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: 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

• 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	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	33	0	33
TfD	0	0	1	0	1
MfD	0	0	0	0	7
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	16	0	16
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.

October 16, 2010

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rdg22/Kate Kennedy Club

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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC) User:Rdg22/Kate Kennedy Club Userspace copy of article deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Kate Kennedy Club, userfied in April for improvement but untouched after six months. Delete as FAKEARTICLE. JohnCD (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Delete - WP is not a webhost, no attempt has been made to work on the article - can always be obtained again if needed. Codf1977 (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Delete. Abandoned WP:FAKEARTICLE. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Delete. Userspace is not for indefinite storage of deleted content. The user has no edits outside this area and has not edited since April. MER-C 02:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Delete per above, FAKEARTICLE. JJ98 (Talk) 04:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Abandoned WP:FAKEARTICLE. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 09:48, 17 October 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.

October 15, 2010

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NerdyScienceDude/You Suck!

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 Skier Dude (talk 01:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC) User:NerdyScienceDude/You Suck! It's just too easy for a vandal to transclude this into the Atlantic Records article. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 04:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Or, if it's deleted, they could write out the markup. I can think of many things that are a lot worse from a vandal-transclusion perspective... Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Yea, personally, I would have just talked to NSD about this before bringing it here. And Atlantic Records is semi-protected, so most vandals can't get to it. Also, someone could just as easily type it out onto a page. Airplaneman ✈ 04:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Keep - I am a big fan of "Weird Al" Yankovic and White & Nerdy, and I created this page to create a perfect replica of the vandalism created by Yankovic in the music video. This page is not like secret pages or vandal spaces (no, it is not a place to add free-for-all vandalism), and it does pertain to Wikipedia. ~NerdyScienceDude 04:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Keep per WP:BEANS. Seriously I can think of a million other things vandals would want to do before they do this. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Keep, for humor purposes and WP:BEANS. Frozen Wind (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Keep Yeah, per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 10:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Keep Lots better stuff to delete at MfD than this, to be sure. Collect (talk) 10:55, 20 October 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/Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force

