, that leaves the question of those listed on Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles... Grutness...wha? 01:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I feel the same way about that: if someone here wants to add themselves to that, then let them, but it should be that person. But seeing how this is going I'll probably just drop the whole thing once this is closed. :-) <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per common sense. 211.30.100.235 (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what does that mean? Not much of an argument for keeping. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The encyclopedia was built by people, and they matter. If someone spends years of their life, of their free time, writing hundreds of articles, and they leave, they leave a name, and that name matters, for it is part of our history. The memory hole is for organizations without compassion and care. Please read Milan Kundera's Book of Laughter and Forgetting to get yet another view of the importance of historical memory. This is a big thing we are doing here, and don't ever forget it; it's already the largest collection of information in the history of the human race, and the laborers who built it matter. "Who built the pyramids," asked Bertolt Brecht, "Who built the Seven Towers of Thebes? The books are filled with the names of kings..." Editors matter and this is part of our history. Antandrus (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why is the list so small? How many people just lose interest, stop editing, and move on to other pursiits but aren't listed here? Seems a bit... elitist? Either that or totally random. Some of the best articles here have probably been written by people who weren't wiki-pals with anyone, or were just quiet and preferred to work on articles rather than engage in the social aspect. So, is this a list of people who mattered to the encyclopedia or a list of people whose current status of "missing" saddens their friends? A true and accurate listing of people who contribute significantly but then get bored or just stop for whatever reason would probably be in the thousands, if not tens of thousands. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - a useful list to show that we at least have some concern for our fellow editors' well-being. We care that they haven't been around lately, we wonder what happened to them - are they ok, did they just get bored, or did something happen to them? We don't know. But this list is harmless in any case. See also Wikipedia:Friends. I assure you, whenever I notice an editor who used to be a regular here just go cold turkey in their contributions, I get very worried for them. Majorly talk 23:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can feel free to close this, the consensus is clear. -- <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2009 (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.

2009-06-29

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 discussion was speedily deleted per G3. –xeno^talk 19:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User:84.9.59.20

User:Jefuab has apparently decided to get back at an IP vandal by updating their user page with a lot of sarcasm. McGeddon (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2009 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TruthbringerToronto/Publimedia International and related — keep and blank pages. This has been going on for long enough, and no one else disagrees with the original close. —harej (talk) (cool!) 21:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

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 discussion was keep and blank pages. This has been going on for long enough, and no one else disagrees with the original close. —harej (talk) (cool!) 21:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC) User:TruthbringerToronto/Publimedia International Multiple articles on Romanian magazines, originally created by Cristina.danilescu (talk · contribs) in November 2006 -- no, not a typo -- and moved into User:TruthbringerToronto's userspace, where they have remained completely untouched for the last 31 months. The pages are: /Publimedia International /Acasa Magazin /BUSINESS Magazin /Ce se intampla, doctore? /DESCOPERA /ProMotor /TARGET /The ONE As user space is not a permanent storage space for the unwanted, it's time to delete these. -- Calton | Talk 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Just blank such pages. There is no need to advertise abandoned things, and then debate them. If they are abandoned, no one minds if you blank them. Blanking is far less confrontational to the user when he returns. If you don't delete them, you won't upset some completely unexpect use of them. Deletion offers no performance advantage over blanking. Delete these if you like, but necessarily with the proviso that the user can have them undeleted on request (making it more bother than it is worth). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Untouched for 31 months is not a reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Not even wrong. Userspace is NOT permanent storage for the unfixable (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. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host.) -- and as its borderline spam, at best, that TruthbringerToronto couldn't be arsed to even make minor fixes in nearly three years, then yes, it should be deleted until he can clear some time in his no-doubt busy schedule -- maybe 2012? -- to actually do something. Until then, let him keep a copy on his hard drive. Your nomination statement didn’t allege that the content is “unfixable”, or that it was serving as spam. It’s not obvious spam. I don’t see why well circulating Romanian magazines shouldn’t be covered by wikipedia. Sure, a case can be made that the presence of the pages is for spamming reasons, and you might note that the pages contained no third party sources. If it were obvious that the pages fail our content policies, then a solid deletion nomination could be made, but you made no such allegations, and “untouched for the last 31 months”, on its own, is not a good reason for deletion. Being on Romanian magazines is not a reason for deletion. The relevance of the username of the author still evades me.. All that aside, can you say why you think blanking is not good enough for cases like this? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Oh, and "when he returns"? He hasn't gone anywhere. You and User:Collect below need to get your stories straight. --Calton | Talk 13:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC) User:TruthbringerToronto made an edit on 23 May 2009, several edits on 22 December 2008 and sporadic edits over months before that. I guess that I had erroneously presumed that he was an inactive contributor. If he is not an inactive contributor, then it makes even less sense to delete his userpages without even discussing it with him. You could have asked him about it on his talk page. If you are quite sure, you could blank the page, courteously suggesting discussion if he disagrees. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I urge you to reconsider your position that inactive articles in userspace aren't causing harm. As long as they are indexed on Google, there's a good chance that someone will stumble on them and mistake them for mainspace articles. But, yes, blanking is sufficient for that concern. Gigs (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC) and 15:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I agree with you that short-term purposeless shadow- and pseudo-articles that could confuse readers shouldn't be left in published form in userspace. Editors in good standing, like Carlton, should be encouraged to blank them on site, with a polite edit summary. I understand that the search engines do not index old page versions. MfD should be resorted to when the user insists on maintaining inappropriate material. Where special circumstances require deletion, there is usually a WP:CSD criteria covering it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC) RELIST. ONe !vote -- especially one that doesn't actually address the issue -- is insufficient. --Calton | Talk 05:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Fine by me. —harej (talk) (cool!) 06:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Keep Just over two years is not permanent. User appears to still exist on WP, so claims of any abandonment are premature. Collect (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Nearly three years, you mean. And, I repeat, not one single edit during that time, so "abandonment" is less a claim than an observable fact. Just so you know, God doesn't kill a kitten every time a page is deleted on Wikipedia, as you seem to believe. --Calton | Talk 13:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Um -- perhaps your statement was not thought out? My delete or keep votes invariably are reasoned, as opposed to those who believe kittens get killed for keeping too many or deleting too many pages. Asserting that I believe such is inapt at best. Collect (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Leave them blank/keep that's enough to mitigate the chance that someone will stumble upon them and think them articles. Gigs (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2009 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: The Australian Outback

