Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
One bot (talk | contribs)
32,540 edits
Removing archived MfD debates
Line 9: Line 9:
<!-- PLEASE ADD your discussion BELOW this line, creating a new dated section where necessary. -->
<!-- PLEASE ADD your discussion BELOW this line, creating a new dated section where necessary. -->


==={{#formatdate:2010-05-11}}{{anchor|2010-05-11|May 11, 2010|11 May 2010|2010 May 11}}===
===[[2010-05-11]]===

{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Commander Cool/Commander Cool}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Commander Cool/Commander Cool}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hi878/Earth Cabal}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hi878/Earth Cabal}}
Line 38: Line 37:
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Singdaisy}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Singdaisy}}


⚫
==Old business==
⚫
{{mfdbacklog|backlog=yes}}
==={{#formatdate:2010-05-04}}{{anchor|2010-05-04|May 4, 2010|4 May 2010|2010 May 4}}===
==={{#formatdate:2010-05-04}}{{anchor|2010-05-04|May 4, 2010|4 May 2010|2010 May 4}}===
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Advanced Learning Institute/The Gift of Dyslexia}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Advanced Learning Institute/The Gift of Dyslexia}}
Line 44: Line 45:
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing/Viruses}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing/Viruses}}


⚫
==Old business==
⚫
{{mfdbacklog|backlog=yes}}
==={{#formatdate:2010-04-30}}{{anchor|2010-04-30|April 30, 2010|30 April 2010|2010 April 30}}===
==={{#formatdate:2010-04-30}}{{anchor|2010-04-30|April 30, 2010|30 April 2010|2010 April 30}}===
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Templates used for featured content}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Templates used for featured content}}

Revision as of 00:00, 12 May 2010


Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed 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

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: and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
  • Pages in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
  • 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

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

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 May Jun Jul Aug Total
CfD 0 0 0 41 41
TfD 0 0 1 3 4
MfD 0 0 0 0 6
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 6 47 53
AfD 0 0 0 1 1

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.

Purge server cache

2010-05-11

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Commander Cool/Commander Cool
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. Tim Song (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Commander Cool/Commander Cool

Junk userpage with no encyclopedic value. GlassCobra 19:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, A vanity page that is absolutely unrelated to Wikipedia and has no conceivable value for the project. Nsk92 (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE says, "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." (mine emphasized)

    This userspace copy has been created by a single-purpose account whose sole purpose is to write nonsense; no other edits outside of this topic have been made from this account. This userspace draft of a previously deleted article about a made up person violates the policy WP:NOTWEBHOST and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:Hi878/Earth Cabal
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 Deleted per CSD U1. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hi878/Earth Cabal

This doesn't really advance Wikipedia and makes it more into a social site. See here for an example of this "cabal" page at work. I'd like to include anything related to this page, some of which seems to be found here. Killiondude (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There are several of these cabals in existance. This is a continuation of a previous Earth cabal. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 05:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edit conflict) Apparently, you didn't see the other half of the "Our Goals" section. It says: "Revert all vandalism, because vandalism pollutes Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is really all that exists in the world. Igloo is the official vandal-fighting tool of the Earth Cabal. While its use is not required, it is recommended." Doesn't seem to me like I'm turning this into MySpace, unless vandal-fighting has become a bad thing? And really, what harm is there in tagging the talk pages of people that we are already talking to? Apparently, you didn't read the rules, either. We aren't just going to devote all of our time on Wikipedia to going around tagging random talk pages. Hi878 (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your defense of this as promoting a good cause is invalid.[citation needed] Though the cabal purports to promote vandal-fighting, I've seen only social-networking. Vandalism patrolling through Igloo can be done without a cabal.