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. This is an active project page. Concerns about the project's intentions and the behavior of participants should be taken to an RFC or other appropriate venue. --RL0919 (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force The self-appointed taskforce is extremely reluctant to notify on the talk pages of the articles it is considering. It also fails to involve related relevant Wikiprojects in its deliberations. When asked to be better at notification there is a tendency to claim that notification is not necessary. I believe that this undermines the collegiate ideal of Wikipedia, and leads to poor quality debate. It is likely also to lead to claims of "ownership" being made against the taskforce. Attempts have been made to ask the taskforce to be more collegiate (see talk page and subpage on Specific Examples), but these have been unsuccessful. I therefore nominate the taskforce for deletion. Should it shew itself capable and willing to be more open and collegiate in its operations I would be willing to withdraw the nomination. DuncanHill (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC) LOL BritishWatcher (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Delete - I want part of my life back. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Keep 1. Templating has moved forward in leaps and bounds since DuncanHill last raised the issue, and out of all the current discussions a minority didn't have the template. 2. Additionally, there are now a clear set of instructions for editors, including templating, so the issue isn't with BISE but with the editors themselves. At the moment, as this is new, I don't think they did anything wrong on purpose, everyones still figuring them out. 3. Editors do discuss templating, TFOWR's talk page has been full of template discussions recently. Until recently, there was a short discussion on the actual specific examples page, where a discussion was held. Point is, the taskforce is moving forward on all the issues mentioned above. No reason to delete. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I agree on that, that new big warning template (which is shown twice) telling people to follow the instructions and threatening to close sections that have not followed them will have an impact. Whilst i agree that talkpages should be templated, personally i do not see the need to template wikiprojects unlesss we are seeking specific information that a wider group of experts would know about. Changing something to British Isles hardly needs an advert placed in the evening newspaper to ensure everyones been informed. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Reserve judgement - It has its uses. I would like to see refs to show where it hasn't involved the projects. can I pose a question? If the project considers an article and then decides NFA is required, should it still notify the article talk and its associated projects? I would have thought not. But maybe it should. I'm sure process can be improved. I have suggested in the past that it might be preferable to keep all these discussions on the article talk pages, and that transclusion might be a useful tech device to facilitate this. If possible I'd favour such a route. Not sure if it is tho. Not sure i agree with the contentions of the original nom either. Fmph (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Comment What I think would be best would be notification on the article talk page as soon as the article is being discussed elsewhere. This would help involve editors with experience and expertise relating to the article. It could also help involve editors who already know of other Wikiproject guidelines which could help resolve any problem. Transclusion, with the debate bneing held on the article talk page would also achieve this aim. It is quite possible that the Taskforce could decide NFA, when a broader consultation could throw up problems the Taskforce had missed - so it works both ways. DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Delete. The task force outlived it's usefulness years ago. It hasn't a hope of ever completing it's stated aim, of producing a WP:Guideline on usage of the terminology, because the tiny tiny amount of people getting involved regularly simply don't understand NPOV, (and worse, will never ever seemingly do anything about that, such as seek external, neutral, validation of their off the wall and clearly POV driven interpretations of it). In it's current defacto role, as a sort of clearing house for edit by edit systematic change around the use of the terminology based on those same flawed views, it is about as far from the legitimate purpose of a task force as you could imagine, and is simply now providing an extremely thin veneer of legitimacy on what is and always was just an example of a POV push on a grand, if long term, scale, based on the fact the arguments presented are completely uninformed and not in any way backed by neutral community consensus at all, ever (look at the participation and comments in the average debate, it would take a neutral observer half an hour to be able to define the separate camps and their positions - not a sure sign of neutral discussion at all tbh), and despite the use of pretty templates, nobody neutral will ever get involved to change that because of the blatant GAMEing and TEing that is completely ignored in these so called discussions (although the people involved and their child minders like to claim everything is hunky dory because people are eagerly watching out for the low hanging fruit of inCVILITY and sources are referred to now and again, and that's a sure sign something is not a POV push right?) and to an outsider it has all the look of just another tedious British/Irish battleground which most normal editors steer well clear of, and which is an environment which admins are supposed to prevent forming, not tacitly endorse. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Eh! if there's a way to invite 'everybody' into these BI discussions, I'm all for it. The more the better. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Keep Not more drama on this topic *sigh*. I don't see any alternative suggestions - delete the page and what happens to the discussions? And this request is a tad churlish - even though DuncanHill is not a noticeable participant, he demanded that article Talk pages be notified, as well as WikiProject pages. We agreed - thought it was a good idea. An edit notice was placed at the BISE page informing everyone of the process including marking the Talk pages. A template was created specifically for those purposes and to the best of my knowledge, the Task Force has used those templates on all recent articles. So I fail to see what his gripe is. Let's not forget that the BISE page came about as a result of disruptive behaviour by all concerned, splashed all over article Talk pages - the BISE page was suggested as a means to centralize discussions and develop guidelines. It is by far the lesser of two evils. --HighKing (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Nope, we've not done Kurt Jackson. I told Jamesinderbyshire to hold off templating the talkpage/WikiProjects while I clarified which template to use - {{BID}} or {{BID2}}. For the curious, the template was changed recently to facilitate the use of a "discussion concluded" template: {{BIC}}. I'm holding back on everything now, to see how the MfD goes. TFOWR 17:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Strong delete - a reflection of nationalism that demeans the wikipedia (and the world). The task force creates more problems that is could possibly solve. Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Strong Keep. There is a misunderstanding here. Removing the BISE activities will not remove the nationalist POV-warring. It will simply destabilise things again and it will strongly resurface on ANI and a host of other unfortunate venues. On the specific point put forward at the top of this discussion (lack of notification) there is some over-reaction here - the mechanism to notify local pages does now exist - I was struggling to use it a little and now understand it on the whole. There are bound to be some delays between first raising an issue on the BISE page and then notifying the local talk page because in some cases it is simply not worth the effort. This is true for example in cases where a consensus has already been reached about the subject matter, such as articles about fauna, stubs on insect life, etc. DuncanHill who raised this delete has simply been a bit too impatient. None of us have unlimited time at our disposal and I was struggling to do it the right way. Don't ditch a working system that avoids a tremendous amount of heat and battling elsewhere. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC) On what planet would it be unfortunate that nationalistic warring would be highlighted at places like ANI? POV pushers hate it when their activities reach ANI, for pretty obvious reasons. MickMacNee (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Is that what happens at ANI then in your experience Mick that those pushing the delete BI POV get banned? I think not. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC) In my experience the reaction at ANI is like everywhere else - oh god, a British/Irish issue - set *ignore* mode. Nobody has ever been banned or otherwise restricted in such sections, apart from as said, the low hanging fruit. Claiming that this means anything except that the TE and GAMEing is out of control, is unwise at best, naive at worst. Go and have a look at the recently closed Climate Change case and see if all those topic banned had had significant restrictions placed on them by ANI before it evenutally reached that stage. All that was occuring in that was just like here, the setting up of a rather ineffective and gemetastic special probation system. Didn't help at all. And if you recall, there was signficiant community support recently for a topic ban of HighKing when another gamey report boomeranged on him nastily, but somehow that got derailed and I forget/can't be bothered to check why that didn't get enacted. Had it been done, then this TF would already be inactive and marked as historical. MickMacNee (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Delete, block participants if necessary The stated goal of this "task force" is POV pushing. Gigs (talk) Where do you read that "stated goal" please? Here are the shared principles - which parts are POV pushing? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC) MickMacNee said it better in his main rationale than I could. This is a kangaroo court set up to enforce a certain POV in article contents. Gigs (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC) No, it's set up to try to achieve consensus in a fraught topic. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC) While it's not even clear what the status of those principles are (the progeny of that section is, like all others in the TF, a complete incomprehensible mess), but the following ones: "The guideline must...address usage for Ireland specifically" "'British Isles'...should only be used in connection with geographical features." "'Britain'...should only be used in connection with geographical features." are almost perfect examples of the sort of bald statement what would be laughed out of a proposed Guideline discussion if it were put to the wider community, as being prima facie NPOV violations. Still, we are dealing with a topic area where I have seen at least one editor claim that Guidelines don't have to follow NPOV. I had a chuckle to myself that day indeed. MickMacNee (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Right, but those views you've just expressed are not "POV-pushing", eh Mick? Whereas the deletionists are, I take it, from your point of view, "POV-pushing"? Duncan, do you begin to see the scope of the problem you've woken up again? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC) No, pointing positions that violate NPOV is not POV pushing. It is called defending NPOV. The two are not the same thing at all, and if you think they are, this TF is pointless. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Keep This page has radically reduced edit warring on multiple articles and now has community sanctions linked to it and supervising admins. Removing it would return to an uncontrolled situation. Accusations of marsupial courts do not bear examination as the decisions are not one sided, both removal and insertion of BI have been agreed. --Snowded TALK 19:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Alternatives are Keep or Delete and block a load of editors. Which one is the most constructive? Black Kite (t) (c) 20:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC) How many editors just got topic banned from Climate Change articles? Do you consider that number a "load", when the end result is the clearing of a topic of entrenched POV pushers? The number of most active people in this dispute is considerably less. Infact when you look at that list, it becomes pretty clear what shuffling this issue of into this page, rather than keeping it in the domain of ANI/AN3, has achieved. It's given HK and BW their own boxing ring, and TWOFR is the referee. Snowded is also clearly wholly involved, which should colour anybody's reading of his appraisals of the usefulness of that venue, and the merits of other people's uninvolved observations of it. The closer should definitely click that link before closing this Mfd. I've been called all sorts by this bunch of POV pushers in my time, so it genuinely surprises me to learn that I've stuck my oar in on that page just 32 times, and that doesn't even make the top 20 at that!. And 25 of those edits were to waste my time trying to tell HighKing that not knowing anything about football was not a good starting point for questioning the accuracy of a football article, as he engaged in yet another epic TE fest (kicked off after a suggestion by...Snowded), with the end result being unsurprisingly, that the relevant Wikiproject was fine with the article before, and clearly wanted nothing to do with the ensuing crapfest of a 'discussion' once it became clear how relevant their contributions were going to be compared to the usual suspects and the lack of control over TE and other issues, and much like everyone else who gets invited to comment, they infact had no idea why it was even an issue (which puts this supposed dispute in context, imagine nobody here having a clue why Israel/Kosovo/Macedonia was contentious), and weren't much convinced it was once they were 'educated' on it either, the chief educator usualy being...Snowded, who has some bee in his bonnet about a couple of Atlases (out of...a thousand maybe? giving due weight eh...a tricky concept) that have been altered. Oh, and the Irish govt. view, seeing as the task is to draw up a guideline for 'Irish' articles remember, as if that was remotely how you prepare a neutrality guideline. And even though the usual suspects of the TF expended terrabytes rehasing the same points they always do, using the same tactics they always do, it didn't achieve anything usefull at all, certainly no change in the article and no resolution of the specific issue, beyond the rather obvious conclusion that, oh yeah, a reference might be a good thing to have. I think a hundred and one disputes tick along nicely every day on Wikipedia working at that level of complexity, without needing a TF like this, and whch get a good deal more neutral input for it. The chances of that sort of debate for example ever leading to an effective guideline? Zero. So it's really time to get real, time to put this waste of space to bed, and put the rabbits smack bang infront of the headlights. MickMacNee (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Keep. As edit-wars over 'British Isles' have been greatly reduced. Wowsers, I had forgotten all about this Taskforce page. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC) And have the underlying reasons for the edit wars actually gone away? No. Treat the disease, not the symptoms. MickMacNee (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC) The edit-warring was my concern. That folks are still sparring on talkpages, isn't. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Sparring is usually how you practice for a real fight.... MickMacNee (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC) If that should occur, so be it. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Keep. I was initially extremely sceptical about the value of this, but have been won over by the hard work towards consensus building shown by most of the active participants (of course there are exceptions). It seems to me that the specific points raised by DuncanHill have been answered by TFOWR. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Have you an example of such consensus building? I mean when talking about actual WP:CONSENSUS, where one side or the other has been truly one over by the other sides arguments, or has ever conceded that they were wrong in their interpretations of policy? Mostly, in the discussions that even reach a conclusion, which are rare, it just resembles trade-offs, or tactical manouvres. The best I've seen resembling agreement is like when HK 'accepts' a decision that goes against him, but in the process makes it clear that he still thinks he's right and is doing so under protest. He even called for a "recount" on one the other day, even though if you are trying to build a consensus, polling is not how you do it, certainly not in diametric situations. Wikipedia 101 that. Infact, that's the general theme all round really, not consensus, but begrudging defeats, on both sides. With HK's record, I can only think he is documenting all these outcomes somewere, to revisit them in a couple of years. That's not consensus building, not by a long chalk. The very fact that everybody here is saying keep! out of sheer fear of what might happen if there wasn't a playpen where we can lock these warriors away in, should show that this is not producing much consensus at all, just delaying the inevitable. This is very much still a battleground area, much like pre-arbitration Climate Change. MickMacNee (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Just take a look Mick. Given that your thankfully rare contributions to the page have been your own inimical style of polemic I think you a fine one to talk about battlegrounds. --Snowded TALK 21:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Like I said, if you have an example, let's see it. One with an example of your sort of highly valued contribution would be apt, if that's possible. MickMacNee (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Mick, I'm not doing your work for you as there is no good will whatsoever in your posts on this matter. Just look at the combative responses you are making to every editor who says keep and the multiple accusations against individual editors. That is exactly the sort of thing that happened on multiple articles before we had the task force in place. We don't want the sort of edit warring and incivility for which you are notorious --Snowded TALK 06:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC) This reply is the personification of the task force right here. Can't answer a straight question, not least by referring to a policy or an actual diff, and only wants to flap his gums about civility irrelevances, to cover a complete failure to understand NPOV, or have a clue about what that task force is actually supposed to be for or what it's goal is actualy supposed to be. It is not a play pen to stop edit warring, that is a frankly ridiculous suggestion which shows absolutely no clue about normal Wikipedia processes and procedures. So I have a record of edit warring? What brilliant research. Not on British Isles I don't. Nor have I ever been blocked for not having a clue about the policy of NPOV. You want to look at the names at the top of the list linked above for instances of that. No one, not yourself, or anyone else who is squirreled away in that task force pretending that by being civil they have a clue and aren't POV pushers or POV pusher enablers, has ever backed up any of their ludicrous and incivil claims about what I have ever said about the NPOV policy, either in that venue or anywhere else. You make me really laugh going on about good will, when that is the actual reality of the situation, and this pointless reply makes it pretty clear just how believable your claims are, as to what I do, or what this task force prevents. MickMacNee (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Keep. Please keep. A lot of progress has been made over the last few weeks and what with all the SPA's and socks around this project it is essential. Deletion would mean chaos. Bjmullan (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC) An SPA is someone who devotes their entire Wikipedia time to a single issue right? Like, say, the person with the most edits to this project yes? I think everyone can agree that SPAs are extremely bad for the Project. Giving them their own pseudo project is not what most people would agree is progress though. MickMacNee (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Keep. Participants are generally working well together, disruption by socks is more easily identified and edit warring minimised than if the single forum here was stopped. RashersTierney (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC) So, it's a sub-page of WP:3RR is it? That's not a task force. MickMacNee (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Not at all, in fact it is actually quite a constructive enterprise; WP:BISE for example has uncovered a lot of articles where nomenclature is being used badly or innacurately in both "delete" and "add" British Isles cases. It's hardly the POV-pushing activity you seem to be claiming Mick. It has also been adminned pretty toughly and few tricks or dishonesties have been permitted. It's a damn site better than the alternative, which, as Black Kite points out above, consists of lots and lots of blocks, not all of them I suspect to your liking Mick. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I guess it depends if you really think that the tiny discussions in there would ever stand up to scrutiny for judgements about whether "nomenclature is being used badly or innacurately". Take for example the recent assertion that using the phrase in a food context was an example of incorrect 'political terminology'. That's just out and out bollocks frankly. No if's or buts, just straight up intellectual garbage. I don't know what you class as tricks or dishonesty, but I'm certainly not referring to obvious stuff like socking, (which is not this task force's role to watch for and control as some suggest) which appears to be the only thing that is even on anyone's radar here in terms of dishonesty. That and the holy grail of civility - the concept that it doesn't matter if what you say is total bollocks, and not supported by any policy, your opinion is valid if you said it nicely and with a good heart! Eughhh. No, when I talk about tricks or dishonesty, I am of course referring to WP:GAME, to WP:TE, to WP:CPUSH, and to all the other higher level behavioural policy essays and guidelines that are seemingly invisible in that venue. As for BlackKite's solution, I could give a damn who get's blocked, forming alliances and relying on block voting to be heard is not my bag, not my bag at all. That is the true domain of the POV pusher. I am interested in one thing - do you know what you are talking about, and can you back it up with a policy? Yes? OK, if I disagree, please do me the courtesy of proving it in the time honoured fashion of external review.... And that's generally where the discussion goes very quiet. Not counting the predictable agreements and civility gumflapping from the vested participants of course, who have frankly spent so long backing one or other of these flawed ideas about NPOV as applied to this issue that it would be presumably be a great loss of face if they found out at this stage they have been wrong all along. Which I understand is very serious in their culture /Phoebe Buffay reference. MickMacNee (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I don't mind if I'm proven wrong. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Keep - Mick has convinced me thst it should stay. Fmph (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC) And I've described it as a dubious and illegitimate venue where a POV campaign is pursued out of the prying eyes of neutral people who know about NPOV and would be the people to go to if one wanted to justify any particular views about the NPOV policy that such people want to use in relation to it's application to this dispute. So, as a delete opinion, this was a good vote. MickMacNee (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Keep. This is a policy and behavioural debate. Go to RFC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC) There is not a chance in hell that the logic behind any decision made at BISE will ever reach the level of scrutiny of an RFC. The task force exists precisely to avoid such standard processes. MickMacNee (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC) The page nominated contains considerable reasonable debate, and has been barely edited in the last 12 months. This makes this nomination look odd. I see nothing offensive written on the page. At worst, it could be tagged as an archive of a closed project. The huge number of words in this MfD are hard to fathom. This feels like a venue that is suddenly host to a gathering of long standing combatants. An RFC may distill better what the real problem is. What I glean is that people interested in Ireland have a problem with it being described as part of the "British isles". A very good topic for a pub argument. Without having every delved into this conundrum, dare I remind people that we are supposed to use the language, terms, etc that the sources use? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC) The main activity is at WP:BISE and use of references is key to those detailed discussions. --Snowded TALK 12:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC) The only remaining activity is concentrated at WP:BISE, which was supposed to be a workshop for developing a guideline for approval, reflecting the contents of the essay material that adorns the rest of the pages. However, as you can see from the comments in this Mfd, it's only function is now apparently to serve as a kind of holding playpen/childmining venue for the various POV pushers that want to push this issue as an agenda on the pedia, as the apparently only acceptable way that their edit warring can be 'controlled'. Quite why this is the way in which this ongoing dispute is being dealt with as a form of DR, when it looks nothing like what has been done for any other nationalistic dispute on the pedia, is completely beyond me. But if you take a look at the logic and arguments being played out on that BISE page, even in the arguments that laughingly 'refer to references' in it's unique and simplistic manner from an NPOV point of view, and then compare those to how NPOV is implemented elsewhere, then I think it's pretty clear that a few of the POV pushers it serves to contain, actually think the page serves their needs quite well, and they prefer it very much indeed to the alternative, and Rfc or even arbitration case on their ongoing TE/GAME/CPUSH conduct, which has been ongoing for years. MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC) WP:BISE is a co=ordination point for discussion and resolution of naming issues. Some of us hope that as a body of examples is created it will be easier to write guidelines. In fact if you both to read the page you will see that at least one general guideline has been agreed and there are some other general principles emerging. Your opinions as to the behaviour of editors on that page and their use of references is your own. If you want to take it to an RfC or Arbcom then like all editors you are free to do so, although of course your own behaviour would come into focus in those circumstances. --Snowded TALK 13:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Er, do you mean it's a guideline, or a guideline? And yes, my opinion is my own, and it is correct as it happens, according to all standard policies and procedures regarding such disputes. If you've at any point shown otherwise in here, apart from through this sort of empty comment, then by all means, point it out. I may or may not bring it to Rfc, at which point, you will need to explain why you never did so, given the fact you hold a particularly easily identifiable POV on the content issue, and a particularly disproportionate contribution to the discussions. Does your personal opinion tell you whether that would or would not be an issue for a venue which you want to argue acts as a "coordination point for discussion and resolution of naming issues" in an NPOV dispute? And Duncan Hill has already pointed out some of the general principles it has been working from. MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC) As it happens Mick I treat each case on its merits and I've supported the use of BI as often as I have its removal. Over the last few months we've had a spate of proposals for inclusion mind you so that might have changed a bit; there have been very few proposals for its removal. Some of us put the effort in on the task force, you simply appear from time to time, spew out some invective coupled with a few personal attacks then withdraw again just before you get a chance to add to your considerable block history for incivility. Getting to guidelines is an objective and there have been a few attempts to draft some which have not yet reached consensus but we'll get there, With one admin putting in the hours to manage each case and to deal with incivility, the task force has made a lot of progress recently. Getting rid of the sock puppets has also helped and having community sanctions imposed on disruptive editors has also helped. Of course the more ourpourings we have from you and a few others the less time is available for productive work --Snowded TALK 15:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC) This is just more of the same. Attack me with some baseless smears, keeping up the pretence that CIVIL allows people to talk nonsense and conduct POV changes on Wikipedia as long as it's done via polite discussion, and just generally purposely ignore what I actually said, which is if you read it, an actual example of incivility. It's easy to claim you treat each case on it's merits, and I never said you didn't. I never said you always take one side or the other, either. It's a little more complicated than such simplistic characterisations. What I actually said was, that how you decide what to do in these discussions is not based on any community backed interpretation of NPOV that I've ever seen, but is based on your own flawed understanding of NPOV, combined with your own POV on the actual dispute. (And you do have one, everybody does. The key thing about writing from the NPOV is making sure you are not acting on it. And self-examination or tiny non-neutral venues like that TF, is about the worst possible tool you could rely on for checking you aren't.) And you've never once done or said anything to disprove this except make this sort of post, or point to the existence of a non-guideline guideline, or point out what I've already said, that every draft guideline produced by this TF is a failure. Although you don't really get why, despite the million and one hints. And also, here we go again, being fed this total fantasy that the only issue holding up this dispute is socking, and that yet again, the instigation of systematic change is only coming from one side and not the other, as if the past in that regard was completely unrelated and unconnected. The reality could not be further from the truth. MickMacNee (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Keep and review I have raised issues with the process/practice of BISE before (for example, here, here and here). Since then the work of the task force has improved in quality - although it is still not without problems. In the past, these included a cabal-like self image and a failure to involve talk pages. The problem of editors still (often in good faith) pushing a preferred vocabulary around the terms that describe the region is still present - but that is a problem that the task force was established to resolve and as such predates the task force. In my view the task force could be improved by reducing its remit to solely erroneous or problematic use of terminology around the region. It should not involve itself in content issues (those discussion should be limited solely to talk pages). And should not be a venue to swap one set of terms for another where no problem exists with current text. An RFC may be worthwhile to get outside views. --RA (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC) A RfC would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I don't think you're the only one who has tried to focus its activities on terminology problems RA - the main problem in reality is not that, but the undermining of constructive approaches systematically by a small group of editors (some with very frequent blocks in their recent histories) who seem determined to ignore process. It's a great shame that now we are finally getting on top of this, a proposal comes up to delete the task force. It needs to be given more time to work. It isn't a quick process. We are dealing after all with hugely embittered and fractious issues such as the relationship between Britain and Ireland, claims about British attitudes and imperialism, claims about Irish attitudes towards Britain, etc. In real life these have made political progress only slowly and with huge effort, restraint and leadership. It's not that dissimilar here. An RFC may or may not help, but we need to not make simplistic judgements about the success or failure of something that is very difficult. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Well yes, this is a common myth trotted out by some of those who want this venue to continue it's 'good work' - that all the disruption to the process and the pedia in this topic is only down to the crazies and the 'bad people'. It's utter nonsense - those are the low hanging fruit, easily dealt with, and back slapping each other for success in that regard is pointless, or worse, totally deceptive. The real disruption being caused by this project is by the people who have no clue about how to really write from the NPOV, but still want to use this sham of a task force to push through their systematic POV driven changes based on their flawed understanding of it. No amount of pretend compromise or pretense that this task force is somehow part of the real world policital process makes that legitimate in policy, ever. It is no surprise these people are completely unwilling to have their understanding of NPOV put to an RFc, or anything else that would put what is actually happening at this task force under proper scrutiny. MickMacNee (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC) I wasn't pretending it's part of the real-world process, just contrasting the difficulties associated from that. Your perception Mick of the lack of ability to write in NPOV (as you put it) by key participants is not shared by me and I don't "take the side" of the editor or editors you are clearly talking about without naming them. My perception is of (with the exception of some fairly infantile behaviour by a few) some pretty experienced editors with different views and a strong understanding of both NPOV and policy trying to work out how to take forward their views without it dissolving in pointless combat. Inevitably these views are strongly held and so the "utter unwillingness" you refer to is simply a restatement of why we have BISE in the first place. Note that none of this relates to DuncanHill's original stated reason for this delete, which was put down to non-communication - I think we have covered that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC) And your evidence that their is a strong understanding of NPOV in play at that venue is what exactly? Is there a discussion that has occured on that point that has actually involved editors with proven experience in that field? Any certified medcab members for example? Any arbitrators? Anybody with FAs on topics in this dispute to their name? Or infact anyone with any peer-reviewed work under their belt at all, where understanding of NPOV would be key. Has any view of NPOV of this tiny and completely unrepresentative group ever been put out there in an Rfc? Has any guideline it has ever proposed got anywhere close to being approved? Have you got anything, any evidence at all to dispell the idea that the only thing this venue is, is a self-reinforcing venue of total and utter misunderstanding of NPOV? I think you confuse people arguing strongly to take 'their views' forward and ultimately settling for whatever garbage of a deal or compromise they can, or even as we see, accept decisions under protest, which is evidence of POV pushing, with what actually happens when people argue strongly for proper adherance to NPOV. MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC) And your alternative is...? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Take a look at any other nationalistic dispute on the pedia and see how they were handled. Deal with the behavioural issues at ANI/AN3/Rfc(U)/Arbcom, and deal with the content issues at ArticleTalk/Noticeboards(NPOV,Cont,Geop)/Rfc(P)/VPP and CENT. This is all pretty standard Wikipedia stuff, all designed to bring the most numbers of people to disputes, to give neutral and cluefull, policy based input, and in that regard this venue, and the tiny level of participation in it, and the lack of any will of it's backers to back up any views put forth by it through proper community endorsement, has absoluteley no legitimacy whatsoever, and none of the people participating in it has any right to be telling anybody else in the community what is and is not the proper application of NPOV to this terminology, let alone to be turning up at articles on topics they know absolutely nothing about, to 'fix' them. Thanks to BISE, I've never seen so many editors on the one hand freely admit that they have no specific knowledge of a set topic, and then still think that can change the contents of the article based solely on their discussion between themselves. I have many examples where, from a topic accuracy standpoint, this taskforce has managed to turn accurate prose into utter garbage, and has not once felt an ounce of shame when it is pointed out and fixed, if it is ever fixed, because after all, who the hell is monitoring the day to day changes it brings about, apart from the people who think they know what they are talking about? The reference above by Snowded that it has actually produced a 'guideline' on the levels of current participation and clue, let alone demonstrable and palpable total non-neutral interest, is frankly hilarious. Will he ever take that to the VPP for neutral examination or endorsment? I doubt it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Please present those "many examples". Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC) One was changing an item in rail transport in GB in 1930 list or something. Another was something in British Royal Train. Another was regarding an early game of the England national football team. Then there was 'what is a foreigner' in English/Scottish football. And the farce over the PFA Player of the year award. Those are just the ones that I immediately remembered as being particularly stupid, and showing this task force's total willingness to fuck with content it knows nothing about, just to further a POV push, and basically assert that hundred of editors from far and wide in all sorts of topics basically are morons, and have no understanding of proper use of the English language, and this tiny group in this TF has somehow been given a mandate to go around making 'corrections' to their work. I'm sure there are many other examples, there has to be when there are discussions about conkers going on for ten pages, yet there hasn't been nearly as much discussion on whether the ideas that underpin this total daftness have any support, or whether this TF is a legitimate DR process, beyond the usual missives that it keeps certain editors from edit warring and keeps drama off ANI. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC) There's nothing to stop an Arbcom happening anyway, so this doesn't advance this discussion. As for the wonderful outcomes of Arbcoms, I am sceptical - mostly they seem either to shut down debate totally, eg, freezing articles, block the most knowledgeable participants or simply push people into more formulaic and rehearsed approaches. I haven't frankly seen a content dispute as sustained and fraught as the one we are discussing here "resolved" this way on Wikipedia. I suspect though that this is widely known and the advocacy of Arbcom hides a desire to simply resume the fray. Blocks on a number of editors who are most obdurate to proper civil discussion would of course be welcome though. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Arbcom will normally expect other avenues of dispute resolution to have been exhausted. An RfC would likely be a better first step. TFOWR 15:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Stop the complaining & have the Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC) (e/c, to james) I suggest you do much more research on arbcom decisions. I think that where you see people being silenced, it is actually a case of POV pushers being shut down, having been shown to have incurable TE/GAME/CPOV issues. Your views on other remedies, like 'freezing' articles, seem similarly uninformed as to the what's, why's, and wherefore's of such remedies. Your reference to 'knowledgable people' is probably a reference to those people who think they are such experts on a topic that in a dispute or discussion they completely fail to understand that their expert opinion is not the NPOV, and similarly get slammed by arbcom when it comes down to it. Those 'formulaic approaches' you refer to are probably all the standard processes and procedures we have like Rfc that are supposed to be followed, because they are time-served and proven to work, instead of making up novel venues and procedures like this one. If you haven't seen any disputes resolved like this, you haven't looked. Although again you rather miss the point, it is not arbcom's role to sort the content dispute, but to eliminate the disruption and POV pushing problematic behaviour that is the reason why that part of the discussion cannot be resolved like any other dispute, with reference to cluefull, widely-participated, time-limited, discussion, to form a proper and justifiable consensus. (do you see any prospect of BISE ever resolving the content dispute to the satisfaction of the community by simply using this tf? be serious now) And arbcom is not the first step in that process anyway, but part of the point is that none of that side of the process has been followed at all, nor the other side either for the content aspect. But the beauty of arbcom is that, as the last resort in that line for dealing with disruption, none of their remedies are applied without cluefull appraisal of evidence. As such it is done by the people expected to see through the vacuous claims of people of one side or the other, and discern whether particular editors can prove site support for their or logic or view of policy, and not just point to the support of a couple of like-minded editors who all have the same flawed beliefs and understandings. I can't see a single current highly active member of this TF ever passing muster on that score, because it's very existence and current operation is a tacit endorsement of POV stances and POV pushing / TE / gamery. Editors like HK, who is after all pretty much the sole reason it was set up, would more than likely just retire than face that examination. You can see it in his reaction every time the prospect of true outside review comes up, such as describing this Mfd as 'drama, drama, drama', or each time he tries to file an ANI report, and it boomerangs spectacularly, becoming instead a discussion of his understanding of certain behavioural and content policies. At arbcom, if there are no diffs, or they do not show what they are claimed to show, then there is no remedy. So, in light of your final point, that somehow me talking about the long line of established procedures that this page is well and truly not a part of, which if still unresovled finally results in arbcom, is somehow just some big bluff, well, I would wholeheartadly welcome a case in this area, or the whole Irish issues shooting match, seeing as it involves a hell of a lot of the same people all the time, because despite many unsupported claims to the contrary, I've never said a single thing on the topic or the applicability of the NPOV policy to it, that is not 100% back-able by uninvolved people who know the policies, and know a POV push when they see one. This is especially true the further up the chain of knowledge and experience of NPOV you go, of which arbcom is the top, excepting of course Jimbo Wales who pretty much wrote it (although I think HK and Snowded dispute just what weight he carries in interpreting it, which should go some way to explaining what's occuring at this TF in regard to true NPOV adherance and the shyness of some to stand up to external scrutiny). And finally, yes, blocks for incivility would be more than welcome, but again, arbcom is a brilliant example of the proper application of CIVIL - which is not a charter to dish topic bans out to people who say things you don't want to hear, nor is it just about censoring people who offend you by being brusque, it is primarily about stopping the disruption, discreditation, and downright disrespect, that the gamers and TE'ers bring to attempted discussions of actual matters of policy, like 'how do we stick to NPOV in this dispute?'. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC) So long, couldn't be bothered to read. Would it be possible for you to pre-synopsise your response Mick and then just post the synopsis? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Delete. Total waste of the time of absolutely everybody involved. Xanthoxyl < 20:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Weak keep. I really wish it didn't have to exist as at first glance it does reek of bureaucracy, but it has indeed prevented a lot of edit warring. Moreover, none of the reasons outlined at the top of this page stand up to scrutiny. "self appointed" - well yes, Wikipedia is a voluntary collaborative project, everyone on every task force or wikiproject is there as a volunteer and is therefore "self appointed" - those words are meaningless in this context. As for a failure to notify, yes that was a fault which has apparently now been rectified; reluctance to notify? if that were the case, the above fault wouldn't have been fixed so quickly and easily. My only criticism is a minor one: I believe discussion about specific articles should take place on the specific article talk pages, with the pointer being from the task force to the article talk page, not the other way around. But that's certainly no reason to delete. waggers (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC) This keeps cropping up. It really is something we should give some serious thought to. Fmph (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC) It's certainly something we can discuss again. The main difficulty is that some issues are very repetitive across a large number of near-identical (at least in format and content size) stub articles, so in reality it would be better to evolve guidelines for those - as has been said above, there has been solid progress in this direction. There is also an admin-enforced rule now that no add/delete of the phrase can be made to non-consensus articles without a local article announcement using the template we designed, or a ruling on it agreed. So it's getting there, but there is always room for improvement. It's not incidentally all that bureacratic - anyone can join in and the discussions are neatly templated so it is no harder to comment than it is at any other typical debate page. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Changing to that system would make the whole taskforce page completely pointless. the whole idea of that was so our endlessly boring discussions dont clutter up article talk pages. I dont mind the major pages like Ireland having the debate there, but we should certainly continue to hold the discussions about BIs inclusion on most pages which dont have active talk pages, over at BISE. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Yes - local articles notified where needed and discussion held on BISE is best for obvious reasons. In the past we had numerous seperate little battles going on at local pages with local article editors generally perplexed as to what it was all about and full scope for "sneaking" changes in what is a very contentious area unobserved. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC) That's a pretty convincing argument. So, I'm happy with the status quo. waggers (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I have to say that I believe the technology exists for a single argument/discussion thread to appear in 2 (3?) places at once and for editors/contributors to effectively be 'unaware' whereabouts they are contributing from. Its not a case of either/or. We can have it in both places at once. This is achieved by actually 'physically' locating the discussion in a 3rd place - a subpage - and transcluding it into both places. I'm not sure how to actually achieve this. I'm no MediaWiki expert. But I do believe it is technologically possible. Similar constructs are used on many project pages. Fmph (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC) A process that is a complete waste of time for minor articles with talkpages that have not been active for years. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Keep It appears that "lack of collegiality" is presented as a grounds for deletion at MfD. Alas, I can not find that as a grounds for deletion. If it is desired to abolish the group, that is better done through an RfC than through deletion of the project pages and talk pages. MfD is the wrong venue if that is the goal. Collect (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC) How do we mark this closed as Keep?. The Keep/Delete ratio was 13:4. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Indeed, there's certainly no consensus for deletion. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 22 October 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.