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 discussion was delete. —harej (talk) (cool!) 05:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC) User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: The Australian Outback The titles of these pages makes the intention obvious. More internet reality TV show nonsense. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. 245/247 of this user's edits are to the userspace. MER-C 10:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Also User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: Africa, User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: Pulau Tiga, User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: Malaysia, User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: Marquesas, User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: Thailand, User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: The Amazon, User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: All-Stars, User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: Pearl Islands, User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: China and User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Survivor: Micronesia Fanfic. Burn with fire, er delete. Many fine webhosting services are out there: Wikipedia is NOT one of them. --Calton | Talk 17:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC) (Speedy) delete. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Does not look to me to be so obviously not suitable for development into mainspace content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2009 (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 discussion was revert, block, ignore vandalism from editor on dynamic IP addresses. Contact me for more information.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:210.24.200.33

Talk page totally unrelated to Wikipedia and uncomprehensible. -- Kotiwalo (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep Not sure how notable the cards are (not my area) but this could easily be a to-do list for an article somewhere. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what they are, and they seem a lot like useless trivia to me, but if the information could be useful somewhere else, we should move it there. Here it is useless. Kotiwalo (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I tried searching the Kamen Rider category and couldn't find an article about cards, but I did find that several (all?) characters like tghis bloke and this other chappie have sections on cards and their powers/meanings/whatever the hell is going on there. As such this little userpage is redundant, so delete. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we have reached consensus. Kotiwalo (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep- This person has been editing this list as recently as today. Can't we just accept the fact that this is their version of a userspace? No one has even bothered to ask them his opinion on this and people should realize that if they aren't harming anyone, then there is no need to delete this. I'm going to notify them on this, but we do have this unwritten rule about notifications, and I don't know why it wasn't followed earlier. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the fact is that Wikipedia talk pages are not for unrelated activities. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service - if he wants to publish these lists, he should do it elsewhere in my opinion. But if this is deemed as harmless fun, I have no strong objections. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Blank the apparently inappropriate content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• This is just a random anonymous user who hops from IP to IP and blanks article pages, talk pages, and user talk pages with the content about a show he made up. Just remove the content from the talk page by reverting it to the last non IP edit as I am about to do.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:26, 4 July 2009 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hertfordshire1234/Prince Elliott

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 discussion was delete both. —harej (talk) (cool!) 04:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC) User:Hertfordshire1234/Elliott Windsor, Earl of Hertforshire User Hertfordshire1234 (talk · contribs) (currently blocked for a week) and his sockpuppet Englandrules123 (talk · contribs) have input numerous hoax articles purporting to show that "Elliott Dashwood" or "Elliott Windsor" is a member of the British aristocracy. These user pages are more of his fantasies in preparation and have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. -- JohnCD (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Also: User:Hertfordshire1234/Prince Elliott Delete if these are hoax articles in waiting. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom. Had to go through a shed load of the hoax articles myself and these two pages are more of the same. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom. Also, you may want to have a look at Prince Elliott of Sussex; I've tagged it for speedying as a hoax three times, and the creator keeps removing the tag. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 21:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Comment Yes, not quite the same content but near enough, and it bears out Totnesmartin's deletion rationale as hoaxes in waiting. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:10, 9 July 2009 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:SurvivorHarryPotter

