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	1	32	0	33
TfD	0	1	14	0	15
MfD
FfD	0	1	3	0	4
RfD	0	0	87	0	87
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

Archived discussions

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

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.

2009-08-25

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Futurama — Keep Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:32, 10 September 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 Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Portal:Futurama Dead portal. Magioladitis (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Futurama keeping content intact. Ikip (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect as per Ikip -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 06:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Since the show is still active, I agree that we redirect it to the Wikiproject. I am closing this one. Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, I, as nominator, agree with the redirection. I think it's ok to close it right now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC) New developments after discussion in Wikipedia talk:Portal. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Keep, per my comments at Wikipedia talk:Portal#Does a portal need to be actively edited in order to be useful?. This is a well-developed portal that may provided additional articles of interest to the reader. I understand there is some disagreement as how wide a scope a portal should have in order to exist, that discussion should be resolved centrally. –xenotalk 14:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Keep. I don't see the value in deletion, while I do see value in retaining it. Croctotheface (talk) 08:02, 7 September 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/Portal:Battlestar Galactica — redirect. @harej 21:58, 10 September 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 redirect. @harej 21:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Portal:Battlestar Galactica Dead portal. Only one editor really contributed in this one. Magioladitis (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Battlestar Galactica keeping content intact. Ikip (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect as per Ikip -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Would we ever need a portal for a tv series? How often will this be updated? Where is the consensus for this portal to be created at the first place? I am sorry but I disagree with the redirect of this one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC) I agree, redirect somewhere; the WikiProject seems a reasonable target. The content should be available if anybody decides to revive the portal. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Don't you see that the show is over and the subject is to narrow to allow frequent updates? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Comment Over? With Caprica starting to air in January, there's at least something that is going on with BSG until the middle of next year. However, I still think that it needs redirecting rather than deleting. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC) There are approximately 300 articles related to Battlestar Galactica, which, if enough to support an entire WikiProject, is more than enough to sustain a portal. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - I really don't understand these noms. When a portal is fully developed, even if it isn't being updated regularly, it still takes in a modest amount of hits and directs readers to related articles which may be of interest to the reader. Deleting is obviously inappropriate as then someone will have to duplicate the work (or find an admin to undelete) if they want to resurrect it and redirection doesn't provide much benefit either. Especially given that the links to these will remain in situ. Note left at caretaking WikiProject. –xenotalk 14:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC) It's not fully developed. Right now the "What to do" section" is just a copy of a generic one and the portal advertises specific wikia that contain commercials. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC) See also Wikipedia talk:Portal. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Comment I'm the founder of WP:BSG. I knew about this portal but honestly didn't know what to make of it or do with it (and still don't). If there's someone in the project who wants to take it over, sweet, but since it's not an article, and not much (that I can tell) would be lost by its deletion or redirection, I don't much care what happens to it. --BlueSquadronRaven 06:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect Incomplete, and questionable relevance per BlueSquad. Redirect allows someone to resurrect it later if motivation strikes. Gigs (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Redirect to the WikiProject. GrooveDog (talk) 11:22, 2 September 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.