October 14, 2010

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Ibrahim Zeidan reports Abu Zubaydah image used as an interrogation tool

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC) User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Ibrahim Zeidan reports Abu Zubaydah image used as an interrogation tool Unsourced personal speculation, kept for two and a half years in userspace, without any chance of becoming an article. Wikipedia is not the place to conduct or store investigative journalism. Fram (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Delete, per nom. The page's creator may have some interesting ideas on the topic, but they are are largely WP:OR. Wikipedia should not be used for long-term hosting of original research, either in mainspace or in userspace. Nsk92 (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Speedy delete as per nom and various sections like this one. User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/Ibrahim_Zeidan_reports_Abu_Zubaydah_image_used_as_an_interrogation_tool#Funny_aspects_of_Abu_Zubaydah.27s_claims. Maybe it was so funny because they brutally tortured him? That funny? No! BLP issues are not funny. I suggest speedy deletion G10. IQinn (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Note I just added the G10 template to the page so that it got blanked. No reason to have such things around for one minute longer. IQinn (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Update G10 applies only partly and was therefore declined. So back to the discussion here. Cheers! IQinn (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Delete WP:NOTWEBHOST...too much WP:OR and personal opinion. As such, it's an incubator for a personal blog, not an article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Keep -- We are not investigative journalists. The wikipedia does not publish investigative journalism. And, as I wrote here, I used a user-space note as an aid to help me determine what could and could not be included in article space. User-space is supposed to contain material that aids in the building of an encyclopedia. Using the note as an aid did contribute to the building of an encyclopedia. It was and remains my understanding that recording my thoughts as to what was and what did not belong in article space was a perfectly appropriate use of user-space. Geo Swan (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC) And why do you want to keep it around now, two and a half years later? Fram (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Just a few months ago new information emerged that, that put a different light on Zeidan's testimony that AZ had been in Guantanamo in 2004, and that Guantanamo interrogators told captives about his torture and showed them the recordings. Contrary to what officials had said previously, it emerged, just a few months ago, that AZ had been secretly transferred to a previously unknown CIA camp in Guantanamo in September 2003, then secretly transferred back out in March 2004. Following this information becoming public it was useful to rethink what could be said about IZ's testimony that would comply with WP:SYNTH. It would be helpful for me if you explained why you don't recognize this as a use of user space that complies with WP:User pages. Or is there some other policy you don't think it complies with, please spell it out. Geo Swan (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Delete My assumption of good faith is starting to wear thin here. Gigs (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST: I wholeheartedly agree with Bwilkins. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Per nom and WP:NOTWEBHOST. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 09:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Delete By this point, I agree that WP:NOTWEBHOST applies here. Peacock (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. ~NerdyScienceDude 00:00, 21 October 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:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/articles about captives that aren't ready yet/Martin Mubanga