      "Doesn't seem to me like I'm turning this into MySpace." Au contraire: Classic MySpace behavior. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • Just for the record, the first comment in that section is someone saying that there is a point to this, anti-vandalism, and apparently that comment is aimed at you delete-voters. :) I do understand that you were pointing at the comments below, I just thought that was a bit funny. Hi878 (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • This proves the point that when an editor attempts to steer User:Hi878/Earth Cabal into doing productive work, the members ignore him/her and continue with their social-networking. Cunard (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • That was extremely rude. If you would bother to do some looking around, you would have noticed that after he suggested to make the vandal-fighting more obvious, I went ahead and did that. I did what he suggested, I did not ignore him. Do not insult me like that again. Hi878 (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, you listened to the user but the rest of the discussion degenerated into social networking. Having looked through the talk pages of yourself and the other cabal members, I have noticed that the cabal has led to Myspacing behavior. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • That user has now !voted: you are right Cunard, that really did quickly degenerate into WP:MySpacing of the crudest sort. For me, it was really just a bit of light relief with, possibly, a serious twist at the start but then I slept on it and realised it was anything but... You live and learn I guess. Yours thoroughly embarrassed and humiliated --Jubilee♫clipman 15:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOTSOAPBOX/1. This is advocation of a political message not related to the project. The worth of the cause is irrelevant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Establishing a community of vandal fighters, involving coordination, strategy, resources and mentoring is great. It is the weaving in of an external issue that is not OK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To other editors, feel free to add other pages to this list if I have missed any or if any new ones are created. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's all that there is. Hi878 (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ALL PAGES! Everything that will tie together all the forces in the Universe against vandalism is more than welcome! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid use of userbox. No evidence that it is used as a "cabal" except humourously (like the "Cabal Approved" tag used by some editors). Collect (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi! Did you miss the premise of my nomination statement and the delete vs. keep votes here? It's not about whether it is an (omg) cabal. It's whether it has any benefit toward the encyclopedia and whether it violates a certain WP:NOT. Killiondude (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no requirement that userboxes benefit WP. In point of fact, many are there just to say something (almost anything) about the user. As long as it defames no one, there is no reason to delete. Absent a reason to delete, the default is to Keep. We have userboxes listing national origins, languages, food preferences, what computers the editor uses, operating systems, favorite musicians, political beliefs, favourite colours, and more. None of which "benefit" WP in any way. In short, there is no rule at all that a userbox must "benefit" WP that I have ever found. Collect (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I got involved in fun, and in support of reverting vandalism, but have since seen too much Myspacing to support any longer. Reverting vandalism is a worthy goal, but that is not the primary interest of this cabal. PrincessofLlyr royal court 13:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I got involved simply because the page is marked "humorous" and stayed involved when I later felt that the anti-vandalism via igloo using global warming as an analogy idea was quite clever. However, the !owner of this cabal a) has taken the whole "which continent do you want? no one can be neutral!" thing far too seriously, destroying the humour of the page for me and b) not really followed up on the global-warming–igloo–anti-vandalism idea (which now seems more like an afterthought). Ultimately, this has become a classic WP:MYSPACE episode and, though it might just be useful to keep the pages as an example of how not to do things on WP, we seem to have plenty of examples of that so my !vote is Delete rather than Mark as Historical or Archive --Jubilee♫clipman 15:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a problem with these "cabals". I don't have a problem with user talk pages being "conquered". While this cabal may have initially been about anti-vandalism, it has gotten way out of hand and now seems to be more about "being the leader of this continent". If you look at User:Hirohisat's original Earth Cabal, you'll see that it didn't seem to get that out of hand. It appears that Hirohisat "conquered" pages, but the cabal didn't seem to be about "being the leader of this continent". If the new Earth Cabal can be improved so it's more like the old one, then I wouldn't have a problem keeping it. However, if it just continues to get completely out of hand, then I wouldn't have a problem relisting it for deletion. --Meaghan :) ≈ 20:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look closer, Hirohisat never did anything with it, he made the page and left it, apparently. Hi878 (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi878, I think it would be a good idea to not have the World Leaders thing. That is probably the root of most of the delete votes. Plus, I don't see many other cabals that have anything related to the "Leaders" thing (in fact, I haven't seen any that have anything related to that). I am sorry, Hi878, but I'm afraid that if we want this cabal to be kept, we will have to delete the "Leaders" thing. --Hadger 23:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: although a but of fun here and there doesn't hurt, when it doesn't end, and starts degenerating into mindless chatting that in no way can aid the project, then it's just a nuisance. Although the goal of fighting vandalism is a good one, the level of chit-chat compared to the amount of vandal-fighting seems no different that if the cabal didn't exist at all. Brambleclawx 21:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jubilee.--White Shadows you're breaking up 21:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice Yet more myspacey crap from the MMORPG fraternity and the wanabee hat collectors that have a surrealist belief being an admin on wikipedia means something. Pedro :  Chat  22:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was that directed towards anyone in particular Pedro?--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered that too. Futhermore, what do you mean by "with extreme prejudice"? That word suggests that you have formed an opinion without looking at the facts --Jubilee♫clipman 23:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, but to me this page is nonsense. --Nascar1996 23:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apology and Request I've looked over what I have written and what others have written, and I think that I agree with you all now. I can't believe that I was starting to be like that... Anyways, I would like to apologize for having turned this into a MySpace-ish thing, and if I seemed rude in what I said, I also apologize for that. I would like this to be deleted. There is one thing that I would like to know, though. Would it be possible to restore all of this to the way and place that it was before I moved it? With the exact same edit history, without any of the edits from the move on? I basically want to make it seem as if all of this never happened; make all of it, including the subpages and edit history for the pages, exactly the way that it was before. If that isn't possible, then could whoever deletes these try to make something as close to that as possible happen? Again, I apologize for what I turned this into, I won't let something like this happen again. Hi878 (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this can be done with the oversight tool, however, they don't oversight things without good reason. Brambleclawx 01:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought of that too, and came to the same conclusion that you did. :) There might be another way, though. Maybe... Hi878 (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guess an admin could revert to this revision, or delete and restore only certain edits. Airplaneman ✈ 01:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the same thing could be done with the tag and message, and then all three could be moved back. However, I want this all out of the edit history, too. :) Hi878 (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't see what difference that would make. A permanent mark has been made on countless talk pages and this MfD. It's not like you did anything bad (not the best, either, but we all make mistakes - the key is to learn from them!) Airplaneman ✈ 01:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, whatever. I'll move the stuff back, the U1 the stuff left in my userspace. I just hope this whole thing doesn't come back to bite me in the future. :) Hi878 (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.