2009-08-24

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Usre:Wild mine/Portal:Google/Related portals — speedily deleted per G6 (worse-off duplicate of this and malplaced in articlespace). –xenotalk 14:12, 28 August 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 speedily deleted per G6 (worse-off duplicate of this and malplaced in articlespace). –xenotalk 14:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Usre:Wild mine/Portal:Google/Related portals Possible a misnamed "usre"page, but even there it's a miniature linkfarm (just one link). Seems deletable - if the user wants the link, surely there's a better way of keeping it than a subpage of a subpage of a misnamed page --Grutness...wha? 23:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Delete because the correctly spelled version, User:Wild mine/Portal:Google/Related portals, already exists. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:32, 25 August 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:Logos5557/Ra (channeled entity) — delete. @harej 21:55, 10 September 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 delete. @harej 21:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC) User:Logos5557/Ra (channeled entity) User:Logos5557/Ra (channeled entity) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This page was created because of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ra_(channeled_entity)_(2nd_nomination). It should be deleted under the guide of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Keep This debate is far more baseless than Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ra_(channeled_entity)_(2nd_nomination). I am glad anyway; because these are just proofs that, gaming the system is at work. Apart from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ra_(channeled_entity)_(2nd_nomination)'s being an inappropriate place for publicising this debate (Wikipedia:Publicising_discussions), it has again no ground according to WP:NOTWEBHOST because the page in concern does not fit any one of the 4 descriptions listed. In fact, as I mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ra_(channeled_entity)_(2nd_nomination), User:Logos5557/Ra (channeled entity) has right to exist according to the statement in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion: "The page is then either kept, merged or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." Logos5557 (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Delete: Per Wikipedia:User_page#Copies_of_other_pages: "[User] space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content". Furthermore, it's clear that, if it isn't deleted attempts to shove the whole thing back in somehow will be ongoing. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 00:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Comment Wrong reasoning; the page in concern is not a copy of any page in main space. L/L_Research#Ra was created & edited heavily by dab, I guess in order to eliminate the possibility of bringing it back in some other name. Even the creator were me, it is not forbidden to attempt to bring parts (or whole) of the material qualified to exist in wikipedia. Someone can not be arrested before he/she does anything wrong. Logos5557 (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Comment For documentation purposes here are the related diffs; [1], [2], [3], [4]. I guess it is clear now that it was not me. Logos5557 (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete: per Shoemaker's Holiday [or salt per Dbachmann if necessary to comply with policy]. Logos5557's rebuttal is unavailing, as this page is simply a 'move' of the page currently on WP:SNOW deletion at WP:Articles for deletion/Ra (channeled entity) (2nd nomination). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC) SALT. Please note that I have copy-pasted a paragraph of this article into L/L Research. For licencing reasons, the edit history of the article should remain accessible. Please keep these things in mind in deletion discussions. The proper course of action in this case would be, imo: move the page back to Ra (channeled entity), then {{R to section}} to L/L Research#Ra, and protect the redirect against recreation. Logos5557 has a terrible case of wikilawyering, and is by now at the stage of giving me "last warnings" and similar. It is time to conclude this pathetic business also for user's own good, I do not assume there is still anything in here that can in any way be argued to be connected with building an encyclopedia. --dab (𒁳) 08:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC) I see that L/L Research is also on AfD now. Of course, if it is deleted, we can also delete this page with no licencing problems. But I would like to keep a record of this around somewhere, not because I think it is terribly notable, but because I have invested time in figuring out this case, and I would not want to repeat the exercise next time it comes up (as it is bound to, as the books clearly have a small but dedicated following in the blogosphere). --dab (𒁳) 10:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Comment: The SNOW delete at AfD is because the user blanked the page and copied the text over here - Dab is right, it should really be put back there to meet its fate first, then userfied, then one could discuss deletion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)ETA - in case of doubt, I am in no way in support of seeing this in userspace (or anywhere else for that matter) Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Comment: you are incorrect, all but one of the 'delete's on that AfD occured before the move & blank. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC) SALTDbachmann is entirely correct. The page was only moved over here in order to prevent the conclusion of the deletion discussion at the original location. Let's conclude this issue properly.Simonm223 (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per Shoemaker's Holiday. This appears to be an attempt to subvert wikipedia's AfD process, and this page should be deleted. When the AfD closes, the user can request userfication in the usual way. However, as there are still no RS for this the resulting redirect might require protection to disuade editors from simply recreating this article. For the same reason I'd be against userfication until multiple RS are presented. Verbal chat 13:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per Shoemaker's Holiday and Verbal. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. This page is a transparent attempt to get around the predictable AfD result, and it serves no legitimate purpose. If the history is needed for licence reasons, it will have to be moved back, turned into a redirect and salted. Hans Adler 13:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Delete The move to userspace is for avoiding the deletion at AfD[5]. If there are no reliable sources at all then userfying is not useful for the encyclopedia. This will never become an article. As Hans says, if there are GFDL concerns because of merged content, then it can be undeleted, moved back to its original place and turned into a redirect to L/L Research (which is also under AfD, by the way) or to the relevant article. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - Per Verbal. Salt as well.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Exactly as per nomination. I am not sure, however, that salting per se would do much good, as it could be circumvented by a simple title change. The editor should simply be instructed not to recreate the page. —SlamDiego←T 19:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Delete The article has been up at mainspace for ~9 months without any independent reliable sources being found. Once the mainspace article was nominated for deletion, instead of searching for sources to establish notability, it was simply moved to userspace. As such there seems to be no attempt at, or prospect of, rewriting the article based on quality sources and hence the article needs to be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Abecedare (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC) DeletePer nomination. Unless reliable sources can be shown, delete and tell editor not to recreate. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Strong keep. Neutral. None of the deletion comments provides a substantive rationale to ignore our normal and well-established principles and processes. Since when is userfication deprecated? The deletion debate just closed. Given the absence of copyvio or similarly prohibitive concerns, I would userify this article upon request as an administrator per the standard and longstanding practice. If the page just sits there for three to six months, then raise it for deletion. However, it seems a bit outside our standard good practice to delete the userified page immediately after the AfD. I don't think it's very likely that the article draft will be sufficiently sourced or improved, but that does not mean that I would not allow the editor the opportunity to prove me wrong. In addition to my dismay with the pat rejection of normal userification, I am also floored by the astounding dearth of good faith demonstrated here. I implore the closer of this discussion to hold to the fundamental principle that deletion discussions should not be closed by raw numbers, but rather by the project's principles, policies, and standard good practices, without a strongly compelling reason to contrary. --Vassyana (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC) There was a previous AfD in which the notability problems were already an important concern. Logos5553 has had about 9 months to find reliable sources and to bring the article into a state in which it had a chance to survive an AfD with something better than no consensus misread by a confused admin as keep. Instead, with a lot of effort Logos5553 brought the article into such a problematic state that it didn't even get the usual optimistic keep !votes by editors who generally trust that there are usable sources out there somewhere and sooner or later someone will find them. Normally that's what editors unhappy with a deletion do after userfication. I don't think it's in anybody's interest to encourage Logos5553 to invest even more time into a topic that simply lacks mainstream coverage. Hans Adler 22:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC) If anyone has never seen a valid WP:IAR justification that this is a wonderful example of how IAR should be justified (down to the lack of citing IAR). Though you have not convinced me to change my view to support deletion explicitly, you have provided a coherent, complete and well-expressed argument. --Vassyana (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Delete User:Logos5557 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page as well. — Athaenara ✉ 18:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Why? Because he copied you? That isn't a reason to delete a userpage. WP:GETOVERIT.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC) No, the content (see Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page?). The format Logos5557 copied is Wikipedia's, not mine. — Athaenara ✉ 00:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Which part of Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page? does apply here exactly? "You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere". Logos5557 (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC) In the first paragraph of that section: "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia." — Athaenara ✉ 20:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Ok, but that content is some sort of socratic dialogues and serves the purpose of implicitly describing me as a wikipedian, my beliefs, my POV and the type of articles I would tend to work on. Links to some wikipedia articles & headings can be removed. Logos5557 (talk) 09:45, 4 September 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:RhiannonP — delete; as the article equivalent had the same fate, as should this. @harej 00:12, 28 August 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 delete; as the article equivalent had the same fate, as should this. @harej 00:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC) User:RhiannonP Joint with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in early 50's rock music, I believe. Otherwise, non-notable essay. ceranthor 11:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Keep As I understand it, of the various pages on this topic created recently, this is the only one within Wikipedia guidelines, namely WP:UP. It doesn't meet any of the WP:UP#NOT criteria and can be reasonably considered a sandbox. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Have you seen Talk:Racism in early 50's rock music? ceranthor 21:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC) I haven't, and now won't be able to. Would you mind summarising its contents? – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 16:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC) HJED admitted that the information which the creators of the other articles, and this one, I guess, were completely false and that the students had been told to post said information on the site, to test our sense of reliability. When the original article was tagged, he admitted this. ceranthor 16:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Maybe you shouldn't be guessing. While this page is original research and basically unsourced, the information is true. Elvis did join the army in the late 1950s, and Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valensa and Jiles Richardson did die in Cerro Gordo County in 1959. Even if it were untrue, my !vote wouldn't change: there's no requirement anywhere at WP:UP that user pages be factual in nature. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 17:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Delete This sort of experiment at sabotaging Wikipedia has been tried several times by what claim to be educational institutions. It's like teaching IT by trying to bring down the school computer. Or teaching law by having the students bring false charges. Everything that is part of such projects is vandalism and needs to be removed. I recognize the individual students are not themselves responsible for it, but what is being done is just as wrong as if it had been their idea, instead of their irresponsible instructor. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Speedy delete If I understand rightly, this information was already deleted as a hoax; while db-repost doesn't apply, hoaxes are speedy deleteable. Even if this is not considered to be a hoax (I know that some of the information is true, although I don't know about the rest), this is part of an attempt to damage the encyclopedia, and we can bend the rules in order to fight an attempt to damage Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Hoaxes are not speedy deletable; true nonsense is, but general hoaxes should generally be subject to wider review. Of course, it's established as a hoax in this case. @harej 00:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Speedy Delete this and any future school essays that a teacher requires to be created as articles Wikipedia. Any systematic attempt to violate the principles of wikipedia should easily fall into the IAR cleanup zone. Gigs (talk) 16:13, 27 August 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:Oblivion3/Westlakes Wildcats — Speedy Delete - spam Gigs (talk) 16:08, 27 August 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 Speedy Delete - spam Gigs (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC) User:Oblivion3/Westlakes Wildcats This page is SPAM about a non-notable soccer club in a non-notable soccer game. There is no value for the project to keep this page, delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. --Martin H. (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Oblivion3 (talk · contribs) said at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Westlakes_Wildcats that s/he would be adding references and I advised him/her of the need to meet WP:Notability. There's been no indication that this is moving into real article territory.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Author has now requested deletion at my talk page, so I've speedied it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:41, 26 August 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.