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC) User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/articles about captives that aren't ready yet/Martin Mubanga Not really clear why this "not yet ready" article was created in 2007, when the real article Martin Mubanga was created by the same author in 2005. Anyway, the contents of this page are in the real article, and it isn't being worked on, being essentailly a badly sourced old copy of a BLP page. Fram (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC) For basically the same reason, I'ld like to also nominate User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/articles about captives that aren't ready yet/Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani (a copy of the older article Abdul Al-Rahim Ghulam Rabbani) User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/articles about captives that aren't ready yet/Mohammed Ahmad Ghulam Rabbani (a copy of Mohammed Ahmad Ghulam Rabbani) User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/articles about captives that aren't ready yet/Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi (we have Al Hajj Abdu Ali Sharqawi) User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/articles about captives that aren't ready yet/Waqas Mohammed Ali Ayad (Waqas Mohammed Ali Awad) User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/articles about captives that aren't ready yet/Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda Bin Qumu (Abu Sufian bin Qumu) User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/articles about captives that aren't ready yet/Saudi captives who are known to be released, but otherwise undocumented/Salim Suliman Al Harbi (Salim Suliman Al Harbi) User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/articles about captives that aren't ready yet/Saudi captives who are known to be released, but otherwise undocumented/Saeed Ali Al-Farha Al-Ghamdi (Said Ali al Farha) In answer to nominator's question, the publications of the names of the Guantanamo captives was subject to long delays, the real base names of the Guantanamo captives has been subject to great confusion, partly due to the difficulty in transliterating Arabic names into our alphabet, partly due to genuine confusion about the captives' identities on the part of DoD staff, and, in some cases DoD staff seem to have deliberately obfuscated the captives' names, in order to frustrate their habeas attorneys. If there is an article in the wikipedia's main article space for an individual, and a subpage under User:Geo Swan, that now seems clearly to be about the same individual it is due to the creation of a subpage under one of the individuals' other names. It took me ages, for instance, to recognize that Hassan Zumiri and Ahcene Zemiri were two names for the same individual. When sufficient references emerged to reliably tie the various names to a single individual any information on the subpage should have been merged into the main article. Once the subpage has been checked for that it could be deleted. I don't apologize for normal human fallibility, other priorities, causing me to overlook this. However, I suggest that {{mfd}} is overkill in situations like this. It seems to me that there is no need for a nominator to waste anyone else's time, and a simple question on my talk page would have been sufficient. Geo Swan (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC) How long did it take for you to recognise that Martin Mubanga, which you created in 2005, and the exactly identically named subpage you created over a year later, where about the same person? Considering that neither page was ever moved, and that no alternative names are listed, I fail to see where the confusion comes from or how your two points actually apply here. In fact, six of the eight pages have the exact same name. In all cases, you created both the subpage and the real article. And considering that your reaction to a previous case of an article on a BLP in your userspace was not to delete it, but to keep it without the biographical text, which is still a useless linkfarm on a living person, I had (and have) little confidence in the usefulness of first going around to your talk page. If you had reacted to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/review with going through your userspace subpages and G7 nominating all the ones no longer of use, things would have looked more credible. Iqinn identified 40 pages like the 8 ones nominated here, things like User:Geo Swan/gitmo/Jarallah al-Marri. But as far as I can tell, you haven't taken any action on the pages mentioned in that MfD, apart from User:Geo Swan/review/Joan Sinclair. Also, other recent MfD's like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Abdul Haq (Northern Alliance translator) don't give me any reason to first try your userpage before bringing things here.Fram (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Comment The user knows about problems in his user space since at least a year. I posted him numerous friendly requests starting a year ago, to at least add the NOINDEX tag to these pages as a first damage control. I did not know about Mfd's and user space rules at that time. He was reluctant to do so and after six month he fully refused to do this. I then added the tag myself what was a lot of work. After i did that he promptly went to ANI to complain about me how dare i could add a tag to his pages. After his complain was rejected by ANI he started to personally attack me in the same discussion by putting out serious false allegations against me. He was then ask by the member of this discussion to provide evidence for his allegations against me. He failed to deliver and he has failed ever since. That's about how much we can trust this user that he would fix the problems himself. More than a year without any serious attempt to fix these problems are more than enough. IQinn (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Delete all, effectively WP:NOT#WEBHOST; these people are highly unlikely to ever become article subjects. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Delete all, per WP:UP#COPIES biased version of existing main space articles. IQinn (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Delete all per WP:FAKEARTICLE: Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion. All these pages haven't been edited by their creator in years. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Delete all per WP:FAKEARTICLE, just as said above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 09:52, 17 October 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:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/codename Mark

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC) User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/codename Mark Three year old page which hasn't got a snowballs chance in hell of ever becoming an article. No indication why the subject would be in any way notable. No indenpendent sources at all. Fram (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Delete per nom. Three years in user-space is quite enough. The page has no chance of ever becoming suitable for mainspace (as an article it would also probably qualify for CSD A1). Nsk92 (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Yes, per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Delete per nom. He sums it up correctly. IQinn (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE and per nom. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:06, 16 October 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:Master donut/Hipstamatic

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC) User:Master donut/Hipstamatic This is a copy of the article Hipstamatic deleted in October 2009. (Another article on the same subject was created and deleted in June 2010, but I am concerned only with the version duplicated in this userspace page.) Since October 2009 there have been several minor edits, mostly by anonymous IP editors, and some of them self reverted, but no significant edits. After a full year the page is substantially the same as the deleted article. WP:FAKEARTICLE makes it quite clear that userspace pages are not to be used for long-term retention of copies of deleted articles. Temporary userfication to allow improvement before re-launching is legitimate, but this is not what has happened here. (Incidentally the user Master donut never edited anything except this article and its userpage copy, and edited only on 7 and 8 October 2010.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Delete The only reason this exists is because of the iPhone app. This is not going to be an article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) Delete. Userspace is not for indefinite storage of deleted content. User has not edited since October 2009. MER-C 10:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Per WP:FAKEARTICLE, Userspace is not for indefinite storage of deleted content, as said above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 16:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE per all above. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:09, 16 October 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.

October 13, 2010

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Frvp

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 all. JohnCD (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC) User:Frvp Per WP:FAKEARTICLE, old page in userpage space. -- Cirt (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE states: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Because this page violates WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC) I searched for "Richard Merle Brown" on Google and was unable to uncover any coverage in reliable sources to expand and source this userspace draft. Cunard (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Also adding: User:Frvp/FRVP Games User:Frvp/FRVP Strategic Simulations User:Frvp/Richard Merle Brown -- Cirt (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Delete all per WP:FAKEARTICLE. User has no other edits and has not edited since May. File:FRVPLogo.jpg should also be deleted. MER-C 09:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Per WP:FAKEARTICLE. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 09:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Delete all per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:38, 16 October 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:Mysario Reprise (2nd nomination)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC) User:Mysario Reprise This was "no consensus" kept at MfD once in the past. Previous MfD. This page, created by a previously blocked user, contains a list of his wiki-enemies, and an old fork of the "Downloadable songs in Rock Band" article. Gigs (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Remove the list of enemies. Remove the promotional list of downloadable songs. Leave the rest. Block user if he reposts enemies or promotion. What was the mention block about? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Creating attack pages, and eventually blocked from editing his own talk page. [2]. I should clarify, this is the sock of a blocked user that he created to evade the block. Gigs (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Speedy delete WP:CSD#G5. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 15 October 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:Syedwaheedhussain/OnlyGirl(InTheWorld)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC) User:Syedwaheedhussain/OnlyGirl(InTheWorld) Blatant attempt to preserve content in userspace. user even linked to non-article from article space (see here). WP:FAKEARTICLE. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Is Only Girl (In the World) dependent on this page for attribution? Should they be history merged? –xenotalk 20:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC) No. The user apparently copypasted the original article into his userspace to have it done up "his" way, then changed other articles so they linked to "his" version. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Delete, no pass go no collecting $200. lol -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 13:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Delete. It's completely harmless to Wikipedia but it's not needed. If it was an sandbox, it colud be acceptable, but no. Pedro João [talk] 16:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Delete as a WP:FAKEARTICLE per TenPoundHammer. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:47, 16 October 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:The Haunted Angel/Hello, Zepp

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 all. Mkativerata (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC) User:The Haunted Angel/Hello, Zepp User:The Haunted Angel/Hello, Zepp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User talk:The Haunted Angel/Hello, Zepp (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) User:Jamie C/XYZ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Islaammaged126/This user (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Crowstar/awesomepage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Chris432/Secret Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Hogyn Lleol/tudalen ddirgel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Hogyn Lleol/Secret Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Just Add Water/Special (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Hadger/index/Hidden page barnstar 374521 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Hadger/index/Find My Secret Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Hadger/index/Nope (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:KC109/The Weird Duck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Totaldramaman/Hidden Page Barnstar 84736261 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User talk:TemariHyuga/Sandbox (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) User:SilentRage/Secret (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Kaminski825/Subpage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Sirkad/hidden barnstar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User talk:Sirkad/Secret Hidden Subpage (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) User talk:Sirkad/hidden barnstar (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) User:Lunakeet/HiddenPage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:The Unknown Hitchhiker/Secret Link (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:ReinforcedReinforcements/Purple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Mack-the-random/Secret Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Signsamongafter/Hello (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) These pages are listed here. The arguments for deleting secret pages are summarized in the essay Wikipedia:Why secret pages should be deleted. WP:UP#GAMES states that examples of unrelated content to writing an encyclopedia are "Games, roleplaying sessions, secret pages and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia". Such activities are generally frowned upon by the community. Facetious games of no educational value relevant to the project are routinely deleted at MfD." WP:NOTMYSPACE states that "[t]he focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." To the creators: in a July/August 2010 policy discussion (at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?), community consensus was that the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not does prohibit secret pages. The deletion of this page is not a reflection on you; instead, it is a reflection of the changing community consensus that secret pages set an inappropriate ethos at Wikipedia. In that policy discussion, I wrote here about why all secret pages should be treated equally; whether a user social networks or does not social network on Wikipedia has no bearing on the fact that all secret pages should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Delete all - Secret pages are a waste of time and they don't help build an encyclopedia. ~NerdyScienceDude 00:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Delete all Yes, per NSD. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 10:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Delete the whole bunch per nom. -- Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:49, 16 October 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:Zikri marquel

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. -- Cirt (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC) User:Zikri marquel Completely unrelated to building an encyclopedia. Also violates WP:NOTHOWTO. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 01:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Yes per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 12:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Delete it was stuff like this that WP:NOTWEBHOST was written for. 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.

October 12, 2010

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Magyar Televízió/draft

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. BencherliteTalk 10:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Talk:Magyar Televízió/draft This was provided in May for an IP editor to work on proper referencing (they had been making lots of unsourced and contested changes previously). However, it's now October and all we have seen is some content tinkering with no efforts on finding sources - and we can't keep a version of an article indefinitely in Talk space. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Comment the new stuff just added about clocks, here, is something the IP editor has added multiple times to the original article, but has had it removed as unsourced every time - he has been unable to tell us where the information came from. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Keep I just added some informaton. Works I have to do is just adding references, which I'm sure to add before 2011.--125.25.31.3 (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Comment Seems to have another IP editor joins the draft.--125.25.31.3 (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC) I've added some references.--125.25.31.3 (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Your main addition is all the stuff about "Clocks", but you have provided no source for that. You must surely know where you got that information from, so just add the reference now and don't try to make us wait until some time "before 2011". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Also, the references you have added are just snapshots of TV schedules on specific dates, and they do not support broadcasting hours for entire ranges of years, or document changes in broadcasting hours. In fact, I wonder if selected "opening and closing" times for various years are really of any encyclopedic value at all? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. The added sources do not, as noted by Boing! said Zebedee, improve the quality of the article. Because five months have passed, and because the draft shows no improvements to the article, this page should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Saw some references added now--125.25.87.103 (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Not true, I've just edited few days ago.--125.27.55.153 (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Keep Unless it goes for about six months unaltered, I tend to look at that as a reasonable period of time. Requiring that we debate "improvements" as opposed to "edits" would be a substantial waste of time on MfD. Collect (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Well, it's already been five and a half months, and all we've really seen is some unsourced material added - an addition that has been removed several times already from the original article, and which the author has repeatedly failed to source or explain -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Move and delete seems ready as an article now. it is then. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 11:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Well, no, the original article is already there, at Magyar Televízió - this was a copy of it made for an IP editor to work on, but they have only added unsourced and dubious content. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Delete. This was created in May with the edit summary "This is the draft, once I've got 10 references then I will move it to main." Nearly six months later, it is still being tinkered with, and meanwhile the main article is also being edited. It is extremely undesirable to have two versions of an article being developed in parallel, because of the problems of re-merging without losing attribution for some edits. Also, in my opinion, the detailed historical tables of opening times being developed here are unencyclopedic detail per WP:IINFO, and the earlier ones are likely to impossible to source. JohnCD (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Keep and Move I'm NOT the creator or editor, he helped the article but not finished at this time, he added some reliable referenes now--125.25.87.103 (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC) No, there are NO references added for the bulk of the new material, the "Clocks" stuff. The other references added are just referencing trivia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC) My reference is better than you want, I source it from the official website.--125.27.55.153 (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC) You have provided NO reference for your own big addition, the "Clocks" stuff. You must surely know where you got the information, so just add it as a reference and stop this playing around. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I will find some today and stop this.--125.27.55.153 (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC) That was two days ago, so come on, where is it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Comment There are several editors in the 125.2x.x.x range in Bangkok who have been causing a lot of problems with articles related to TV channels over the course of the year, and none of them listens to anything we tell them about proper sourcing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC) PS: To the closing admin - you can see examples here of the the kind of runaround we have been getting from this small number of IP editors. This "work" page was a good faith attempt to try to help them understand and use proper referencing, but it has clearly been a failed exercise. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC) And now they're piling on bad faith by accusing those of us trying to protect Wikipedia of sockpuppetry - see User talk:Ged UK#Are Ged UK and Boing! said Zebedee sockpuppets? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I'm not trying to do these, but I just ask.--125.27.55.153 (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Comment I've added a reference to test card, and finding more--125.27.55.153 (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC) That's a start, but what we most need is a reference for the large amount of "Clocks" information that you added. So just tell us where you got it from - you do know, don't you? Or did you just dream it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Comment Reason I didn't edit in 5 months is because I don't live at my house, I live far away without internet.--125.27.55.153 (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC) What a striking coincidence that you return to have internet access just at the time that the page is under threat of deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Delete I can see no justification for keeping this at all. Any edits should be made to the article, not to a separate copy, creating problems if and when merging is required, quite apart from the fact that little or no useful editing has taken place anyway. In addition, an anonymous IP editor cannot create an article, and creation of what is effectively an article in talk space is highly dubious, to say the least. All things considered this seems to me more of a way of keeping a content fork which would not have been permitted in mainspace than a way of keeping a temporary copy for editing in preparation for returning to mainspace. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC) And if the main article is semi-protected and an IP wishes to edit it, make an {{Edit semi-protected}} request on the Talk page and I'll be happy to review it and add it to the article for you if it's properly sourced. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Keep if the IP agrees to register. It's a borderline article, but the editor can work more effectively with the community if he registers. He seems genuinely interested in our cause, and I'd like to see him stay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC) If the IP registers an account, we'll have no need to keep this Talk space copy (which was only created for IPs to work on), seeing as he'll then be able to edit the real one -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Delete. Content fork in talk space with changes that have little chance of being accepted into the main article due to their lack of sources and their excessive unencyclopedic detail. I'm all for giving some leeway on clearly marked userspace drafts, but this is in Talk and there is no indication that the IP intends to register after all these months. Also, I note that oddity that a second IP from the same range and (non-Hungarian) geolocation suddenly found this draft during MFD and came here to !vote "keep", despite having only one edit ever beforehand. --RL0919 (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Yep, as I said above, "There are several editors in the 125.2x.x.x range in Bangkok...". We've been having trouble with them for months -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Comment. OK, I've gone through the additions made to this Talk space version since it was copied from the original article, with a view to merging anything that looks good. However, what I have found is... A new "Clocks" section containing descriptions of various clocks used at various times, but it's completely unsourced, and descriptions of visual items are largely useless. This has been removed from the main article before for being unsourced, and the author steadfastly refuses all requests to tell us where he got the information. Descriptions of test cards. This has one source, but that just shows a whole load of test cards for various channels, and there's no way to tie it with "PM5544" etc - and it does not support the stated dates either. So we have descriptions of visual items again, which are again effectively unsourced, and again the author will not say where he actually got his information - where did he get "PM5544", for example? Lists of approximate open and close times for various time periods. But they're vague ("closes sometime between...") and effectively unsourced. A couple of refs showing schedule snapshots from specific dates do not attest to the whole ranges of dates and do not document schedule changes. And it it all seems like unencyclopedic trivia anyway. And that's it - I really don't think we can trust any of that, given the author's long history of evasiveness when asked where he got his info - and I really doubt any of it is worth keeping anyway. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:29, 29 October 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/Talk:Vietnam Television/draft