2010-05-10

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category talk:Pharmacy/fragile
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Pharmacy/fragile

This category talk subpage was created in 2008 to "park" some template links to other Wikimedia projects, and then was apparently abandoned. The templates used have been modified so the page is now a broken jumble, and the relevant interwiki links are on the main category page due to subsequent edits, so there doesn't seem to be any reason to keep this around even for history. RL0919 (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:TV userboxes
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. bibliomaniac15 04:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TV userboxes

Content should be merged into WP:UBS as a row under Media.
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

2010-05-09

User talk:Jorge Stolfi/Pre-Siberian American Aborigines

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jorge Stolfi/Pre-Siberian American Aborigines
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 Result was: Keep CrimsonBlue (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfied on the 4th of January and not touched. It was showing up on Google until I added Noindex, shouldn't this be done automatically to deleted articles? In any case, the editor, not active for the last 2 months, had ample time to at least start work on this. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Four months does not reach "indefinite" for a userfied article. I think we need to recognze that many editors appear, go away for a while, and reappear. Including many who are mainstays of WP, or who become such. Let's try using 6 months as reasonable time frome. Collect (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - May not survive, but (with a few exceptions) think we should wait six months when there’s even a hint of a possible article.SPhilbrickT 13:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Please leave this article alone

Although it is in bad shape (not for my fault) this is a serious article about a controversial but legitimate scientific topic, with journal references and all that. This article was first posted for deletion on december 27, 2009 and deleted on january 2, 2010 by half a dozen editors who obviously did not know anything about the topic, did not know how to search, and did not want to give others the chance to fix the article. It was later recovered from the trash bin and userified at my request. Yes, I do intend to restore it to aceptable state --- sometime before I die.

It is amazing that even hidden in my draft space this article is not safe from the claws of the rabid deletionists. I have edited thousands of Wikipedia articles over the years, and used to enjoy it. But after the deletion of this article, and several other unpleasant encounters with compulsive deletionists and taggers, editing kinda stopped being fun. I had to take a break from Wikipedia and devote more time to my real job, which I had been neglecting. Hopefully when the next school vacations start (next January) I will find the lost pleasure again, and eventually come back to this article. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Epeefleche/Nicholas Beale
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. The general consensus of the discussion below is that a page on this subject does not belong in any namespace given the consistent AfD decision to delete. Therefore, I cannot restore the better version (yes, there is one), but if desired, I can email a copy of the deleted article. Tim Song (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Epeefleche/Nicholas Beale

This is the userspace draft of Nicholas Beale which has been taken to AfD five times, and deleted all five times. WP:FAKEARTICLE says, "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." (mine emphasized)

This userspace draft of a previously deleted article about a non-notable individual violates the policy WP:NOTWEBHOST and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. It has not been hosted indefinitely. Nor is that the intention. Nor has nom expressed evidence that that is the intention. It is an article that has been received a measure of support at AfDs, the person is a living person who can be expected to generate more RS coverage, and it is therefore precisely the sort of page that is appropriate in userspace. Nom may be a bit too emotionally involved with this page and its subject, as he left me a message regarding this page, and then left me a snarky message that I had failed to respond to him (within a 15-minute period). I offer him a cup of tea ... with a pill that is chilled.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page is being hosted indefinitely because there is no indication that the subject will become notable.