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 discussion was delete. —harej (talk) (cool!) 04:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC) User talk:SurvivorHarryPotter User talk page used solely for unrelated activity. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. -- Kotiwalo (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC) The page "User talk:SurvivorHarryPotter" is not using Wikipedia as a web hosting service. Facebook is the web hosting service for this Online Reality Game. The Wikipedia User talk page is being used document the experience of the Online Reality Game Survivor "Harry Potter.": http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?gid=87952521775#/group.php?gid=87952521775. SurvivorHarryPotter (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia talk pages are not meant for unrelated activities. They are meant for communicating with other users about Wikipedia and improving it. Kotiwalo (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Delete this is a scratchpad/tally page for some facebook game. Keep it in facebook, or if not there, some wiki farm. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC) The user actually blanked the page already twice, but I reverted since the afd tag states that the page shouldn't be blanked. Thus I doubt anyone will oppose deletion. Kotiwalo (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and I believe a page can be speedy deleted if the sole author blanks the page - but I don't know how much this conflicts with a deletion process. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Yeah, I never had any problems ignoring some rules when necessary, but I want to play it safe Kotiwalo (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Delete. Actually, the user IS using Wikipedia as a webhosting service: he's trying to use it to host game stats. --Calton | Talk 17:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Delete Wikipedia is not a webhost. -T'Shael,The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 19:09, 29 June 2009 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gongpao/F&S International Education

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 discussion was keep. —harej (talk) (cool!) 04:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC) User:Gongpao/F&S International Education Similar to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Synapse8/PrintGlobe Inc., this is a userpage created in October 2008, by a user who hasn't edited since then, so it is unlikely to ever be introduced into articlespace. Falls under Wikipedia is not a webhost. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Redirect to user's userpage if it bothers you. No reason to delete. No Reason for MfD debates. We should assume that the user will return, and not bite people for inactivity. Maybe he will return if you ask him what he intends with the page? Maybe you could even welcome him. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Keep Frankly deleting every page of a person absent as an editor for 8 months is not productive. Page violates no rules, hence no reason to delete. Collect (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Keep- Who says that this isn't their sandbox? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Keep Assume good faith, something the nominator seems to have forgotten. -- Ricky28618 (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Contribution by now blocked disruptive doppleganger account struck through. Uncle G (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC) *Keep. Nominator needs to learn to assume good faith. Don't bite new users. -- Rickywatcher (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Contribution by another account of now blocked disruptive doppleganger account struck through. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2009 (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.

2009-06-28

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 discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization of people/boilerplate fact policy

The page creator has asked me to MfD this. I don't believe there's any support for the page at this time; it was intended as a way to store information from 2 or 3 pages, including WP:BLP, so that the same information could be transcluded on all pages. This is a strategy that was tried on several style guidelines pages for a while, and consensus was that it didn't work; people who weren't very likely to keep up with changes on the style guidelines pages lost all interest in keeping up with changes when those changes moved to a separate page, because it wasn't possible to look at a diff in the history. Disclaimer: I'm not uninvolved here, I made an argument at WP:VPP that I didn't like this direction. I'm opening this MfD because the G7 speedy was denied by another admin, and the page creator asked me to MfD this. - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: the G7 wasn't denied by another admin, it was removed from the page by Debresser (talk · contribs). He routinely reverts my edits, and opposes my XfD nominations.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree per nominator. I myself have mentioned this argument as well in this diff.

G7 indeed wasn't appropriate for several reasons: 1. several other editors had edited this page 2. policy pages should be commented upon by the community, in my understanding. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Then your deletion of the G7 tag was WP:POINT, as you now agree that it should be deleted.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as page creator -- no other editors have made any significant contributions, all changes without prior discussion have been reverted. Once upon a time, transclusion of subpages was routine. There is support for it in the base software, specifically <onlyinclude>. Actually, the history is easier to track, as each subpage has its own history. Apparently, it has fallen out of use, as regular editors don't readily understand it. Once that was explained by Dank, I was happy to agree on another way to prevent textual drift, specifically by removing the text in all other places, and using the {{main}} and {{details}} summary style templates to cross reference. Please delete at your leisure.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - it is difficult enough to keep an eye on one policy page without having to watch subpages as well. I prefer the present set-up using {{main}} and {{details}}. Occuli (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per User:William Allen Simpson. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2009 (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.