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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Talk:Vietnam Television/draft This was provided in May for an IP editor to work on proper referencing (they had been making lots of unsourced and contested changes previously). However, it's now October and all we have seen is some content tinkering with no efforts on finding sources - and we can't keep a version of an article indefinitely in Talk space. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Comment I don't care, this article looks like it's being left to another editor with same IP range.--125.25.31.3 (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Because five months have passed, and because the draft shows no improvements to the article, this page should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 06:58, 19 October 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 talk:Mgmirkin/Electrogravity

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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC) User talk:Mgmirkin/Electrogravity WP:FAKEARTICLE issue. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PauloHelene ScienceApologist (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Delete stale copy of a copy. Gigs (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Delete, Wikipedia is not a free web host. User hasn't edited since March. MER-C 09:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Per MER-C. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 09:33, 14 October 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:Coolgirly88/barfed/found/that

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 all, including those of active editors. Mkativerata (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC) User:Coolgirly88/barfed/found/that User:Coolgirly88/barfed/found/that/image (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Coolgirly88/barfed/found (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Coolgirly88/This link (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Coolgirly88/barfed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Coolgirly88/This user (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Ted Ted/From (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Ajdlinux/Interests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Bluegoblin7/Sandbox 463 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Bluegoblin7/Super Secret Page Challenge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Bluegoblin7/???? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Wikiert/Sandbox2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Wikiert/b (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Damërung/Private sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Programmer13/hidden pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Artichoke-Boy/Signature Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User talk:Artichoke-Boy/Signature Page (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) User:Marx01/SecretPage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Polarwolf/WoLvEs-ArE-mY-fRiEnDs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Robster2001/Secret Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Winner 42/Lamps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Winner 42/Secret Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) These pages are listed here. The arguments for deleting secret pages are summarized in the essay Wikipedia:Why secret pages should be deleted. WP:UP#GAMES states that examples of unrelated content to writing an encyclopedia are "Games, roleplaying sessions, secret pages and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia". Such activities are generally frowned upon by the community. Facetious games of no educational value relevant to the project are routinely deleted at MfD." WP:NOTMYSPACE states that "[t]he focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." To the creators: in a July/August 2010 policy discussion (at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?), community consensus was that the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not does prohibit secret pages. The deletion of this page is not a reflection on you; instead, it is a reflection of the changing community consensus that secret pages set an inappropriate ethos at Wikipedia. In that policy discussion, I wrote here about why all secret pages should be treated equally; whether a user social networks or does not social network on Wikipedia has no bearing on the fact that all secret pages should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC) #Delete all except those shown to be of encyclopedic relevance (if any). FT2 (Talk | email) 03:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Keep the ones for Winner42 and Ajdlinux because these users are active and constructive editors, and I believe substantial leeway should be given to editors in their own user space. Also keep Artichoke-Boy's signature page because that is not a secret page and so should not be bundled in with this mass nom. I am indifferent to the others. Reyk YO! 18:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC) When active and constructive editors are hosting userspace drafts of possible articles in their userspace, or when active and constructive editors are hosting content related to building an encyclopedia, they are given substantial leeway. But in this case, these pages are not related to building an encyclopedia. All pages that violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be treated equally. I do not believe that tenure, content contributions, and a high number of edits to the mainspace "buys" editors the right to violate WP:NOTMYSPACE by hosting games on Wikipedia's servers. Thank you for catching my error in nominating Artichoke-Boy's signature page; the page I meant to nominate is User talk:Artichoke-Boy/Signature Page, not User:Artichoke-Boy/Signature Page. I've corrected this in the nomination. Cunard (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC) I tagged mine for speedy deletion - it came in the last time there was a squabble about secret pages, and it's only fitting that it go out this time there's a squabble over them. :) -- Robster2001 (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Delete all except for the guestbook. Secret pages are a waste of time, and they don't help build an encyclopedia. ~NerdyScienceDude 00:07, 21 October 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:Interned/Muumuu House

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 all. — ξxplicit 00:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC) User:Interned/Muumuu House Also nominated: User:Interned/Sometimes my heart pushes my ribs User:Interned/Ellen Kennedy Userspace is not for indefinite storage of deleted content (see Muumuu House, Muumuu house, Ellen Kennedy and Sometimes My Heart Pushes My Ribs). User has not edited since March 2009 and has made no edits outside this area. MER-C 09:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Delete all. Abandoned WP:FAKEARTICLEs. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:52, 16 October 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:PauloHelene

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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC) User:PauloHelene Seems to be a violation of WP:USERPAGE and WP:FAKEARTICLE. This is content that is WP:OR and not included in the encyclopedia for that reason. The user is preserving it in their user space, it seems to me, to keep this in Wikipedia to contravene our policies and guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:Fringe and WP:UP#COPIES Gigs (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Delete, Wikipedia is not a free web host. User hasn't edited since October 2009. MER-C 09:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Per above, Wikipedia is not a free web host. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 09:45, 14 October 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:THFC6061/My Football Facts & Stats

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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC) User:THFC6061/My Football Facts & Stats Self-promotional (see google:THFC6061 and similar site thfc6061sportstats.com) WP:FAKEARTICLE. The user has been indefinitely blocked for spamming the subject website. Possibly a copy of content deleted at My Football Facts and Stats. MER-C 05:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Delete No need for a spammy WP:FAKEARTICLE written by a user blocked for spamming. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:15, 14 October 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.

October 11, 2010

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Enbéká/01hi2d34de5n/6h78i901de234n5

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 all. — ξxplicit 00:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC) User:Enbéká/01hi2d34de5n/6h78i901de234n5 User:Enbéká/01hi2d34de5n (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:E9/53CR37=P463 User:Skittlesrgood4u/You Found It! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User talk:Skittlesrgood4u/You Found It! (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) User:AngelOfSadness/Diabolikal Rapture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Vhoscythe/Nintendogs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Aranho/Testpage3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:BB Pacifica/S=page User:Burner0718/Tricked (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:CattleMan/jdhjdj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Coastergeekperson04/ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Assasin Joe/secret page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Assasin Joe/Halo Updates/more (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Damërung/Rewards/The Hyper Hidden Barnstar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Damërung/Rewards/The Super Hidden Barnstar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Damërung/Rewards/The Ultra Hidden Barnstar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Damërung/Secret (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) These pages are listed here. The arguments for deleting secret pages are summarized in the essay Wikipedia:Why secret pages should be deleted. WP:UP#GAMES states that examples of unrelated content to writing an encyclopedia are "Games, roleplaying sessions, secret pages and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia". Such activities are generally frowned upon by the community. Facetious games of no educational value relevant to the project are routinely deleted at MfD." WP:NOTMYSPACE states that "[t]he focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." To the creators: in a July/August 2010 policy discussion (at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?), community consensus was that the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not does prohibit secret pages. The deletion of this page is not a reflection on you; instead, it is a reflection of the changing community consensus that secret pages set an inappropriate ethos at Wikipedia. In that policy discussion, I wrote here about why all secret pages should be treated equally; whether a user social networks or does not social network on Wikipedia has no bearing on the fact that all secret pages should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Delete all except those shown to be of encyclopedic relevance (if any). FT2 (Talk | email) 03:58, 12 October 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/Wikipedia:Request an account/Administrators

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 Marked as historical. Any merge-worthy content can be pulled out and merged. If nothing is left of substance that has not been copied over after the merge a redirect may be appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Request an account/Administrators This is way past old and is now managed through the mailing list. For Tool "Admins" this is not the procedure, again WP:ACC/Guide has it all updated an better than this. -- DQ (t) (e) 23:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC) So either update it yourself or mark it as historical and point readers to the updated material. No ned to delete this. -- œ™ 01:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Mark historical then. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Either {{sofixit}} or {{historical}}, per above. Stifle (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Historical, tag as. Merge, per StWalkerster. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC) It's not that out-of-date, I say merge any useful content into WP:ACC/Guide and either redirect, or historical. Stuff like signing up for the mailing list I've noticed isn't in the guide, email templates are stored on the tool now anyway. Some of the links at the bottom may be useful to transfer across, and the possible errors should be there already. Summary: merge into guide, then historical/redirect -- [stwalkerster|talk] 17:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Merge - per Stwalkerster's suggestions. Mlpearc powwow 02:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Merge into ACC guide per Stwalkerster. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Merge then redirect per all of the above, there is some useful content in there - there is no point in just deleting it, as a lot of work went into making that 'back in the days'! :) The Helpful One 10:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Keep, unless there's good reason not to. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wikipedia:Request an account/Guide seems to be specifically for using this tool. At least, it says "This is a manual to using the account creation request interface." That would seem to be an entirely different purpose than this page, which describes a fairly simple manual process for which the tool is not needed. At least, I don't use it; when responding to requests on the unblock mailing list, I create accounts via [3] as recommended at this page. If this is merged, Wikipedia:Request an account/Guide will need to be altered so that it is not simply a manual for the tool. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:50, 19 October 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.

October 10, 2010

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Subpages of User:Dkpintar

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 all. Note that the pages listed are NOT the ones nominated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Some subpages of User:Dkpintar Relisted due to addition of large numbers of pages. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC) This nomination includes all pages listed on Special:PrefixIndex/User:Dkpintar/, with the following exceptions: User:Dkpintar/sandbox CN User:Dkpintar/sandbox Heathrow User:Dkpintar/sandbox Heathrow Svcs User:Dkpintar/sandbox North London Lines User:Dkpintar/sandbox straight track User:Dkpintar/sandbox single branches User:Dkpintar/sandbox CH User:Dkpintar/sandbox East London Line User:Dkpintar/sandbox Northern (City) Line Quite a few of these are hoaxes, anyone who is familiar with the NYC subway system and its history knows that many of these services and extensions have never existed. It seems that this user wants to make WP diagrams for "fantasy maps" of his vision of the system's future. User has 85% userspace edits. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Delete the whole bunch. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Delete One edit out of close to 1000 is to articlespace? Whatever the user is here for, it's surely not to build an encyclopedia. VictorianMutant (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC) These will need to be deleted at some point, although I wish the 6 train went as far as Brooklyn. However, I don't see any evidence that anyone has tried to explain to this user why the pages and templates are problematic, before nominating for mass-deletion. A polite request that the user move this content off-wiki should probably precede any deletions. (My apologies to the nominator and others if there has been such discussion and I've missed it.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Author notified, nomination expanded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete all per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Cunard (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Per WP:NOTWEBHOST. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 10:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC) So why am I allowed to keep the UK-based maps? If you look closely, some of them contain "fantasy" ideas . . . . The London UnderGround line "CH" does no even exist!!! So why not let me keep the NYC lines until they are finished? I object to the word "hoaxes". Dkpintar (talk) 11:59, 16 October 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:Aditrian

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC) User:Aditrian A fake copy of Agra, no relevance to the improvement of the actual article anywhere. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Per nominator. MJ94 (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE states: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Because this page violates WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 04:56, 11 October 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:Ambirch1/Awards

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC) User:Ambirch1/Awards Hidden Barnstar awards. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete per the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Smithcool/Secret Pages and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Uchiha23/Awards. Delete also per WP:NOTMYSPACE. User subpages devoted wholly to showcasing one's barnstars earned through social networking and playing games are unacceptable and foster an inappropriate ethos. Because a request for comment at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages? concluded that secret pages violate policy, it would be unwise to keep pages that promote the belief that secret pages are acceptable. Cunard (talk) 04:59, 10 October 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:America4all

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC) User:America4all Autobiographical user page, abandoned for more than a year. Main problem is an incompatible copyright claim on the page, including "All ideas, thoughts, images etc., are not reusable unless permission is granted by the author and are the sole thoughts and ideas of the author". Have not tried their talk page since they seem to have left Wikipedia. Hairhorn (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete per the incompatible copyright claim on the page. Cunard (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:SOAPBOX and per the incompatible copyright claim on the page. Userpages are not supposed to be blogs, or page[s] regarding the politics of America, a look at where we came from and where the author feels we are heading for in this new term.. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:35, 16 October 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:Arathi2/Underconstruction