    I take your criticism into account and will modify my editing style accordingly. Cunard (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the consensus of the past five AfDs indicates that this individual will never meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for an article unless something major changes in the world (i.e., if he does something to be famous). If Epeefleche wants the article ready for when that happens, he can always keep a copy of it on his hard drive. But since there is no chance of this making it to article space as things stand now, I don't see what the use of having it on WP is. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually -- is this the latest version? I think not. If not, can you please delete this and restore the latest version, that I had worked on, which is far superior? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The wikitext can easily be held locally (i.e. by any user), and even if deleted is still available upon request. There has been no work on the page since October 2, 2009. Since the original article has been deleted five times, often with lengthy and heated debates, it is not helpful to keep this version. Johnuniq (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per respect due to User:Epeefleche, but suggest that given the history here that the draft be kept in a blanked form during long periods of inactivity. It is perfectly reasonable to aspire to find new sources that will change the facts, but it could be a long time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The inactivity since the content was userfied indicates that there is little anticipation of the subject becoming notable in the near future, and the existing content has failed to establish notability in the past. The text can be stored elsewhere, and the article resurrected when something happens that establishes notability. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there is also a (much better) copy of this at User:Jmt007/Nicholas Beale, which has also been nominated for deletion. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no work has been done on the article to make it meet our inclusion policies, and the fact that it has been deleted so many times makes it unlikely it ever will. Userspace shouldn't be used to circumvent AFD consensus indefinitely. Robofish (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does not appear to violate any policies, and again I consider 5 months in userspace not to reach "indefinite". Note also that userspace does not have a "notability" requirement. Collect (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This is one of the exceptions to my personal six month rule – after multiple failures at AfD, with a most recent decision to delete and salt, the community has clearly stated this isn’t acceptable, and doesn’t appear likely to be acceptable. That is, it isn’t simply a case that better writing or more diligent searching for RS will rescue this. (Obviously, new real-life events or a community change in notability thresholds would be a different story, but we should maintain a salted article simply because that could happen.)SPhilbrickT 13:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No. The creator is just keeping it around on the vague hope that the subject will someday gain sufficient notability, i.e. "the person is a living person who can be expected to generate more RS coverage". That is not deserving the usual respect of normal userspace/sandbox considerations. There is precedent for deleting hopeless material from userspace, e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grundle2600/My own personal article about Barack Obama. Tarc (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jmt007/Nicholas Beale. This situation has caused a lot of upheaval, and it's been decided five times at AfD that the article should be deleted. I think any existing version of it should be kept off-wiki. No disrespect is intended toward Epeefleche, who is acting in good faith. SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As Rjanag has not responded to my above comment, I'll make it to any admin on or visiting this page. The page people are discussing is clearly the wrong page, as I recall creating a later, far superior version of that, with many refs. I ask that that page be restored and put on my user page. Once that is put on my user page, this earlier version of course can be deleted. And of course, at the appropriate time, anyone can nom that for deletion if so impelled. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as stated by the nom. An inactive page containing disputed and repeatedly deleted content. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 06:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Jorge Stolfi/Pre-Siberian American Aborigines
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jorge Stolfi/Pre-Siberian American Aborigines

Userfied on the 4th of January and not touched since. The editor, who hasn't been active for about 2 months, had ample time to at least start work. And shouldn't userfied articles be noindexed by whoever userfies it? Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Duplicate entry n MfD Delete one or the other, I suppose. Collect (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE says, "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." (mine emphasized) Cunard (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Userboxes/Science Fiction
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. Tim Song (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Science Fiction

This page duplicates the content at several other pages (for complete list see Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Science Fiction#Restructuring for multiple media.
--Gyrobo (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

2010-05-08

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jmt007/Nicholas Beale
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 Snow Delete. GlassCobra 02:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jmt007/Nicholas Beale

This is the userspace draft of Nicholas Beale which has been taken to AfD five times, and deleted all five times. WP:FAKEARTICLE says, "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." (mine emphasized)

This userspace copy has been created by a single-purpose account whose sole purpose is to promote the subject of the article; no other edits outside of this topic have been made from this account. This userspace draft of a previously deleted article about a non-notable individual violates the policy WP:NOTWEBHOST and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If anyone wants to maintain a bio, they can do it off-wiki, and this one has not been edited for months anyway. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reason I gave at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Epeefleche/Nicholas Beale: the consensus of the past five AfDs indicates that this individual will never meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for an article unless something major changes in the world (i.e., if he does something to be famous). If someone wants the article ready for when that happens, he can always keep a copy of it on his hard drive. But since there is no chance of this making it to article space as things stand now, I don't see what the use of having it on WP is. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The wikitext can easily be held locally (i.e. by any user), and even if deleted is still available upon request. There has been no work on the page since December 2009. Since the original article has been deleted five times, often with lengthy and heated debates, it is not helpful to keep this version. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As well as the good arguments above, holding a BLP in userspace for extended periods of time without good reason is a bad idea - especially if the user in question is not active to watch for vandalism. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I normally like to wait six months, but given that this has gone to AfD five times, and the last decision was delete and salt, this should go.SPhilbrickT 13:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons given in for "User:Epeefleche/Nicholas Beale" above, though this one is far more iron-clad; an inactive single-purpose account, and a duplicate of the above anyways. Tarc (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.