2009-06-27

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 discussion was Keep, no reason for nomination given, strong consensus to keep. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Citizendium Porting

• Note, I'll close this MfD in a few hours if the nominator does not provide a rationale. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - No reason given for nomination. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Do you mean to "keep" or "delete" the project? Please "vote" accordingly. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• So clarified. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep. No rationale given for deletion. In any case, this is very new - we've only had the legal capacity to do this for a few weeks, and that's not enough time to judge results. Having said that, this seems like a terribly bad implementation of what looks like a good idea on the surface - "improve Wikipedia articles by keeping them synchronized with their Citizendium counterparts" is a serious violation of "anyone can edit" and WP:OWN, it would unnecessarily prevent GFDL licensing of the affected articles, plus it would seem be pushing people towards participation in Citizendium in order for their edits to be retained. I urge the project to resolve these issues so they can continue with their goal of improving Wikipedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • To clarify, the synchronization is one-way (i.e. import content from CZ into WP). Deletion of WP content is not part of the project (except for duplicated info insofar as that's inherent to the merging process). --Cybercobra (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. The project page (which is in an early state, of course) makes it sound like you would simply be periodically overwriting Wikipedia's articles with the equivalent Citizendium content. If the idea is simply to merge missing content that is available on Citizendium, then most of my objections go away. If that's true, I'd suggest making it plain on the WikiProject page so everyone understands that up front. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose I suppose someone just doesn't like Citizendium? That doesn't mean we shouldn't look to see if they have useful content we can use. Further, MFD is hardly the place to deal with projects you don't like, better to discuss them than simply try to remove them. --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Do you mean to "keep" or "delete" the project? Please "vote" accordingly. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's not a vote, and I think my statement makes it perfectly clear. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I oppose such a deletion attempt and believe we should keep the project. No rationale for deletion has been given. I hope it's not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because a wikiproject is created by the consensus of those who APPROVE of the project. It's all about a meeting of the minds for a common goal. Those who don't like it can start their own project with different goals. The creation of projects is not governed by the same rules used for the creation of articles, lists, etc., where MfD and AfD apply. Only if the project actually violates our policies should it be put up for MfD, and then only AFTER attempts to correct its faults have been made on the project's talk page. AGF and give this a chance. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. It's too obvious. I'm not gonna elaborate. Taku (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep... but hold your horses! Projects should not be rushed into - agree aims, wording and processes before starting editing efforts. Fences&Windows 01:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. No rationale was given for the nomination but it likely is related to this current thread on the Citizendium forums, which expresses concern about this project appropriating Citizendium content. It's unfortunate that there's so often an adversarial view between the Citizendium and Wikipedia communities. Citizendium desperately needs content -- almost three years after launch, it still lacks articles on obscure and esoteric subjects as "chocolate" and "weather" and "Tibet". In turn, Wikipedia would benefit from borrowing some of Citizendium's better content. And if Citizendium is properly credited then it could even drive traffic to CZ ("hey, this nice article came from there, let's check it out"). There's room for more than one encyclopedia project. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  Just so you know, when we link a CZ article from Wikipedia in the form of attribution, it doesn't have "nofollow", meaning that it helps CZ in terms of Google ranking. This project therefore could have a potential to create a catalysts for the CZ project to really take off. -- Taku (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Possible COI on the part of the nominator: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Drew_R._Smith --Cybercobra (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  Not a COI in any meaningful sense, any more than an American has a COI when editing History of the United States. Just an unfortunate view of the relationship between the projects. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2009 (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 discussion was Closed as DELETE Exploding Boy (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Jethro Loves Shermerra

user page being used as a blog or personal web page. Nearly all user's edits have been to this page and to deleted page of now blocked username, aside from one or two to their talk page and to another user's talk page. It appears both this user and the now blocked user were involved in playing some sort of fantasy TV network game. -- Exploding Boy (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

can you wait until i move it to another site.User:Jethro Loves Shermerra

You appear to have several blogs going online already. Anyway, all you need to do is save this to a file on your computer. It shouldn't take more than a minute, but this is not the type of content that belongs here. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Rapid delete no point in waiting further. DGG (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all pages, including User:The Ally Network. WP is not a webhost for someone's fantasies. --Calton | Talk 04:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• User:The Ally Network has been deleted. Note that many of this user's edits were to that page prior to its deletion; they claimed that User:The Ally Network asked them to continue editing it after that user was blocked. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Nope, it's still there, with a 77-edit edit history. I said "delete", not "blank". --Calton | Talk 18:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Aha. Since the user has already been blocked, I'll take the liberty of deleting their user page. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all pages Actually they had more pages which were deleted and few of them were blocked for username violations and spamming.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2009 (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 discussion was keep.--Aervanath (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:User autoreview