2009-08-19

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Box Ghost — delete. @harej 00:06, 27 August 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 delete. @harej 00:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Template:User Box Ghost Orphaned unencyclopedic userbox in template space B (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. Created by a blocked user, linked to only here and in two "orphan" lists. Unlikely to be missed. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 20:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Delete All All of the userbox nominations today below this one and this one are not appropriate when taken in view of the userbox guidelines. This comment should be considered to apply to all of them. Gigs (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom Francium12 (talk) 08:55, 24 August 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/Template:User Bagpipe-metal — delete. @harej 00:07, 27 August 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 delete. @harej 00:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Template:User Bagpipe-metal Orphaned unencyclopedic userbox in template space B (talk) 20:29, 19 August 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/Template:User BackinBackThriller — delete. @harej 00:08, 27 August 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 delete. @harej 00:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Template:User BackinBackThriller Orphaned unencyclopedic userbox in template space B (talk) 20:29, 19 August 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/Template:User Atletico de Madrid — delete. @harej 00:08, 27 August 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 delete. @harej 00:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Template:User Atletico de Madrid Orphaned userbox in template space B (talk) 20:28, 19 August 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/Template:User AZ NATO — delete. @harej 00:08, 27 August 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 delete. @harej 00:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Template:User AZ NATO Orphaned political userbox in template space B (talk) 20:27, 19 August 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/Template:User AD — delete. @harej 00:09, 27 August 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 delete. @harej 00:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Template:User AD Orphaned unencyclopedic userbox in template space B (talk) 20:26, 19 August 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/Template:User ADFMember — delete. @harej 00:09, 27 August 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 delete. @harej 00:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Template:User ADFMember Orphaned userbox B (talk) 20:26, 19 August 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/Template:User Pecopteris — delete. @harej 00:10, 27 August 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 delete. @harej 00:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Template:User Pecopteris Orphaned, malformed userbox B (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Did you notify the sole author? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC) The sole author has zero edits since March. --B (talk) 20:07, 25 August 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:DeanneYoung — blank. @harej 22:05, 10 September 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 blank. @harej 22:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC) User:DeanneYoung Substantially a duplication of User:Lovehere; It appears that this is the same user (not making any "sockpuppet" allegations). The only contributions of User:DeanneYoung was to build this page. Skier Dude (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC) CheckUser. I suspect Lovehere and DeanneYoung are sockpuppets. The Junk Police (reports|works) 09:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Having two accounts is not forbidden. There is no evidence the user has used the accounts in a forbidden way. A checkuser would be inappropriate and unnecessary. Gigs (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC) By the way, does that one of the two is a alternate account? The Junk Police (reports|works) 00:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Huh? Gigs (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Blank and communicate This user seems to want to contribute constructively but seems to not understand how wikipedia works. Suggest blanking on inactive User:DeanneYoung, and communication with the active User:Lovehere account, especially on how to use OTRS to confirm copyright ownership, and what the purpose of the main user page is. Gigs (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, @harej 00:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Concur with User:Gigs per the active user's mainspace contribution (singular at the moment)(said contribution is clearly benign, but looks awfully lonely on user's contribs...). --Thinboy00 @243, i.e. 04:50, 31 August 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:Brianna Lopez — keep. @harej 00:11, 27 August 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. @harej 00:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC) User:Brianna Lopez This has been here for over 2 years, the User has no other contributions. Looks like advertising. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - the user may have no other contributions, but this doesn't particularly look like advertising to me, just a confused looking "here's who I am" page. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Keep It's fine. Not much chance of anyone mistaking this for an encyclopedia article. Gigs (talk) 04:57, 23 August 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.