2010-05-07

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jteam71
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. CSD G11, blatant advertising. Tim Song (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jteam71

Text is an advertisement for an apartment complex in Macau. Copy is identical to what user tried to create a page with twice, so I think it's safe to say this is an attempt to keep the advertisement on Wikipedia. Sheeana Talk 14:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

2010-05-06

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/coords
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 all as archive. Tim Song (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/coords

Relisted on 05:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC).

Also up for deletion are its subpages: Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/coordsA through Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/coordsN. This is a group of pages composed of information from a database dump of a National Park Service webpage from 2007. These pages consist of nothing except geographical coordinates for every place on the National Register of Historic Places as of the database date. Since 2007, coordinates have been added to all geographical lists of places on the National Register (for example, see the Location column of this page); consequently, these pages are totally unnecessary. I've been involved with this project for nearly two years, but I just discovered these pages a few days ago; when I asked at WT:NRHP for advice about what to do with them, I received only one comment, which was simply "delete". Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I spot checked a few, and see that the information seems to be incorporated in other articles. However, I would think it would make sense to double-check with the creator first. I see that User:SEWilco was the first to edit these pages, although I don't see the indicator that the first edit created the article, so I'm puzzled about that. I don't see a message at User talk:SEWilco. Is this because I've misread the creator? I suspect that we will conclude that the pages can all be deleted, but I'd like to make sure the creator is notified first.--SPhilbrickT 15:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tables for all 3,000+ counties throughout the USA have incorporated this information since at least July of last year (we just barely succeeded with a push to add tables with this information to all lists by July 4, 2009), with some tables incorporating this information since at least May 2008. Per your request, I've notified the creator; I'd not done so previously because SEWilco hasn't been very active lately and because this is in projectspace and not at all used by the project. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment SEWilco was active and a very constructive editor on NRHP matters, helping to design the table format for NRHP list-articles that has since been implemented by use of User:Elkman's table generator tool. Before that we did a lot more manually, such as creating all 50 states' National Historic Landmark (NHL) tables (high-importance subset of all NRHPs). I think that Elkman's incorporation of coordinates information into the table generator tool met the need that these coordinates pages were going to serve. There are more than one version of coordinates databases for NRHP sites, and i don't know whether the versions they each worked from were same or different, but we're not going backwards to use these now. The coordinates we accepted via Elkman's system have been modified manually in many cases now. Unless, are these coordinates for the NHL tables? I am not positive whether all those are done with coordinates. --doncram (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the earliest edit history on one of the NHL state list-articles refreshes me: we somewhat manually created NHL tables, working from one big NPS document list, without coordinates. Coordinates were provided later, i think in chunks like here, and we did go through transfering them into the NHL list-articles. One way or another, all the NHL list-articles got coordinates. There were also list-articles for each states' NRHP sites, and i guess it was envisioned that we'd go through the same process. These pages are obviously computer program output working from input of NRIS database including one version of coordinates merged in. Elkman's doing same, but with better output in more full form of tables, superseded this. So these coordinates pages are essentially temporary computer output intended for a good purpose but not needed or used in the end. Also, there is no big history of collaborative editing shown in these workpages, which could be a consideration to keep them around. A lesser alternative than deleting them would be to blank them and redirect to one, in order to save their edit history. But, with no actual use the edit history is short and not important to save. --doncram (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For those who aren't familiar with "Elkman" — Doncram refers to this page (part of this website), which is run by wikiproject member Elkman. Nyttend (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the good editors here have some suggestion how to tag an obsolete work page, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Blue link check. This is NOT a proposal to delete that page. The page is similar to the coords pages talked about above. But it's a work page which was set up in 2006, was edited by many editors, served a very good role in guiding the creation/expansion of many dab pages. It guided my creating many of them, including my just now getting to add an entry for a NRHP-listed house onto Wheel of Fortune dab page. I've completed going through all of its sublists, myself, and would like to label it as "completed" in some way. I think it should be kept as some kind of archive/record of good collaborative effort. Maybe just add {{archive}} tag, with a note? About the coords pages, they do not show such a record, so i do not mind terribly if they are deleted. Though, as space is not an issue, i am not sure of the benefit of deleting them, either. --doncram (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is any doubt about deletion (eg a good reason for deletion, or lack of content), we usually archive or redirect unnecessary wikiproject pages. Don't we? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark as archive No reason given to require deletion, to be sure. Collect (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark as archive - content like this can be easily marked historical and blanked if you want to avoid polluting search results (or left in place if there are reasons people may be searching for this). Also, as part of the history of Wikipedia and how the encyclopedia was built, we should be preserving stuff like this, not deleting it. The option of archiving, page blanking (with an appropriate notice), or marking historical, should be used far more than the option of deletion. Please remember that the deleted contributions content is liable to be cleared by the developers at any time without warning (though that is unlikely at present it is always a future option). Deletion is not archiving. Carcharoth (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.