Since moved to Template:User wikipedia/autoreviewer

This is a rather unusual nomination as far as userboxes go. This userbox is not derogatory or anything like that. However, it does encourage a view about autoreviewer that we should avoid; people should not care about having this "right". The entire point of the autoreviewer usergroup was to help New Page Patrollers out as they patrol articles;it's an entirely "behind the scenes" thing. If users did not even notice that it was added to their account, it would not matter at all. There is no conceivable benefit to having this userbox, as it is easy to identify users in the autoreviewer usergroup through other methods, and it is best to avoid autoreviewer being seen as a status symbol or an extra hat to collect. NW (Talk) 22:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Something we don't need is more users trying to collect these flags as status symbols. — Jake Wartenberg 22:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or move to userspace. This would be akin to a userbox that said "this user is autoconfirmed": this tool is granted with one specific purpose, and is even granted without the knowledge of the recipient in some cases. This template seems a bit pointless to me. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, although this seems self-promoting, we have a rollback template that is similar to this, and that is on many user pages. I know that this might seem unnotable, but why not have a template concerning your userright. As long as we don't have anybody being affected, there is no need to get rid of it. I agree that it is at the level of the autoconfirmed users, but not everyone can be confirmed as an autoreviewer and rollbacker. This is just like having the administrator template. As I said before, this isn't harming anyone and can be useful in a short notice on the userpage. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per PeterSymonds' reasoning. -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 01:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Given that we have Template:User rollback, I don't think it makes any sense to delete this UBX but not that one. This isn't to say I don't disapprove of the two (and maybe more, similar) boxen, but I don't support deleting one and leaving the other, since they're the same thing, just a different permission. ÷seresin 06:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I believe the nominator put it perfectly: that we don't need this to be another hat to collect. And while the admin userbox is similar, it can be useful for Wikipedians to know whether a user is an administrator or not when it comes to asking for help with certain tasks, etc., especially for new Wikipedians who may not know where to find admins otherwise (I know that I stumbled across an admin with a userbox long before I ever encounterd WP:LA). I also agree that Template: User Rollback should have the same fate as this userbox, whichever way this MfD goes. – DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 08:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. It serves to advertise a projection functionality, and doesn't hurt. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Advertise a... what? Zetawoof_(ζ) 19:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Advertises Wikipedia:Autoreviewer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I understand the argument about avoiding "status" impressions, but that doesn't seem like a real issue for this situation. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, but move to Template:User wikipedia/autoreviewer for consistency and clarity. ( Done) I realize that some editors like to collect these rights like shiny coloured baubels, but that's not the userboxes' fault. –xeno^talk 13:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Violates nothing. And unless we prune down the total number of userboxes, barnstars and the like, removing it proves little. Collect (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Users are allowed and at times even encouraged to display their roles within the project. In this instance, among other things, users with questions about any new autoreview functionality might be assisted in knowing whom they might ask. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per NYBrad's rationale - I feel that such encouragement is bad. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • So when someone posted the tags on my userpage that I had been chosen as an administrator and later an arbitrator, I should have reverted him? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Should you have? Well, it depends on what kind of image that you want to produce. If "being an admin is no big deal", which meant that it doesn't give you a special status, then why would you feel the need to display that status in some kind of fancy manner that seems more like collecting decorations than anything else? If our primary concern is to edit an encyclopedia and not be myspace, why have any such things? You can see from my own user page where I stand on the issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Ottava Rima, Why do you feel that such encouragement (of role display) is bad? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Because I spend a lot of time working on a very large to do list in 18th and 19th century literature that are completely ignored but have tons of sources that are easy to get a hold of. There are major authors that could have 100-200 pages added to Wikipedia with hundreds of sources to use for information that aren't being completed because we just don't have people willing to put forth the effort. But we do have people willing to decorate their user page. We are an encyclopedia, no? Then lets ban the myspacing and encourage people to help me. I want an encyclopedia, and Literature articles are barely up to 1% of content completed, if that. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I disagree, largely as per Wikipedia:Editors matter, because harassing editors who fuss and fiddle in userspace is likely to drive good and potentially good editors away from wikipedia completely, and because I don’t believe that it will encourage the fussing fiddlers to take an interest and develop aptitude in serious literature. On the contrary, I think your interest would be better served in attracting interested editors if your userpage did contain focused userboxes and other links to wikiprojects. These things catch the eye of casual visitors who take an interest in your activities. As it is, your userpage strikes me as reflecting a person who knows what he is doing and who likes to work alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
        • If someone is busy with their user page, they are not busy with article space. Their priorities are completely backwards. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Per that line of reasoning, your priorities could be declared similarly "backwards" because you could have been working on an article rather than commenting here. But, as we all know, there's more to Wikipedia than simply the articles themselves. Providing incentive through some fun side activities can't do anything but encourage participation and collaboration. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Incorrect. By pushing for a delete, the loss of time here would be countered by the even greater gain of people being left with one less myspacing option and thus pushed towards editing an encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Then why not eliminate userpages altogether? No fun, only work here at Wikipedia. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Because user pages are able to accomplish what mine accomplishes - help in working on various items. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • Not everyone shares your all-business, no-frills philosophy. Qqqqqq (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
                    • Yes, hence why people like you are supporting these boxes. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Hurts nothing. Most userboxes are relatively useless, when it comes down to it. Until those are pared down to identifying only the quality of a user's contributions or some other similarly businesslike purpose, there's no reason to selectively restrict which kinds of interests or characteristics contributors are allowed to display. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Hurts nothing is not a valid keep. There are many things that "don't hurt" that are specifically not allowed here. See WP:NOT. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Fine, but no argument I have read here in favor of deletion convinces me at all. The default is to keep the status quo unless deletion is convincingly advocated. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • And playing the WP:NOT card is a very weak justification for deletion. What specifically about this template is prohibited, in your opinion? Qqqqqq (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Attention!- Guys, stop arguing about who is better. I don't think that we need to war over this on a deletion page. We all have our likes and dislikes, and no user is better than another user, as we all share a same goal. Please show a bit of maturity here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Quite opposite, there are definitely users who are better than others, otherwise, no one would ever be banned nor would people become admin. There is no egalitarian society. This is a meritocracy. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about you two saying that the each had a better view on what the ideal editor was. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2009 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Fix lowercase first letter problem