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC) User:Arathi2/Underconstruction Copy of existing mainspace article; abandoned since April 2008 Green Giant (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE states: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Because this page violate WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 09:35, 14 October 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:AtheWeatherman/Vandalism

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC) User:AtheWeatherman/Vandalism This appears to be a vandalism page. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Pages that encourage and condone vandalism should be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST and Wikipedia:User pages#Advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit (permanent link). Vandalism pages damage Wikipedia's reputation; from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:King of Hearts/Notepad/Vandalism on Wheels!: "an IP, while removing vandalism [on User:King of Hearts/Notepad/Vandalism on Wheels!] , wrote in an edit summary, "Removed NPOV spam, obsessively promoting TROLL as vandalism as opposed to spam, comedy, etc. Are you a wikipedia administrator?" The potential for BLP violations on such a page is great. In Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Blood reaper/Vandalism page, the page had homophobic slurs and copyrighted content that had remained there for months if not years. There is no need to let pages that allow gratuitously offensive content to remain on Wikipedia. Because vandalism pages are rarely, if ever, maintained by their creators, they should be deleted to prevent libelous content buried beneath pages of vandalism from remaining there. Vandalboxes waste the time of vandal patrollers who must read the page's rules to see if the vandalism should be reverted. This time could be better spent reverting actual vandalism in Wikipedia articles. The page does not help prevent vandalism because vandals are going to vandalize the mainspace or the user's userpage regardless of pages such as this. Vandals/trolls derive more pleasure in vandalizing pages in the mainspace when such actions are forbidden. Permitting such pages to remain on Wikipedia fosters the attitude that vandalism is acceptable on Wikipedia. I believe that that is unacceptable. Cunard (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Delete all except those shown to be of encyclopedic relevance (if any). FT2 (Talk | email) 03:58, 12 October 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:Blue eyes gold dragon/new messages

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC) User:Blue eyes gold dragon/new messages User:Blue eyes gold dragon/Last change (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Spoofing the mediawiki interface. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Pages that spoof the MediaWiki interface ought to be deleted per WP:UP#SMI. Cunard (talk) 05:07, 10 October 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:ChaosMaster16/Ghost Whisperer

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC) User:ChaosMaster16/Ghost Whisperer User:ChaosMaster16/NewMoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:ChaosMaster16/S (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:ChaosMaster16/Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:ChaosMaster16/Sandbox2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:ChaosMaster16/Secret Life Season 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:ChaosMaster16/Smallville (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:ChaosMaster16/Test (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:ChaosMaster16/The Last Airbender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:ChaosMaster16/True (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:ChaosMaster16/Deathly Hallows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) All appear to be FAKEARTICLEs or violations of WP:NOTWEBHOST. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Bye Bye The sandboxes are not really violations of either but so long as Chaos is blocked they serve no use. Others are old versions of complete or partial articles. Also included is a copy of the pifeedback poll i read about but never actually found before it was deleted. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 12:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Per WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 19:05, 10 October 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:DonDiego/Thread hijacking

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC) User:DonDiego/Thread hijacking Abandoned for a full year, user retired. Only sources are other forums. Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete If the user has retired, there's no reason to keep it up anymore, especially if WP:FAKEARTICLE. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE states: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Because this page violates WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 04:55, 11 October 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:Dp67/Sandboxes/rail-terms

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC) User:Dp67/Sandboxes/rail-terms User talk:Dp67/Sandboxes/rail-terms/to do (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) User talk:Dp67/Sandboxes/rail-terms (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) User:Dp67/Sandboxes/North American railroad signals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Dp67/Sandboxes/Patapsco State Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Dp67/Sandboxes/Patapsco swinging bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Dp67/Sandboxes/Patuxent River State Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Dp67/Sandboxes/Relay, Maryland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Dp67/Sandboxes/Thomas Viaduct (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Dp67/Sandboxes/Dieselloco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Dp67/Sandboxes/Bloede Dam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Dp67/Sandboxes/NNYX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) All of them, in some form or another, go astray of WP:UP#COPIES. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete all WP:FAKEARTICLE states: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Because these pages violate WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE, they should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete all Per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 12:30, 14 October 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:Dubaduba/ARAB GEO

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC) User:Dubaduba/ARAB GEO Unused and unnecessary pairing of two navigation templates; abandoned since May 2005 Green Giant (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Seems abandoned, unnecessary. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 16:18, 16 October 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:Edmundwoods/Infobox country

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 Beeblebrox (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC) User:Edmundwoods/Infobox country Last edited for encyclopedic content in June 2007; unlikely to be used in place of {{Infobox country}} Green Giant (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete I agree with the nominator that this page, which hasn't been edited for over three years, should be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST. If this were a userspace draft, WP:FAKEARTICLE would apply to it. Cunard (talk) 06:49, 19 October 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:Exacerbation/1231352412

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC) User:Exacerbation/1231352412 User:Exacerbation/1231352412/Format (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Spoofing the Mediawiki Interface. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Pages that spoof the MediaWiki ought to be deleted per WP:UP#SMI. Cunard (talk) 05:06, 10 October 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:Geo Swan/review

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 for procedural reasons. Pages should be nominated individually or in small related groups, not by pointing to a list of prefix search results. --RL0919 (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC) User:Geo Swan/review Special:PrefixIndex/User:Geo Swan/review Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:Geo Swan/review All of these appear to be abandoned BLP FAKEARTICLEs of one form or another. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Did you notify the User of this discussion? 216.93.213.191 (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Speedy (procedural) keep, Geoswan is an active editor and this nom refers with way too vague statement to a whole 'prefixed' subsection of their userspace. The one page that was actually taged is a working page. Not to mention that user has not been contacted neither before nor after nomination. There may or may not be problematic pages there but this is not the right way to go about it. --Tikiwont (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Keep -- Thanks to Tikiwont for advising me of this nomination. Yes, these are working pages. Yes, the nominator did not communicate any concerns to me prior to the nomination. Nor did they advise me of the nomination, following the nomination. It has been my intention to use the subpages in user-space in a manner consistent with WP:User pages, and all other policies. I believe I have done so. If any contributor thinks there are particular pages I have worked on that don't comply with policy I encourage them to leave me a note on my talk page. I add additional references to the subpages under User:Geo Swan. Sometimes I think I have added enough information to those subpages to justify moving them back to article space. My contribution history shows this. My contribution history shows that I have made something like 10,000 edits on the rough notes under User:Geo Swan. Subpages that don't show any edits may still be used, because I have opened them up to cannibalize perfectly valid references for use elsewhere. The __NOINDEX__ directive protects all these subpages from being found by innocent web-searches. I do not believe WP:FAKEARTICLE is meant to proscribe working on former articles that can't be seen due to the __NOINDEX__ directive. I believe it is meant to proscribe leaving former articles in user space in a way that leaves them visible to innocent readers and those using search engines. One interpretation of this nomination is that the nominator meant to suggest that I have invited non-wikipedia contributors to go to these sub-pages, as part of a project at cross purposes to the goals of the wikipedia. For the record, no I have not invited outsiders to use the rough notes I prepared under User:Geo Swan as part of a project at cross purposes to those of the wikipedia. Nor have I invited outsiders to visit those subpages for purposes consistent with the goals of the wikipedia. I have not invited outsiders to visit those pages at all. Geo Swan (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Well the nom tagged the orphaned talk page User talk:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Abdul Haq (Northern Alliance translator) and I deleted it. Looking at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Abdul Haq (Northern Alliance translator) or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/review/Yusef Abdel Majeed, it is not that far-fetched to assume that some other material would be deleted after MFD. You may disagree with the Mfd outcomes but I read there that the Noindex / private workspace argument alone will not be sufficient to keep all of them. My suggestion would be either to look for a more private work space or to prune it yourself, singling out reusable neutral material and possible article candidates on one hand and mark other stuff for deletion yourself.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Keep all, tag individual pages. I agree that many pages in the user space of Geo Swan, while not created with any devious intentions, should be deleted anyway. They are often BLPs, either very negative ones (suspected Al Qaida members and the like), or about rather non notable persons. Pages like User:Geo Swan/Talat Hamdani don't give the impression of being worked on, nor of having any chance of becoming an article. User:Geo Swan/review/Joan Sinclair was userfied two years ago, and is still an unsourced BLP. Something like User:Geo Swan/Hamesh Gul is a clear WP:BLP1E, with only a single source about it. User:Geo Swan/Riyadh Abd Al-Aziz Almujahid wa a disgrace, and I have now speedy deleted it as a G10 article. All userspace pages by Geo Swan need checking (though many will remain as unproblematic), and it would indeed be best if Geo Swan started this process himself. Fram (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Continued... User:Geo Swan/Jennifer Tharp: three years old, abandoned page with no reliable independent sources about the subject. What's the use in keeping this around? Please keep in mind that while "noindex" removes pages from Google searches and the like, they still show up on internal Wikipedia searches. E.g. looking for "Jennifer Tharp" gives the Geo Swan page as the second result after the Dental care of Guantanamo Bay detainees article (and one can question whether we should have that article...). The fact that Geo Swan refuses to even have the "userspace draft" template on his articles (e.g. here and see this for background: User:Geo Swan/excising redundant userspace draft templates) makes deletion even more necessary for every problematic page. Fram (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Your interpretion of the intent of __NOINDEX__, {{userspace draft}} and WP:FAKEARTICLE differs from mine. I believe various subpages under User:Geo Swan could be useful to anyone interested in working on the articles I work on. Some of them are potentially extremely useful. You suggested above that other contributors might find pages in user space I created when using the wikipedia's own search feature. Well, normally, wouldn't those whose searches turned up these pages be potential collaborators? Are you suggesting that potentially useful pages should be hidden from potential collaborators? You have stated or implied that nothing should be kept in user space that couldn't realistically end up as an article in the main space. I do not believe that is what WP:User pages says. The second sentence of WP:User pages says: "Their main uses are communications, discussions, notices, trial workings and drafts, notes, and (limited) self disclosure if desired." The page of notes I use most often is User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/Guantanamo_captives_list_of_release_dates. I compiled it for my use. I consult it when updating captives' current status. After using it for a year I realized that with a little tuning up, a portion of it might be generally useful, in article space. I didn't move it. I forked it, created Timeline of the release and transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees, and kept the original user space note in user space, because it has a subsection where I list the captives, by bunches, as they were released. I believe that notes like this are completely compliant with WP:User pages, and all other policies. I believe they are at least as useful, for building an encyclopedia, as the social networking some people place in user space. And, if I understand your intent, pages of notes like this would not be allowed in user space. I had no idea for the first 11 and a half months I used that page that I would fork an article from it. But I used it to help construct articles in article space -- which I believe is what our policies require. Geo Swan (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Your userspace is filled with tons of pages that have the look and feel of articles, not notes. Many of them are former articles which were deleted through AfD, userfied and then abandoned. Many others are drafts of pages that ended up in the mainspace, and remain abandoned and in a different form than the mainspace article. A third category are pages that are directly or indirectly about BLPs, which have no chance of ever becoming an article, and where the use of having text describing potentially contentious material about a BLP (generally either their relation to the US Army and Guantanamo, or their relation to Al Qaida) is of no potential use for other articles (some of the links may be useful, but should under no circumstances be kpet and presented the way they are now). Finally, there are two groups of userspace pages you have, articles-in-the-making and true notes-to-be-used-on-other-pages, which aren't a problem. My comments, deletion nominations, and so on, have all been about the first three categories, where you had taken prior to this MfD no action to clean it, despite a number of individual MfDs highlighting these problems. You now finally seem to be taking some action in cleaning up these pages yourself, instead of waiting for other users to do your job, and then complaining when they don't do it in the way that you prefer... Fram (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC) What Fram said. I went through his userspace a week or two ago, and there is some stuff that needs to go. But most of it is fine. We are going to have to do it one at a time. Gigs (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC) What Fram said. These pages need to be evaluated and tagged individually. A much bigger problem, however, is that Geo Swan has created literally hundreds of such articles on entirely non-notable/marginally notable subjects, often with negative BLP aspects, that have been sitting in the mainspace for 3-4 years and are still there. It seems to me that removing that stuff from mainspace should be a higher priority than dealing with the problematic pages in his userspace. Nsk92 (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Keep but give Geo a reasonable time to ad sources before deleting individual pagers. He is capable of doing this. I do not think they fall under fakearticle, as they are genuine efforts by an excellent contributor to make articles, and a great many of his articles stand perfectly well in AfD . That he has not done this previously is primarily due to his almost sole responsibility for constructive work on the articles in this entire area. Many people have attacked them, only he has been willing to go tho the much greater effort of actually working on them, and it takes a while. There is no time limit for improvements--that's always been a basic principle, and proposals otherwise have been consistently rejected. If anyone has called attention to them at all, its the nominator; they would otherwise be almost unfindable, as they are noindexed. Additionally, and this is something I have very rarely said, I doubt the good faith of the nominator, for, had they been honestly concerned with BLP issues, they would have alerted the editor first about the problem, or they would at the very least have notified him afterwards. (Could it be ignorance? their user page User:TeleComNasSprVen and their slightly more conventional actual user page, hidden away at User:TeleComNasSprVen/userpage might indicate this, but their contribution history is extensive--and some of their very early edits seem to be on rather recondite internal Wikipedia space pages like thisor warnings like this where he shows good awareness of WP policy.) DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC) What Fram said. The __noindex__ tag is just a painkiller that does not fix the problem. Not all search engines abide by the tag and as Fram has show there are enough ways to end up at these pages. I can also confirm that he repeatedly removes the "userspace draft" template from these pages. It should be noted that he has over 1000 pages in his user space and large groups of them do collide with WP:USER, WP:UP#NOT, WP:FAKEARTICLE. No matter if they have the noindex or the user space template many of them should be deleted according to our policies. The nominator who started of this discussion has made a good faith attempt to fix the problem but i think his criteria for grouping are not the right ones. Considering the huge amount of pages i agree with the nominator that we may have to group them for deletion. 1) Articles that where previously deleted are not worked on or have little chance of returning to main space: [4]... there are more. These and similar pages should be deleted per WP:FAKEARTICLE. 2) Articles that are copies of existing main space articles: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]... there are tons more but i stop here for the moment . There are even multiple copies of one and the same main space article. copy 1, copy 2, of the long standing main space article Algerian Six and others. All these pages are copies of exiting main space aricles, often they are biased negative BLP's. I think all pages that are copies of existing main space articles in his User space should be deleted per WP:UP#COPIES. 3) WP:UP#POLEMIC (including material that have been compiled for conflict resolution but was not used in a timely manner: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]... I personally would not stick to such content forever but if somebody really wants than they should save it on their home computer. These and similar pages should be deleted per WP:UP#POLEMIC. 4) BLP's that are negative with insufficient sourcing or BLP's and articles that have little chance of becoming main space articles: [55], [56], [57]... These and similar article should be deleted because of our BLP policies and WP:UP#NO. 5) Because of the fact that almost all of the material under his user space is about Guantanamo or the "War on terror" - what is a controversial topic - i suggest the user should agree that all the remaining pages should carry either the template "Userspace draft" or "Userspace notes" and the user should not remove these templates as he has done in the past. Delete 1-4 Do we need to have a single MfD for each of the hundreds of problematic pages? IQinn (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC) I'm going to challenge this in detail. if not clear, I mean these numbers to correspond to the numbered groups of material or arguments just above DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I am not prepared to predict what has little chance of returning to main space. The charge that they are little worked on has been answered--Geo has a great many articles to do. Come to think of it, I agree that these are not needed, and he should be left to request deletion on his own for the ones that contain no additional material. What you are saying implies, of course, that you think there is no likely reason to challenge the mainspace articles. We normally remove such pages, but the current MfD suggests to me that they are very likely going to be needed in conflict resolution. If there is any chance that they can be improved, he should be given the chance to improve them. Everything in user space is mby its nature a user draft, not encyclopedic content. Personally, I am beginning to wonder from the above analysis whether mfds and comments like this are intended to discourage him from using the material to improve content. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC) I am going to challenge your challenge in detail. Rather than using content related arguments you used personal. In response to that i can only say that i have seen you supporting him in almost all Guantanamo/"War on terror" related discussions (50+). Steven_Dale_Green was deleted at Afd. Geo Swan has moved almost all (50+) articles that were deleted to his user space. User space is not our Deletionpedia. It seems to me that you agree that these pages should be deleted. So it should be done. The user has shown little attempt to clean up the mess in a timely manner. The stuff has not been used and most of it is so old that it is clear it will never. You suggest to have a single Mfd on each page? Did you have a look at these pages? You suggest single Mfd's would be better than deleting them in groups? There are so many problematic pages in his user space that this would be a very time consuming process. I think what you say is obvious and irrelevant and misses the point. Of course, for you as an year long contributer it is easy to figure that out, not for most of our readers. This is almost all highly controversial, often biased or unreliable material about Guantanamo and the "War on terror". We are not speaking about Pokemon pages. It would be irresponsible not to have the "Userspace draft" or "Userspace notes" on them and the user should not remove them as he has done in the past. Personally i am beginning to wonder if there is a pattern here? I have seen 50+ Guantanamo/"War on terror" Afd/Mfd's. In almost all of them the nominator got personally attacked by a small group of people. IQinn (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC) DGG, the intention (at least by me) is not to discourage him from improving content, but to follow our general policies and guidelines, like not creating articles that fail WP:BLP1E (like Jay Alan Liotta, which he just expanded but still is a clear BLP1E), or to create articles (even in userspace) on utterly non notable entities, like User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/codename Mark. He is aware of the problems people have with such articles, he is aware that many of his articles are redirected, deleted, userfied, ..., but he doesn't seem to change anything in his behaviour. Perhaps, apart from many MfDs and AfDs, an RfCU will become necessary as well? Just look at an article he moved yesterday to make the title very slightly less BLP-offending: User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/AMC's errors. Why would any experienced editor want to keep such a piece of WP:OR, attacking a BLP, around? Fram (talk) 07:08, 13 October 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:Indra Shann