Recent discussions

2009-08-18

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zazazozo111 — delete. @harej 00:12, 27 August 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 delete. @harej 00:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC) User:Zazazozo111 This is a blatant hoax story about a three-legged horse winning the Kentucky Derby, which has been three times posted as an article and three times speedily deleted. It has no place in an encyclopedia. --JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Weak keep - appropriate use of userspace (weak because editor has no other contributions). –xenotalk 20:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC) How is it appropriate? WP:UP: "pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project" - not to store your hoax story which the project has rejected. JohnCD (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC) A sandbox with which to practice wikimarkup. However, given that this user has no other contributions, I reduced my vote to "weak". –xenotalk 21:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Ah, I see - and I award you a special gold star for superlative AGF! JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - my understanding is that userspace is not for keeping copies of articles that don't have a periwinkle's chance in a supernova of ever being included in mainspace. → ROUX ₪ 21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC) *Delete This user has vandalized Wikipedia by inserting this hoax article in article space three times, and all three times it was speedily deleted. User:JohnCD tagged it as G3, pure vandalism, and as a hoax. I deleted it twice, and User:Discospinster deleted it once, all as WP:CSD category G3. No encyclopedic purpose is served by using the user page to host a hoax article. There should be no assumption of good faith after User:Zazazozo111 has posted this hoax three times as an article. Uncyclopedia is that way, and this would be a suitable hoax/humor article there. The user's markup skills seem very well developed, as if he/she had already done quite a bit of editing on Wikipedia under a different account. Edison (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Weak Delete I could see this being marked humorous and kept, but considering the user's prior attempts to put it into mainspace and lack of other contributions, that might not be the best way to go. Gigs (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Mark as "Humor" and move to a subpage, like User:Ned Scott/Upper Peninsula War which was once a famous hoax in article space. The author is admonished not to place it in article space again. Edison (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete, user has no constructive contributions. Second choice is move to a subpage with a humour tag. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Comment - I don't think we should save this one with a "humor" tag - (a) it isn't good enough: the Upper Peninsula War article was very plausible and lasted some time, this was an obvious hoax at first sight and was speedied within minutes, and (b) there is Uncyclopedia for this kind of thing, we don't want to encourage people to do it here. JohnCD (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Delete If this hadn't been submitted as an article before, I would perhaps have said keep. However, as I suspect that in the future, the user may try to move it to the main article space, then I think it should be deleted. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:11, 20 August 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.

User:UnBrio

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UnBrio — delete Skier Dude (talk) 01:28, 26 August 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 delete Skier Dude (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC) User page is not an encyclopedia article, though it doesn't follow WP:USERPAGE policy. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 10:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Keep - although the user should be advised that as they have a conflict of interest, they should not move this draft article to the main encyclopedia, but get another editor to look at it, and if it is ready then that editor can move it. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Comment - I know there is a Requested Article board - would that be the place for the user to ask for it to be looked at? Or is there a more appropriate place? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Delete (or blank) This is overly promotional material for a non-notable band that has no chance in the main space any time soon. Userspace should not be used to house "unofficial" encyclopedia articles that aren't being readied for mainspace. Gigs (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Per Gigs.--SKATER Speak. 17:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per Gigs. No way is this going to meet WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC) I also added a conflict of interest note to the user.--SKATER Speak. 22:31, 18 August 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.