2010-05-05

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:HHR
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 the GFDL-violating revision. Tim Song (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:HHR

This is a blanked back up copy of List of debaters (see this edit) that was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of debaters, the editor has not edited since Sep 2009 and as per WP:UP#COPIES this should be deleted.

I have also nominated the user page of this user as well for the same reason. Codf1977 (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as it is now. The user had already removed the problematic content themselves more than eight months ago. If the page were deleted now, that would mean deleting the MfD warnings that were issued to the user today. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see and agree with your point, so why not just delete the one pre-blanking version of the page. Codf1977 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:HHR
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. GlassCobra 02:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:HHR

This is a back up copy of List of debaters that was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of debaters, the editor has not edited since Sep 2009 and as per WP:UP#COPIES this should be deleted.

Also going to nom users Talk page as it is a blanked version of the same. Codf1977 (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE says, "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." (mine emphasized)

    This userspace draft of a previously deleted article violates the policy WP:NOTWEBHOST and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Duplicate of above While one may be deletable, the fact remains that lists as such are not copyrightable. Collect (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Singdaisy
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. GlassCobra 02:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Singdaisy

Social networking profile for a user inactive for over a year with no encyclopedic contributions. Wikipedia is not a social networking site. MER-C 12:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old business

2010-05-04

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Advanced Learning Institute/The Gift of Dyslexia
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. GlassCobra 01:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Advanced Learning Institute/The Gift of Dyslexia

Essay from an indefinitely blocked user. Long and detailed, but rather self-serving and unsuitable for Wikipedia. Quibik (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP is not free webspace, and it seems unlikely that the user who created this will work on it further or needs it to exist any longer. - Mobius Clock 14:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now While I don't see a lot of value in this page, I also don't see a rush. My personal view for items such as this is to wait until six months have passed - just to cover the possibility that the editor successfully appeals the block and wants to do something with this that we can't discern. Ask me in June, and I'll support deletion.--SPhilbrickT 15:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST and per WP:NOTSOAPBOX. This userspace draft of an indefinitely-blocked editor will not become an article because of its soapboxing. Even if the editor were not blocked, the content would still be inappropriate because none of it is related to Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Changed to Speedy Delete per G12 EdEColbertLet me know 21:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)) because the information could be useful to improving the encyclopedia, though not in its current form. Of course it's no good sitting in the userspace of a blocked user, so it should be brought to attention of someone working on the Dyslexia article or WikiProject Psychology. If even one fact or one source can be used in a positive way in a real article, then we have a duty to find this out and not arbitrarily delete it because it is mixed in with some original research. It's not clear to me that "none of it is related to Wikipedia" and the standard should not be whether this one particular user will ever be able to use the information but whether any user could be able to add this to a real article. I agree there's no rush. EdEColbertLet me know 12:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Finister2
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. The author has himself userfied the main volume of the content to sub-pages. JohnCD (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Finister2