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC) User:Indra Shann A fake copy of the deleted page Indra Shann with relatively no significant improvement over the past month. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Page is a fake copy of the page Indra Shann with relatively no significant improvement over the past month. MJ94 (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete. Userspace is not for indefinite storage of deleted content. Unsourced BLP. Appears self-promotional. User has no other edits outside this topic area. (The article in question is Indra shann). MER-C 09:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Per above, self-promotional content. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:21, 14 October 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:Jamey Littlejohn

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC) User:Jamey Littlejohn Per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Userpage is an exact copy of Louise Raggio, also created by the same user. MJ94 (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE states: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Because this page violate WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion. The user concerned has no edits outside this area. MER-C 09:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Per WP:FAKEARTICLE. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 09:36, 14 October 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:Nextil/:D

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 all. — ξxplicit 00:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC) User:Nextil/:D User talk:Nextil/:D (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) User:Power Slave/STITHP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Pupster21/moo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Pupster21/Period (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Rebelyell2006/Other Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:RC-0722/Metabee's favorite tree (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:RobHoitt/3/2/4/3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:RobHoitt/1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:RobHoitt/1/1/1/1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:RobHoitt/1/1/1/4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:RobHoitt/3/2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:RobHoitt/1/1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:RobHoitt/1/1/1/2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:RobHoitt/1/1/1/5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:RobHoitt/3/2/4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:RobHoitt/1/1/1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:RobHoitt/1/1/1/3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:RobHoitt/3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:RobHoitt/Hidden Barnstar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) These pages are listed here. The arguments for deleting secret pages are summarized in the essay Wikipedia:Why secret pages should be deleted. WP:UP#GAMES states that examples of unrelated content to writing an encyclopedia are "Games, roleplaying sessions, secret pages and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia". Such activities are generally frowned upon by the community. Facetious games of no educational value relevant to the project are routinely deleted at MfD." WP:NOTMYSPACE states that "[t]he focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." To the creators: in a July/August 2010 policy discussion (at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?), community consensus was that the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not does prohibit secret pages. The deletion of this page is not a reflection on you; instead, it is a reflection of the changing community consensus that secret pages set an inappropriate ethos at Wikipedia. In that policy discussion, I wrote here about why all secret pages should be treated equally; whether a user social networks or does not social network on Wikipedia has no bearing on the fact that all secret pages should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete all except those shown to be of encyclopedic relevance (if any). FT2 (Talk | email) 03:58, 12 October 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:SAIIowa/School Administrators of Iowa

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. — ξxplicit 00:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC) User:SAIIowa/School Administrators of Iowa Abandoned proposed article; last content edit was June 2010 Green Giant (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Keep-June isn't all that long ago. You never know, the user might come back and work on this. We should err on the side of not biting here, I think.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete SPA. If they come back they haven't really lost anything. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Having searched for sources about School Administrators of Iowa, I am unable to find enough coverage to write an article about it. Cunard (talk) 20:19, 18 October 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:Salamaat/page1

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC) User:Salamaat/page1 This appears to be a biased collection of fanaticism toward (or against, depending on how you look at it) the Jews. As such, it violates WP:UP#POLEMIC. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete. Salamaat has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Absolutely per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 09:47, 14 October 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:Shanel/Sandbox

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 Close. Nothing to delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC) User:Shanel/Sandbox User:Shanel/Sandbox2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Both appear to be FAKEARTICLEs that haven't been edited in some time. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Keep-Looks like perfectly normal user sandboxes to me. We DO allow people to have those, you know.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete We don't allow indefinite storage of fake-articles in the userspace. The user clearly isn't going back to this anytime soon. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 19:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: I have expanded and added refs to User:Shanel/Sandbox2 and believe it is ready for the mainspace at Michel Maxwell Philip. Cunard (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Keep both just sandboxes with nothing harmful. Please don't nominate userspace drafts or sandboxes unless there is a problem that needs fixing! And this user was active less than one month ago. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Delete the second one no need for user to main redirect. The content is now live and can live or die on its own. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) Comment: The first sandbox has been blank for four years, so I don't know what you mean when you say it contains a fake article. Unless you think Sundar Popo is a fake person. The second one you could have verified is a real person with a simple google search. §hanel 05:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC) WP:FAKEARTICLE is an alternate shortcut for WP:UP#COPIES. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC) The hell? You're worried that someone might come across those redirects and think what? That they're articles? This nomination makes no sense and neither do any of the delete votes. If the redirects were really causing an issue, you could've simply removed them. There are no valid grounds for deletion here at all. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Before I rewrote it, User:Shanel/Sandbox2 was an untouched, unsourced userspace draft for four years, so the deletion nomination of that page isn't unreasonable. I agree, though, that User:Shanel/Sandbox, a redirect, didn't need to be brought to MfD. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Keep. This is getting silly. User sandboxes are perfectly acceptable. —Pathoschild 17:50:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Keep harmless sandboxes Secret account 01:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Keeep Valid use. Unless WP policy has changed and says all sandboxes should be deleted. Collect (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Keep WP:UPYES clearly explains how "personal sandboxes" are permitted as well as "experimentation" within the userpage or subpages. EdEColbertLet me know 07:31, 22 October 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:ThaddeusB/Celebriducks

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. — ξxplicit 00:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC) User:ThaddeusB/Celebriducks This has been in userspace for over a year now with absolutely no edits since its userfication. With the super thin sourcing I don't see it surviving as an article. Also, ThaddeusB appears to be semi-retired as he's made almost no edits since May. Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Keep. User posted only six weeks ago or so indicating his intentions to resume editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Keep As noted, user is not deceased from WP. No real need to delete. Collect (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Close I have done some minor cleanup on the page and have moved it to CelebriDucks. Sources such as this article from USA Today and this article from Fortune Small Business demonstrate that this company is notable. Cunard (talk) 21:12, 18 October 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:Tiamut/Palestine

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 keep arguments were not as persuasive as the policy-based arguments to delete. Cunard's argument was particularly on-target. Horologium (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC) User:Tiamut/Palestine Unused copy of existing mainspace article; first edit summary suggests content fork; last content edit was in September 2009 Green Giant (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Its not a content fork. I was simply trying to preserve the relevant sourced information in the article as it was prior to the emergence of a multi-player edit war. I also added the names of sources to add in the future, once the edit war died down. Since I don't have much time to edit Wiki at the present moment, I'd appreciate the page being left alone until I can get back to it. But if people feel its taking up too much server space or posing some other problem, they can feel free to delete. Tiamuttalk 14:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Keep What a waste of Wikipedia users time to go over this silly deletion request. I've had articles in user space since 2007 that I am just starting to work on. As long as the page is not an attack or racist page, user pages should be left alone that too when the users are saying they are working on it when they get time. Kanatonian (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Archived version exists in the article history, no need to preserve a copy in userspace. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) Keep and close this off-target request. Lots and lots of users have their own sandboxes and work pages in their user space. Such pages are explicitly permitted by Wikipedia:USERSUBPAGE and no grounds for deletion have been identified. User pages are not content forks! Also, the guidelines at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion say "User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion." Zerotalk 03:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Keep per reasons give by Zero. Note that WP:USER#Common uses of userspace specifically allows "Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future (usually on subpages)" --NSH001 (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Delete. the article is sitting there untouched for over a year while the editor has made thousands of edits. Clearly not a work in progress.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE states: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Because this userspace draft violates WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE. If this were a more recent draft or material on an uncontroversial subject, I would encourage more leeway, but this has been untouched for over a year and the topic is one where POV forks are likely. --RL0919 (talk) 13:27, 24 October 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:TomasBat/Drafts

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 all except the last one (User:TomasBat/Fooled You!). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC) User:TomasBat/Drafts User:TomasBat/Coin Drafts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:TomasBat/Coin Drafts/Club Penguin Timeline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:TomasBat/Homo perfectus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:TomasBat/Fooled You! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The first few are FAKEARTICLEs and the last is most likely a link from a spoof of the mediawiki interface. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Keep the last one (which is linked to from my userpage); delete the rest: I want to keep it just like other users keep signbooks, etc. ♠TomasBat 12:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC) The last one He requests to keep it and it doesn't seem to be a problem. He also says it's ok to kill the first three, so why doesn't someone just do it and close this? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) I have removed most of the extraneous content from the last one, and decided to keep that one. I think that it is fine now. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:26, 12 October 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:Veertlte/Infobox Mexico

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC) User:Veertlte/Infobox Mexico Unused copy of existing infobox at Mexico; last content edit was in January 2009 Green Giant (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete archives. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) Delete per nom. Acather96 (talk) 20:35, 15 October 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.