2009-08-17

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stephen2nd/Sandbox (x) — delete. @harej 22:03, 10 September 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 delete. @harej 22:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC) User:Stephen2nd/Sandbox (x) failure of WP:NOT#HOST, "Wikipedia is not your web host" and WP:UP#NOT "what may I not have on my userpage?" which specifically lists "Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia", "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc." and "other non-encyclopedic material". It is essentially a collection of Original Research and Synthesis about how his name is in the Royal Coat of Arms and the royal Ciphers. Ironholds (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - Wikipedia is not for Original Research or Synthesis. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Reply from Stephen2nd, It is only “Original Research,” until qualified references are added. I’ve asked for specific sections that need such references, but the arguer has refused to comply with my request. I have deleted User:Stephen2nd/Sandbox (x) from my user page, (where it was hidden) and I have tagged it with a {{user page}}, informing everyone that it is “Not an Article”. My personal information in Sandbox X is less than a paragraph, and is not excessive. My user space pages are compatible with the Wikipedia project to build an encyclopedia. My user page is about me as a Wikipedian; and a way of organizing the work I am doing on related articles in Wikipedia; it helps other editors to understand with whom they are working; with information about me, my areas of expertise and my real name. I plan to turn most sections of this, into a number of appropriate Wikipedia articles. My Sandbox X is a storage function, a collection of terminologies relating to the Sciences of Heraldry, and Armory, which is not academically available worldwide. I believe these Sciences are as important as any other Sciences, as such; my researches on these are in my User page Stephen2nd (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Extended discussion by Stephen2nd regarding numerology Reply to: “original research and undue weight towards made-up numerology - conspiracy theory-esque crap - crap I made up in my head". Ref: Displaced numeric sequences disguising identification details on my official identity documents, were issued to me by British government authorities in 1977. [Precedent] A. Privy Council origin; Executive legislation; Current usage; 42 million witnesses; Covert Identification system; Restricted knowledge; Police investigations. In 1972, John Peyton PC, Minister of State for Transport, directed the Executive Agency DVLA; (responsible for issuing driving licenses and maintaining a DVLA database of 42 million British driver license holders), to phase out the old red license for a green license. As UK had no ID card, these were used as identification, by the police to identify drivers. All licenses contained an encoded numeric sequence identification number, known only to the Privy Council originators, government, DVLA, all police authorities and the courts. B. Stephen Mowbray McDermott; Encoded identification; Government database. As stated on my license; from 31-08-1977 to 26-03-1998, I was issued with 25 licenses. Ref: (1) Surname. (2) Other names. (3) Date of birth. - Place of birth. (4) Date of issue. Ref: (5) Driver License number as the DVLA database (encoded*) identification number. Ref: My DVLA database identification number is: MOWBR 506292* S99GJ 25 (issue). E.g. My birth date 29 June 1952 is depicted as 29 06 1952, 29 06 52, then coded 506292. I.e. The 1st; 2nd; 3rd; 4th; 5th; 6th; digits are encoded into the 6th; 5th; 2nd; 3rd; 1st; 4th; digits. C. De-coded numerology. The day 29; originally (2 as the 1st digit & 9 as the 2nd digit): is displaced and encoded so the (2 as the 1st digit becomes the 6th digit) & the (9 as the 2nd digit becomes the 5th digit) The month 06; originally (0 as the 3rd digit & 6 as the 4th digit) is displaced and encoded the (0 as the 3rd digit becomes the 2nd digit) & the (6 as the 4th digit becomes the 3rd digit) The year 52, originally (5 as the 5th digit & 2 as the 6th digit): is displaced and encoded so the (5 as the 5th digit becomes the 1st digit) & the (2 as the 6th digit becomes the 4th digit). I don't know exactly what you mean by posting your personal details here - your use of them is not being questioned, it is the content in your sandbox. Inferring that your name is found within the Royal Coat of Arms and Cipher is original research and always will be original research unless you know of an author/publisher/academic/journalist who has written an article on how it appears. The inclusion of that material is not encyclopedic and has no use in Wikipedia articles. Ironholds (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Userspace is not for extended unencyclopedic speculation and discussion about numerology. Gigs (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Reply from Stephen2nd: This sandbox is not an article or an extended unencyclopedic speculation on numerology. Sandbox X is an anthroponomic study of the history of the names; Stephen and Dermott, which happen to form my name, many other names, including 154m Google references; all 154m of which, “including mine”, can be found on this Royal Arms; motto and garter. By “precedence of third party prior use 1972-09,” proves this is not WP original research. The (majority) remainder of Sandbox X, are encyclopedic