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 discussion was tentative delete. I am working under the assumption that Remember the dot is correct and that the script can no longer be triggered. If it turns out that my deletion has broken something, feel free to overturn it immediately and contact me. —harej (talk) (cool!) 04:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Fix lowercase first letter problem Old bit of JavaScript that has been entirely replaced by {{lowercase title}}. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Is actually used in 2 users monobooks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/Fix_lowercase_first_letter_problem. Rich Farmbrough, 13:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC). Having been replaced, the script is never activated. It can be deleted without trouble. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2009 (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 discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Åland

Portal that won't happen RSN - only a skeleton since 2007 -- Rich Farmbrough, 13:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

• Delete. There's no actual content here besides a really old copy of the lede from Åland, and there doesn't appear to be much interest in expanding it. I've notified the author, as - atypically for abandoned portals like this one - he's still editing actively. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• It would be preferable to merge, redirect, or mark as historical. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • User:Boguslavmandzyuk put a bit of effort into this, it's a good start, could well be rekindled, but never got started as a functioning portal. Redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Åland Islands. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - has shown no real activity since the day it was created, and I have never seen a portal marked "historical", although I would have no objections personally to turning it into a redirect to Portal:Finland. John Carter (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete- I would delete it only if we can't find anyone to expand upon it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2009 (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 discussion was Criteria for speedy deletion G11.

User:Xgsdev

I believe this user page is the recreation of an article that has been deleted. -- Rilak (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Userspace recreations are quite OK. Encourage the user to put it in a subpage, and to reserve the main userpage for introducing himself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • & unblock user. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Clarification - The user has been indefinitely blocked for using a promotional user name. There is no reason to believe that this article was recreated in good faith as opposed to promotion. Rilak (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The username does not strick me as promotional. Instead, I think it is an honest declaration of the editor's interest. These blockings of newcomers accounts based on someones belief of inappropriateness of the username is bitey. I see no meaningful correspondence with this newcomer, but he is to be blocked, and have his userpage deleted? This is not good. I see no reason to not assume good faith on the part of the editor. He is new. He hadn't read that policy page that says you cannot add utube links as references or external links. His first pages were deleted, so he tries again in userspace. This is all very reasonable. I think he deserves an apology. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with Smokey 100% here. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep "no reason to believe" is insufficient as opposed to a positive reason to delete. Lacking a solid reason, keep. Collect (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam. And since the user is blocked, there's nothing he can do with it. Does Wikipedia host memorials to blocked users? --Calton | Talk 18:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If user were Wikipedia:Banned, you would be right, but he is not. The newcomer seems to have been blocked without debate. I think he should be unblocked. If his username were really inappropriate, he should be renamed on request. He can then move his userpages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - See also XGS PIC 16-Bit and XGS AVR 8-Bit. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per Calton, it's essentially promotional/advertising, ie spam. The user page should be deleted and could be under speedy G11 or maybe even U2. Affiliated or not there's no reason for advertising on Wikipedia. I believe the two articles linked to above by carbuncle should be considered for deletion via a debate (ie AFD), or possibly PROD. As for the side-topic of the user block: this is not the forum for that discussion, but I've given my thoughts on it on my talk page for SmokeyJoe if interested. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reply, and for participating here. I do object to the suggestion that U2 applies. Indefinitely blocked does not equate to non-existent. G11 should not be used here if it is not used for XGS PIC 16-Bit and XGS AVR 8-Bit. Is it obvious/unambiguous enough? I'm thinking that the mainspace articles should go to AfD, and the userpage question should reflect the AfD outcome. What I am sure about is that in principle, the userspace should not be deleted due merely to the user being indefinitely (aka temporarily) blocked.
  • I also note a strong suspicion that the user has remained an active contributor under other usernames, and that, as an unintended consequence, this MfD is serving the may serve to hide pattern evidence of wider spamming. Noting this concern, blanking is preferable to deleting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Assuming good-faith, I request that you rephrase your comment. I started this MfD to remove spam from Wikipedia. Rilak (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Absolutely no intent to suggest User:Rilak or User:Nja247 have done anything other that to follow established methods to remove and prevent further occurence of spam. I am suggesting, as a thought still developing, that our documented custom of deleting userspace spam and blocking spammy usernames is, actually, counter-productive. I am not 100% convinced that the material on the multiple pages is speediable spam, but if it is, there is a network of it. You don't get rid of spam just by deleting the most obvious occurences. It is important to track the spammers, and tracking is hindered by deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Userspace pages are OK, if they are worked on and are not promotional. These pages show up in google searches (another discussion), or will after mirroring etc. etc. This is not what userpages or userspace is for. Simple. WP:G11. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:22, 2 July 2009 (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.