Old business

October 9, 2010

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Nishidani

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 Skier Dude (talk 02:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC) User talk:Nishidani The user is topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict area. The talk page will never be used in an article and borders on WP:UP#POLEMIC. Since this material will never be used on this project and is controversial, there is no reason to have it hosted on a talk page for his benifit. It can be copy and pasted into MSWord. Cptnono (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC) The policy read:User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion. I am an established user. The matter was related to a Wikipedia Arbcom dispute. It is therefore at least obligatory to demonstrate why my user page ought to suffer 'unusual' treatment. Assertion or prophecy are not arguments.Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Nishidani left the material in question on his talk page at the specific request of another editor after the West Bank / Judea and Samaria case ended. In common with that editor, I find it a well-written, well-reasoned and useful summary of issues involved in the case and would like it to remain. My sense of what is polemical is obviously very different to Cptnono's. In the case of Nishidani's user and talk pages, perhaps, rather than seeking to have something that is distasteful in his opinion deleted, he should just stay away from them.     ←   ZScarpia   14:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Talk pages are called talk pages because they are supposed to be used for discussion. This content has nothing to do with discussion whatsoever. The content should preferably be removed from Wikipedia, or at the very least, be cut and pasted to the user's sandbox or to a user sub-page. It's easy enough to do. In any case it does not belong here.--Kudpung (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC) No. It was part of the Arbcom discussion, which, since comments were restricted to a few hundred words, I thought necessary to elaborate in that form on my page. It simply was not archived. Had it been archived, would you still object to it being in an archive, rather than on a subpage? Is there any rule that says one is obliged to archive one's thoughts once the immediate context has passed? If there is a very large number of user pages must be deleted. Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Let's be quite clear about this: we're talking about a talk page, not about a user page, a user sandbox, or a user subpage; people going to a user's talk page to leave a message don't expect trhe page to be full of opinion pieces. The talk page archives also appear to demonstrate a similar pattern. --Kudpung (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC) A talk page where I explained what, due to Arbcom restrictions on the relevant discussion pages, I could not explain the reason behind the series of critical judgements underlying my 8 revert edits over 50 days. This is quite clearly described at the outset of the essay, a form I adopted in order to clarify in detail what the Arbcom format disallowed, as it adheres strictly to WP:TLDR, for obvious reasons. I was addressing Arbcom because my integrity as a responsible editor was challenged, and it was quite appropriate, given the formal restrictions, that I gave my understanding of the issue on the only page where such talk was allowed. Why this intensive fuss? You don't know me from a bar of soap, we have never interacted, and you have all of a sudden (a) called for me to be topic-banned from editing Shakespeare, with absolutely no evidence adduced to ground the suspicion I have acted inappropriately there and (b) asked for a deletion of my talk page within 24 hours (c) now admitted to havng begun to read through my extensive archives where you find a pattern of opinion you now decry as an abuse? My page is monitored by many administrators, as is my work on Shakespeare, and no one has jumped at me with any such alacrity to challenge my utility to the encyclopedia in this regard?Nishidani (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC) The Shakespeare issue is not part of this MfD discussion.--Kudpung (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC) In the meantime, what are the formal objections to my putting it on my user page?Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC) The material more logically belongs on a user subpage. Is there any objection to copying it to a user subpage, and removing the text from the talk page?--SPhilbrickT 23:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC) I don't see why that would be appropriate. He is topic banned from the area so the information will never be used to improve an article. WP:UP#POLEMIC also applies to subpages.Cptnono (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC) It has been explained to you that the material is there because at least two other editors want it there. Nishidani may not use it while his block remains in place (which may not be permanent as you're assuming), but others might. Since when did usefulness for improving articles become a criteria for deletion from userpages anyway? It may seem polemical to you and you're welcome to your opinion, but I don't think that you would get a consensus in your favour on that one (my opinion of course). To me, opposing alternatives such as moving the material to Nishidani's user page or a sub-page looks a little over-zealous. You may like to read the West Bank naming convention; it would possibly make it apparent that what counts as "controversial" among the relatively very small number of right-wing Israelis doesn't count as such elsewhere.     ←   ZScarpia   19:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Goodness, Wikipedia in another dysfunctional mode. What possible harm can result from Nishidani having this on his own talk page? What is the matter with you people? Relax and find something useful to do. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC) But, of course, the real reasons for raising this might not actually be about the deletion of the material per se.     ←   ZScarpia   11:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Precisely, Epipelagic. If this were a court case, the judge would throw it out, in a tone of exasperation, with the comment "frivolous and vexatious". Or in wiki-speak, speedy keep. --NSH001 (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Speedy Keep - this is an absurd nomination. There is nothing on the page that is "polemical", and the assertion that it does demonstrates a lack of understanding of the word or of the content on the page. There is nothing on the page that violates any one of the requirements for talk page content. nableezy - 14:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Wikipeida has set up a format set up for a reason, and a good reason. Under this format all editors know where to find certain information and where to communicate with other editors. The format provides talk pages and user pages. Nishidani's content belongs on a user page, not a talk page. I don't understand why we have to have all this yelling and screaming for this simple request. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Have you noticed the nominator has also said they do not want the material moved to a user page but only deleted on the absurd grounds that it is "polemical". nableezy - 14:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC) yes.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC) And what's your opinion? From what you've said above, it looks as though you yourself would be satisfied if the content was moved from the talk page to a user page. Have I read correctly?     ←   ZScarpia   00:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Speedy keep reasons for proposed deletion do not seem to me to meet the relevant criteria. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC) that's not grounds for a speedy keep. see Wikipedia:Speedy keep.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC) I think items 2.1 and/or 2.5 are both potentially applicable here, and I cite them as the basis for my speedy keep opinion. John Carter (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC) I'm surprised at the calls for speedy keep and the like. Wikipedia is not a place for personal essays or soapboxing. It has sources but it is still written in a way that looks like he is trying to prove a point. He should be happy to save it on his computer if he isn't trying to make a point, right? And WP:UP#POLEMIC does come into play since he makes a case against User:Ynhockey. Although it is worded nicely: "Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc, should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." It does not matter if others have asked him to keep it up. They can click on the link in the history to see it if it is somehow assisting their work on this project. Cptnono (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC) You have either not read what you are nominating for deletion or you are purposely misrepresenting its contents. There is no "case against Ynhockey". Ynhockey made a suggestion during an arbitration case on Wikipedia, the part you speak of is a response to that suggestion. There is no "soapboxing", there is no "negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs ...". None of those things can be found in this material. And even if there were those things, you could ignore them. This is an "established user" who has put in a great deal of work on this project. There is no need to pester him with such inanity. nableezy - 01:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Cptnono, have you understood that it was written as part of an arbitration case? Rather than force others to search through a page history, why don't you just avert your eyes? Nobody is forcing you to read it.     ←   ZScarpia   14:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC) I wasn't the first one to mention it. If another editor had not brought it up I would have probably ignored it but two editors see it as a problem.I could avert my eyes. Or he could remove the questionable material. We have guidelines for a reason. Sucks if he feels pestered. It wouldn't be an issue if he would remove it. And there is a whole section so I don't understand why Nableezy is saying it isn't there. Cptnono (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC) There is a section analyzing a suggestion made by Ynhockey about using certain terms in certain situations. There is not however "a case against Ynhockey" or any of the things that you quote from such as "negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs ..." nableezy - 21:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Keep - No actual violation of WP:TALKNO, it was a response to an ArbCom case left in place for posterity. It is a shame that Cptnono chose not to echo a simple request for removal/relocation as Kupdong did, but rather chose the route of directives ("You will not be adding it to an article...") and thinly-veiled insinuations of punishment ("Any slip ups will look extra bad...") for non-compliance with his demand. Cptnono needs to learn his place, which isn't going around and trying to bully others into removing things that he disagrees with. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC) It is a shame that people are actually defending this and making me out to be some sort of jerk for a simple MfD. I did something wrong by pointing out that he has been violating his topic ban (for a third time?) on another user's talk page? You also didn't read the sentence before it "I'm also not sure if you can even respond to this with your topic ban so you might want to ask for clarification over at AE." That makes no sense and has nothing to do with if this should be deleted or not. Fine. Let him keep his page. It is obvious that editors can violate the standards whenever they want. I am sick of trying to stay within some sort of boundaries (I slip up myself of course) while others have no regard for them. I'll be more like the later from now on.Cptnono (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Keep Let it be. He's a good editor, and entitled to his views. What he is saying is not abusive. Personally, I'd move it from user talk to a user essay subpage, but I think it does no harm where it is. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Keep, user talk pages of active contributors are not deleted in their entirety. Deleting the page will remove the diffs of every comment ever left on it. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC) True. Since the editor keeps on deleting anything new but keeping that essay in it means that it isn't going anywhere. It is obvious that no one cares so close this out already. I need to go be WP:POINTy.Cptnono (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC) If there were a consensus that the content constituted an actual violation of Wikipedia:User pages, then Nishidani would be warned by an administrator, and blocked, with talk page access disabled, if continued to restore the material. However, the discussion above suggests that this course of action is likewise inadvisable. Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC) It could be argued that consensus is not votes since it should be based on guidelines and policies. Realistically, enough of his buddies and a couple that are not affiliated chimed in that it isn;t being removed. I'm over it and will just keep in mind that we can do anything we want in the topic area. No worries on my end.Cptnono (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Keep - let's move on from this childishness. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC) "childishness"? It is obvious that there is a concern. May not be the biggest problem in the world but what is with all of the shit talk? Nonstop in this request. I'm being a child for attempting action on something two people see a problem with? The editor has friends here so it is a speedy keep? I have no problem with it being kept if people want but why the fuck a I being attacked over it? Cptnono (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I suggest that Nishidani should move it to a user subpage after this discussion as a gesture of good will, and to lessen future issues, if it is kept. Gigs (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I suspect that if Nishidani was asked politely, he might well consent to do that.     ←   ZScarpia   19:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I've never hunted people, tracked their pages, gone for people, picked them up for the numerous words of abuse or insinuation they've thrown my way, and only, after 4 years, last week, found myself, exhausted, finally compelled to open an AN/I file because an editor, who is almost invariably impeccably courteous, wouldn't allow me to edit a page he thought he owned: a complaint not against him, note, but rather on behalf of a simple right to edit, and not be pestered or reverted endlessly. If I had to live by that norm of eye for eye, endless minute scrutiny of an ostensible 'adversary', I'd've never joined this project. I can be 'smart-alecky' with a remonstrative term of hyperbole at times, but nothing more. I've worked, I think, with a reasonable profile for decency in some tough areas where edit-warring, flaming, obnoxiousness, tagteaming, sockpuppets, meatpuppets, scalp-taking over trivial slips that only pettifogging wiki wonks would note, abounds that I really don't feel I need to make a gesture of good will, particularly since I offered the private labour of months of study as a gift (myself talking to myself about the metaprinciples guiding one's editorial choices) to this wikipedia which often speaks about itself as a 'community' yet behaves, as Marshall McLuhan predicted, like a tribal society with all the bad blood of clannish enmities, and even a gift, as the Germanic sense implies, can be taken as 'poisoning the well'. It suggests, in the nuanced world of exact usage, that I've some penitance to pay. I accepted my ostracism from the I/P area, and have built many articles elsewhere. Because I retain a good deal of respect for one editor who works there, and humour him, the sock-killer, it seems my own past record must be raked through to make even my afterlife as an editor 'problematical' in the eyes of administration. Cui bono? I was laughed at once for appealing to another editor's sense of honour. I work by an honour code. I know it's out-dated, and I even feel silly mentioning it here, and using it to defend myself. I prefer to act properly without feeling that what I do is done under constraint. If I have done anything wrong here, by all means pass the appropriate sanction. I probably won't notice. I prefer to edit to articles rather than get caught up in this endless bureaucratic insanity of nitpicking over conjectured infringements of whatever. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Keep. Insufficient grounds for deletion have been presented. Zerotalk 04:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Keep. Just now saw this. So far I see 8 keeps, 2 of them speedy, to zero, excepting the nominator. This is the kind of useless merry-go-rounding that diverts attention and energy away from making good articles and causes Wikipedia to lose talented editors. If there were any harmful behaviour here I could see the point, but IMO this would dismissed as a frivolous action anywhere save Wikipedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:34, 16 October 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:Example/draft article on violins

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. -- Cirt (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC) User:Example/draft article on violins Originally this was nonsense posted in the wrong userspace, and I moved it to the creator's userspace. Since then it's been moved back and overwritten with different nonsense. I don't know what the exact story is, here, but we don't need one of these. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE states: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Because this page violates WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Comment this is an example subpage title, used for example purposes at WP:User pages. It can be kept or deleted but if kept should have the fact noted (and possiblyh be page protected), if deleted should be salted. No editing needed; not a sandbox. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC) It's a mistaken creation; the User:Example account is used as a placeholder in various editing examples, and every few months some well-meaning new editor will create a draft in that userspace. I've requested blacklisting subpages of this userspace at the title blacklist before, but I've never gotten so much as a reply to my suggestion. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Delete I completely agree with Cunard, I think this one clearly violates WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:00, 15 October 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:SpecOp Macavity/Invisible university

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. -- Cirt (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC) User:SpecOp Macavity/Invisible university User:SpecOp Macavity/Peak Learning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Appear to be FAKEARTICLEs since 2006, hasn't been edited since then; let's not keep articles indefinitely in userspace. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Four years is more than enough time.--SPhilbrickT 23:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Delete both WP:FAKEARTICLE states: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Because these pages violates WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE, they should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE since 2006. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 13:20, 14 October 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/Wikipedia:Sandbox/test

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. -- Cirt (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sandbox/test Relisted. Cunard (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I can't really see any relevance this actually has to Wikipedia:Sandbox. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Every subpage of the sandbox should be deleted except for those involved in preserving history, most are games. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC) I think that'd be everything in Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Sandbox and Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia talk:Sandbox except for Wikipedia:Sandbox/History, Wikipedia:Sandbox/Archive, and Wikipedia:Sandbox/Archive2. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Delete everything that has less than 5000 revs. Be nice to those servers. Gigs (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Delete subpages per TeleComNasSprVen. SnottyWong confer 22:57, 20 October 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/Wikipedia:WikiProject Ruby

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. -- Cirt (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Ruby Project which has never had any activity, no participants, and is not likely to fly. If somebody will manage to make WikiProject Ruby fly in the future, current page will not help him/her anyway. Ipsign (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Not much more than maintenance edits after first creation two years ago, with no evidence of any meaningful activity. I agree with OP, if interest does start up, this won't be much help.--SPhilbrickT 23:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Delete Far too narrow a scope for even so much as a task force. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Delete per all above, agree with TenPound that the scope is far too narrow. Acather96 (talk) 20:27, 15 October 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.

October 6, 2010

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Koraiem/Books/VF1

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. — ξxplicit 00:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC) User:Koraiem/Books/VF1 Relisted. Cunard (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Inappropriate copy of books page Green Giant (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Keep Not enough information given to allow for deletion. Inappropriate why? Copy of what? 140.141.32.200 (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Keep Seems innocent enough. Short enough. Primarily appears to be a list of WP articles, which is a valid use in userspace. The sole issue is the Books template? Not sufficient grounds for deletion. Collect (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Keep I don't see the problem.--SPhilbrickT 22:23, 21 October 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.

Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.