historical records of heraldry, armory, and a history of many notables; from Caradoc Caratacus, to the present. As seen in my contributions this research is used for many Wikipedia articles. This is neither WP:OR or WP:SYN. As a neutral arbiter between competing theories, it is a main concept that all evidence must be empirical, “information proven by observation”. Hypothesis: Dermott can be obseved by pivoting fingers on the N of Dieu et mo-N droit. Put little finger on N point L & R 7 times. (Proof of a working hypothesis that is testable). Proving a working hypothesis as testable, is self evident, without any further verification. The “Clue in his name,” article in the Telegraph; was “researched and published, by a journalist” in 1995 - without any reference information from me, whatsoever. The method of finding these names in the Royal Arms, was requested by a Judge in 1997, as being on oath, I have stated the case record verbatim, in context and without synthesis. This official case transcript was “published by a very reliable source,” being “official judicial records.” D. Case evidence: Crown court: Primary source: 1997: (Published by reliable source.) The hypothesis of “Dermott obseved by pivoting fingers on the N of Dieu et mo-N droit,” was originally “demanded under oath in a Crown court,” by his Honour Judge McMullan; Regina v. Stephen Mowbray McDermott: St. Albans Crown Court. Transcript: 30-10-97. “Proceedings of appeal against conviction and sentence.” Published by Barnet Lenton & co, London. P.24-39 [24-9]: Judge. “G II Statute - Prince’s flag.” [25-11]: SMM. “Do you accept that this is a statutory representation of the sovereignty of this country according to the law?” [16] Judge reply: “That is what you say it is, yes.” [27] Judge: “Whereabouts is the name Stephen Dermott on your flag?” [26-23] SMM: “(demonstration)”. [25] Judge: Yes. I see. [39-11] Judge: “there is no restriction on the reporting of the proceedings in this court.” E. Case evidence: DVLA: Primary source: 1999. (DVLA Computer print – Court record) Section 69 and schedule 3 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984; Section 52 Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994; Vehicle and Driving Licenses Records (Evidence) Regulations 1970; As authorized by the Secretary of State, I hereby certify the detail in this document is a note of the information contained in the (DVLA) Vehicle Licensing Records (VLR) maintained by the Secretary of State for Transport. To the best of my knowledge and belief there are no grounds for believing that the statement in the document produced by computer at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Center (DVLA) is inaccurate because of improper use of the computer; At all times the computer was operating properly, or if not, any respect in which it was out of operation was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents. Signed: Sharon Baker. DVLC. The fact that you have proved it by observation is the very definition of original research. "the judge at the trial where I was convicted of a criminal offence agreed with me" is hardly a high standard, and I don't understand why you keep pasting bloody DVLA info in. We don't care about the DVLA info. We don't care if your name IS Steven bloody McDermott - we've never disputed that. What we care about is the large amount of useless unencyclopedic dross that you're keeping in your userspace. Ironholds (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) Comment If I understand you correctly, this isn't directly linked to work on a Wikipedia article, so why is it here? The guidelines WP:USER say think of [your user page] as a way of organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand those with whom they are working.. If it isn't connected with an article (and if it were to be put into main space, I don't think it would last very long), then it shouldn't be on your user page. A sandbox, incidently, is for testing wiki layout and the like, to draft an article - your use of this sandbox does neither, from what I can see. I have already made my opinion known above, but I see nothing in your discussion points that would make me want to change my opinion. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC) PhantomSteve : Actually, you have misunderstood me. This IS linked to my work on Wikipedia articles. Including: List of Royal members of the Privy Council; Royal Standard of England; List of James II deserters to William of Orange & etc. See also > (14:04, 16 August) N John de Mohun, 2nd Baron Mohun. (15:00), Order of the Garter. (19:13), N John de Grey, 1st Baron Grey de Rotherfield. (19:31), User:Stephen2nd/Sandbox (w) (00:05, 17 August) N Richard Fitz-Simon. (03:22, 17 August: Deletion by Ironholds). My (Created by me) Mohun, Rotherfield, Garter, and Fitz-simon articles, on 16th-17th, had no prior references in Wikipedia. I cross-referenced my Sandbox X research, then created the articles. As for my use of my sandbox, I first write my research, then I either put it into a Sandbox to test its WP layout, or directly into an article. In confirmation of my choice of procedure, I have just put my current research onto my user page. These are nowhere near complete, but are relevant to Sandbox X. Stephen2nd (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Well, be that as it may (and I apologise for my misunderstanding, thanks for clearing it up), you would appear to confirm that this is my current research - again, Wikipedia does not accept Original Research. My opinion still remains that this should be deleted. It will never be an article in its own right, and is original research - both valid reasons for deleting the Sandbox -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Incidently, earlier you referred to 154m Google references - I'd be curious to know what search string you used on this? stephen dermott returned 1.74 million hits; "stephen dermott" returned 5460, stephen returned about 155 million (but most of those will have nothing to do with the subject you are talking about) and dermott returned about 711 thousand. If there are really so many hits, you should be able to find information at reliable sites - but you haven't in the sandbox. Please, I'm seriously curious - what search string(s) did you use to get 154m hits? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC) I just typed stephen dermott into my Google box, it is now 1,090,000. On my new User page, it lists the previous counts for each entry on my last search (last week). As for "my current research", this incomplete research is without references - when I put in the references - it will be complete. The article anthroponomy has the tab - This linguistics article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it - I will be expanding this article, historical case histories etc. Dont you concider that everything everybody types into Wikipedia (User space - without a ref tab) is OR? At what point is research not original? Regards Stephen2nd (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Err.. when it's done by someone else. If I type in "William Murray was born in Perth" and the research was done by C.S. Fifoot in 1932, a noted author, and published by a reputable publishing company, then it's no longer "original" - I haven't worked it out for myself. You working out that you can find your name in the Royal Arms is original research unless you can show me a reputable academic source or similar which clearly states that a) this can be done and b) it's actually something people give a fig about. Ironholds (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC) To prove something by observation or experiment is actually the definition of Empirical. Definition of original research is that which is unprecedented i.e. without prior reference. The Transcript: 30-10-97. “Proceedings of appeal against conviction and sentence.” Was Published by Barnet Lenton & co. This is no longer original – I read and quoted the text from the publication. PS. YOUR REF "the judge at the trial where I was convicted of a criminal offence agreed with me" is hardly a high standard. I would agree, IF IT WERE TRUE, WHICH IT IS NOT. This was actually an appeal case against a “PARKING OFFENCE by the DVLA”. Stephen2nd (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, @harej 00:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Delete Stephen2nd, have you read the policy on original research? It appears that your definition of original research differs from the one that the wikipedia community has for convenience adopted. That definition is outlined in the aforementioned policy. Essentially, if your user page is practically a primary source, then it is almost certainly original research. Also, I fail to grasp how a parking offense is related to this -- sorry if I missed something. --Thinboy00 @251, i.e. 05:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Anyone (community) can edit Wikipedia, quote references, cite sources, write an article. The Telegraph, Crown court and Barnet Lentil, created and sold, both these publications. I bought my copy of the Telegraph, and transcript publication booklet, over 12 years ago. I have quoted verifiable references from; both a published newspaper and a court record. Both citing the names of authors; names/cities of publishers; titles/dates of publications: On 24-04-1996. journalist; Tom Utley, interviewed a car driver: Asked what he did for a living, he said: “I do this.” Utley then submitted his investigative report on the incident. This primary source: Questioned by Utley. This secondary source: Answered by driver. The primary source for this journalistic investigation was Mr.Tom Utley on 23-04-1996. The primary source for this journalists publication was the Daily Telegraph 24-04-1996. On 30-10-97. A Judge asked a defendant, “Wherabouts is the name Stephen Dermott on your flag?” he said: “D-E-R-M-O-T.” The court ordered a written transcript of the case. This primary source: Questioned by Judge. Secondary source answered by the defendant. The primary source for this judicial investigation was Judge McMullan on 30-10-1997. The primary source for this judicial publication was the Crown court & Barnet Lentil co. Stephen2nd (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC) That's not how primary and secondary sources work. Gigs (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Can you tell me why quoting these specific - primary and secondary sources - are in breach of WP:Policy? Quite simply: this entire article is Original Research, which is against Wikipedia Policy. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - as per my reasons above. I've just realised that I hadn't explicitly made my recommendation for what should be done with this page. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC) You did all the way at the top right? Gigs (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Oops, so I did. Thanks, Gigs! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:36, 1 September 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.