2009-06-26

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 discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

User:S0ointense and User:JasonFernadez101

Here we go again. Even more userspace reality TV games. Wikipedia is not a free web host, nil encyclopedic contributions, blah blah blah. I note that the former user has 1553/1574 edits to his/her user page. MER-C 14:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete both. Not related to wikipedia. WP:NOTWEBHOST. Refer participants to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, allow participants to move material offsite. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - blatant infringement of WP:NOT. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 07:52, 27 June 2009 (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.

2009-06-25

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 discussion was keep User:Jase 17 and User:Eurotom1234567890, as offending content has been removed. Delete User:Mattrman 08, User:Avilsta, User:OoSleePLesSsoO, and User:Pac rac.--Aervanath (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Kramerb

Also User:Jase 17, User:Mattrman 08, User:Avilsta, User:OoSleePLesSsoO, User:Pac rac and User:Eurotom1234567890.

More userspace reality TV show crap. Wikipedia is not a free web host. These users have negligible encyclopedic contributions. For context, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive505#Web forums using Wikipedia as a webhost and various examples in the MFD archives. MER-C 03:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep User:Jase 17, as he fixed the problem himself (diff). No reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC) modified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• User:Kramerb,
• User:Mattrman 08,
• User:Avilsta,
• User:OoSleePLesSsoO,
• User:Pac rac &
• as per User:MB Games below:

Delete. Not related to wikipedia. WP:NOTWEBHOST. Refer participants to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, allow participants to move material offsite. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• User:Eurotom1234567890 Contains some suitable content; user is a contributor, edit to remove games stuff from page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• I removed the clearest inappropriate content with these edits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep User:Jase 17 because they have edited their page to get rid of the problematic content. No recommendation yet as to all the others yet; perhaps they will do the same before this MfD ends. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as fixed. Collect (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Except for Jase 17, they don't look fixed to me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2009 (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 discussion was keep.--Aervanath (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Jeffvlaming/Jeff vlaming

Spam in userspace. Reads like copyvio. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. New user. This nomination is too bitey. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for now, per WP:BITE. It's a AGF nomination, but new user could use some help before having user subpage deleted. — Becksguy (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Agree it reads a little copyvio, but also reads like beginnings of an article, and this would be legitimate use of userspace suppage. Quick research shows Jeff Vlamming to be a writer (screenplays etc) and could potentially be notable under criteria. Given "username", however, user should be made aware of relevant policies, particularly WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIO and WP:BLP (specifically WP:BIOSELF) before proceeding.--ClubOranje^T 11:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Not a violation on its face -- hence no reason to delete and a positive one to Keep. Collect (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotional, and editor's only contribution. If he wants to contribute, no one's stopping him. --Calton | Talk 18:04, 29 June 2009 (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.