This user is putting huge long tables of drivel onto his userpage (and spending a lot of time doing it!), which isn't really permitted per WP:NOTMYSPACE. I asked him what it was in aid of, and he responded "Fun," so I think it could do with deletion. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 19:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Responce: I have deleted most of my work. The question here is is; HAPPY NOW. I'd like to point out the judges of this debate that i have Asperger syndrome. No lies, i'm not one of those bastards that pretends for special treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finister2 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely clear how your condition affects this; also please note that this is not a debate and there are no judges. You have deleted a tiny proportion of your userpage, and for myself, I am not "happy now." ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 19:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I cannot see that this is harmful, although it is not a normal use of a user page. Are there any elements of truth in the tables, or are they some kind or fiction/OR? I would suggest that it was moved to a subpage, if it actually has a use for the user. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, it's just fiction/fantasy/drivel, and it's very, very long, and being kept simply for "fun" – that is not what Wikipedia is for! ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 10:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to user subpage Editor is contributing to main articles, so I want to cut some slack. That said, it isn't what one normally expects on the main user page - wouldn't it be better if we made it a subpage, which is the normal location for this type of material?--SPhilbrickT 15:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, he has performed almost exactly the same number of edits on his userpage as on mainspace, and his mainspace editing has earned him a block already. Wikipedia isn't a web-host, the material is extensive, time-consuming and not related to articles. He's not contributing all that much, so why are we letting it remain up? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 15:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not following the size argument. When I click edit, I don't see a size, which means it is under 30k. That's tiny. Unless I missed something. As for activity, I may impose a lower hurdle than you - anyone with a couple dozen article edits qualifies, so a couple hundred is well over my hurdle. In fact, 253 edits to article space puts this editor in the top 2% of all editors. What's the harm if this page is in a user sub page?--SPhilbrickT 15:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not following the size argument—look at your own userpage. It takes up about two screen-fuls of space, and is exclusively focussed on your editing activities. Finister's userpage takes up (on my count) ten screen-fuls, has taken effort and resources, and is simply there for his own "fun."
    I would also point out that Willy-on-Wheels doubtless had over 253 edits to article-space, that is why the done thing is to look and see whether they were constructive or not. Since Finister has been blocked for them, it looks like they were not. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 15:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We are in agreement that the material on the main user page is not consistent with the purpose of the main user page. For that reason I propose moving it. I accept that even user subpages are supposed to relate to the project in some way, and if these do, I don't see it. In other cases, where an "editor" has virtually no edits to main space, I'm happy cutting off a clear attempt to use this as a web hosting site. When an editor has some contributions, I prefer to cut some slack on the user subpage activity. I didn't track down the edits leading to the block, but I did check some, and they looked like legitimate addition to the encyclopaedia. I don't buy the space argument. If you took out every scrap of text in every user page in existence, you would reduce the size requirements by less than 1% (IIRC, the size of all text - article space user space and project space is less than 1 %, the bulk of the space requirements are for images, audio and video.)--SPhilbrickT 16:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to subpage. I agree with many of the Keep arguments above. I do not believe WP:NOTMYSPACE applies here in the same way it would if he was running a blog or personal storage. It is true he said it was for "fun" but he didn't say "only for fun" and I'm not convinced that is his complete answer - that is the answer he gave when he thought that TreasuryTag was asking "out of interest" in his page rather than about to nominate for deletion. I can also think of reasons why someone would want to have that drivel on a page. I think it would be a net-negative for the project to have him (and his 120 unique article edits) leave because of a harmless chart taking up very few KBs (no pictures) containing blue-linked names of Wikipedia articles. He doesn't even have userboxes like most of us. EdEColbertLet me know 19:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdEColbert (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Keep No violation of userspace policies here. And saying that WP should not be "fun" is an interesting comment, indeed. Collect (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said that and where? ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 12:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So to clarify, you said, "saying that WP should not be 'fun' is an interesting comment," though nobody actually made such a comment? ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 20:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The implication I saw was that the person saying "fun" was the rationale for deletion. I take it you aver that such is not the case, for which I am glad. Collect (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's no big deal. Tisane (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Finister2 - I like the idea of seperation, but I don't know how to do that. If someone could tell this poor 16 year-old-Autistic-boy how too, then I'll gladly do it and put this houl matter behind us. —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC).

User:Finister2 - I have taken the advice of seperation, I hope this will bring this conflict of Users to an end. —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 19 May 2010 (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:MartinBotII/WPStability
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. GlassCobra 01:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:MartinBotII/WPStability

Large page (698K), no substantive activity in four years. Appears to be extremely old log. Users most recent contribution was in 2007. SPhilbrickT 14:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Shouldn't someone give notice to the bot operator to find out if that page is necessary? Even though that bot's last edit was nearly 3 years ago, the bot owner could conceivably refer to that page to help program new bots. EdEColbertLet me know 15:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general point, once a page is deleted, it still remains on the database servers so no "space" is saved. The page is a bot generated list of information about all WikiProjects, as was required by someone at the time. Since that was 4 years ago, it seems a dead cert that it's obsolete now, however I'm not sure if someone would find it has "historical interest". The only issue with it that I can think of is slowing down automated editing tasks due to its size, hence I've blanked it with a note about what was there. I'm not sure what further purpose deletion would serve, but also don't have any feeling either way :). Martinp23 18:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the bot operator's assertion that this might have historical interest. Cunard (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Especially since it has been substantially blanked - the material is certainly of potential historical interest. No reason for deletion as it stands. Collect (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:Reference desk/Computing/Viruses
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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing/Viruses