2009-06-24

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 discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 11:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:MB Games

User page is being used as a webhost. An internet forum is using Wikipedia to host their "message board game" (MB Game). This is a recurrence of this prior incident: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive505#Web_forums_using_Wikipedia_as_a_webhost -- Peacock (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per nom, WP:USER, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and the referenced ANI thread. As a blatant misuse of a user page, this is an easy one and could be speedy deleted and maybe it's even snowing. — Becksguy (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not related to wikipedia. WP:NOTWEBHOST. Refer participants to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, allow participants to move material offsite. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2009 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long usernames

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 discussion was mark as historical --Xavexgoem (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC) delete. Decision overturned. — Aitias // discussion 22:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Long usernames Really? This is very outdated, and unnecessary. – (iMatthew • talk) at 16:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Delete Pointless, impossible to manage, outdated, and unnecessary. Aditya α ß 16:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Delete Wiki is not for a collection of lists doktorb wordsdeeds 17:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Keep, and tag as historical. We don't gain any space in its deletion, if not taking up more, and this could be useful some day when one wishes to look at Wikipedia history. It's not beneficial to the project to have it deleted. blurredpeace ☮ 22:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Delete, per the deny essay. We shouldn't be giving life long pages to trolls. –blurpeace (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Comment I would have expected that this would spedify the limit of the length of a user name and mention the disadvantages of a long name, but no. Mark this historical, it is an artifact from the earliest times. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Delete Pointless, and yeah, what Aditya said. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC) You do know that deleting things doesn't save space, correct? This is history, therefore it should be tagged accordingly. blurredpeace ☮ 02:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC) It is of no historical significance. Also, look at the kind of usernames in that list. "User:Jizz Drippin' Semen Shooter" for one. Here's another: "User:Jesus is so much cooler than Brahma". You really think this has historical significance? Aditya α ß 15:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I think the connection to Mike Garcia is a good reason to delete per WP:DENY. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, because an employed Wikimedia Foundation developer, administrator, and retired editor were all trolls, thus we shouldn't feed them. WP:DENY does not apply in this situation, and also, Wikipedia is not censored. Just because it lists objectionable usernames, that doesn't mean it's warranted for deletion under vandalism (that you're claiming was from good standing editors). The definition of historical is, "A historical process is one which is no longer in use, or any non-recent log of any process." What, real, position is there against slapping a historical tag on this besides for, "it exists, and it's old, so I want it deleted?" --Blurpeace (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Though I don't like to use this term on-wiki, I've just had an 'epic fail' moment. Remind me not to edit while tired. :) --Blurpeace (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC) An epic fail moment? How so? Aditya α ß 08:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC) (unindent) I saw his point after misreading the information. He wasn't claiming that the trolls were the editors who created the page, rather, this does apply to WP:DENY as the editors who were reported to this page have a standing place here. I can no longer consider this to be a significant part of Wikipedia history. –blurpeace (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Tag as historical. Judging by Tim Starling's contributions at the time he made the list, it was inspired by this discussion at the village pump, but for whatever reason it was never linked from that discussion. These days, a query like this would be in a subpage of Wikipedia:Database reports. Graham87 02:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC) The village pump discussion seems to have been inspired by Mike Garcia, who created inappropriate usernames disparaging Hephaestos, among other things. I can certainly understand the reasoning for deleting or at least blanking this page to deny recognition, and in case of spambots. Therefore this is my weakest "tag as historical" vote so far. Graham87 03:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Blank and tag historical. Is our history, but haas no continuing purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:DENY and lack of any benefit to keeping it. It was pointless (though marginally interesting) back in the day it was run, but it's now just an out of date list with a bunch of redlinks. Matt Deres (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom and WP:DENY. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Delete, no use past troll enabling. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Blank and tag Count me in as someone who doesn't believe WP:DENY applies here. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Delete. WP:DENY has nothing to do with this, but it's hardly anything important, merely a collection of long usernames at the time. ^demon[omg plz] 18:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Keep, and tag historical. WP:DENY is irrelevant to this. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Delete, WP:DENY says this can be deleted. Thebookofaustin3:16 (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2009 (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.

2009-06-23

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 discussion was Delete Lenticel ^(talk) 02:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Apollomelos/temp

This is a workpage, which is fine, but the content was started as a fork from this version of the Homosexuality article. Since it's unattributed and hasn't had any significant work done in four years, it should be deleted as a violation of licensing policy. Powers ^T 12:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I didn't bother contacting the user first because he hasn't edited in four years and hasn't replied to any of the prior discussions on his talk page. Powers ^T 12:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:Subpages, WP:USERFY, the lack of any contribs by user or the lack of any significant work on userfied article in four years. Elvis has left the building. — Becksguy (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Ancient fork, no point anymore. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Future work on the old fork is problematic for ready GFDL compliance. Future work should start from a recent version, if there is not a good reason not to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Blank like we normally do for sandbox pages. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 29 June 2009 (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.

2009-06-28

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Allsterecho talk redirects (speedy deleted)

2009-06-26

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:ChristofferMunck (content blanked)

2009-06-25

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Pkoulop (Speedy close)

2009-06-24

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Apples0002/Matthew Fouts (speedy delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:En1/Homosexuality (speedy delete)

2009-06-23

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Snottywong/trip (keep - nomination withdrawn)