I'm concerned that it's not entirely appropriate to have detailed how-to manuals on the site at all. (I'm not 100% in favour of deletion myself, but think that this issue should receive community input. I'm fine if the result is "keep".) ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this malware FAQ; Steve Summit provided some editing feedback, and of course the community will edit it at will. I wrote this because the Computing Reference Desk receives queries several times a month, on average, from individuals who are asking how to remove malware from their system. Rather than typing in the same (lengthy) response to each querent, I thought a FAQ sub-page would be appropriate that we can just point people to, which should improve the accuracy of the answer and save time for the RD regulars. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely understand the intention; my concern is, however, what if people want to start creating FAQ for their own topic-areas? How do we stop the site from turning into WikiHow? (Also, the pages nominated for deletion here only have two unique links between them, excepting the notices regarding this MfD...) ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 18:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It serves a useful purpose and I sincerely doubt one helpful FAQ page for a topic which is brought up very regularly on WP:RD/C will turn Wikipedia into Wikihow. At the very least, the content that is in User:Comet Tuttles userspace should be kept per WP:UPYES, specifically "Personal writings suitable within the Wikipedia community", "Non-article Wikipedia material such as reasonable Wikipedia humor, essays and perspectives, personal philosophy, comments on Wikipedia matters". 82.43.89.71 (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The reference desks themselves are not encyclopedic content of the sort treated in WP:NOT. They in some measure stand apart from the core purpose of WP, and that's one reason why they aren't in mainspace. The page in question seems appropriate within the context in which the desks exist. Deor (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a useful resource we should use more often, not a hindrance we should delete. As Deor mentioned, the RefDesks are slightly apart from the mainspace and exist to help provide answers to user questions. Many of the points given on the page are almost exactly as would be entered in as a reply to someone requesting virus removal advice. By giving that advice a permanent place, we're able to polish and update that advice from multiple perspectives and provide a more thorough answer. Matt Deres (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Its not in the article space, so that ameliorates the WP:NOT:HOWTO problems. Very useful at the reference desk for answering the same sort of questions that come up. Given the precedent on keeping far less useful pages in the project space, I'm not sure why this one is singled out... --Jayron32 23:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - but move - I can see why this is a useful thing to have - but isn't there a "FAQ" page for the Ref Desks? Seems to me that it belongs there. SteveBaker (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Answering my own question: Yes, there is Wikipedia:Reference_desk/FAQ - which would be a much better place to put this.) SteveBaker (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It shouldn't matter, but in the interests of full disclosure, everyone who has !voted with a time stamp earlier than my sig is a regular on the RefDesk, including the nominator (and me). I don't think that qualifies as a conflict of interest, but I figured it ought to be mentioned - if only to be dismissed. Matt Deres (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the nom that the page may potentially be a problem, yet it is entirely in keeping with the Reference Desk system and should be kept as helpful. Probably should be moved as per SteveBaker. Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but ... why not move it to template space so it can be transcluded to malware type questions? Otherwise it is useful (though IMHO it tends to emphasise the "lets reinstall Windows" option over the "try to fix it first" option). Astronaut (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's too long to be a template. I think it would also confuse new users if they were getting template responses to their questions. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid use of projectspace. Collect (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Reference Desk by nature already seems to have differences from an encyclopedia. At the very least there should be a section dedicated to frequently asked questions which reach the Reference Desk. So my vote to Keep most closely resembles Steve Baker's above. And quite possibly each section should have their own FAQ with a link posted near the top of the page so hopefully people will check it before asking a tired question again. Amordea (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.

2010-04-30

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Templates used for featured content
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 and archive. Tim Song (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates used for featured content

Most of this page's templates are deprecated in favor {{ArticleHistory}}, which includes all those options, and the remaining rest doesn't require an own template message page. Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace and Wikipedia:Template messages/File namespace contain those templates that aren't yet deprecated, and ArticleHistory's doc also gives a good explanatation of how to tag such talk pages. No links from project pages, so deletion shouldn't be problematic. The Evil IP address (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archive as part of the history. Think of people poring over Wikipedia's page histories in the future, trying to reconstruct how things were done here, and finding lots of redlinks.... By all means tidy up and label to avoid confusing current users of the encyclopedia, but don't just delete old projectspace pages when they are no longer needed, as they are part of the history (some being a more useful archival record than others, of course). If anyone has pangs of doubt about pages that may have been deleted in the past that could form part of the archival record, simply ask for them to be undeleted and marked as an archive. Carcharoth (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.

2010-04-28

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views/Articles
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. bibliomaniac15 04:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views/Articles

This list is deemed useless by two editors. It seems a leftover from an earlier period of the WikiProject and it's hard to see how it could be useful now. __meco (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Such lists can be useful in both defining whether an article is directly related to the scope of a group and also as an aid to monitoring "recent changes" to those articles. If the group had an interest in using it for the latter purpose, I think it could be very useful. John Carter (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this show itself in the project discussions, if that were so? Are there any currently active project members that use this list? __meco (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have been meaning to join the project and have had it on my watchlist. The list looks useful, and I note that the Participants page says " To see recent changes to the articles already related to this project please use the recent changes function". And of course the list is the basis of the recent changes function. Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because there's no point to deleting it. Tisane (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a category would be better. And actually the project does not appear to be having much impact other than occasional attempts to canvass support for mad theories. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They should probably use some template to tag the talk pages. If they do, this list might not be useful, otherwise, it should clearly be kept. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This project uses ordinary WikiProject talk page templates for included articles. Indeed if members or this project believe that this list is useful, wouldn't it be better to implement the |attention= parameter employed by many WikiProjects __meco (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=361577646"