Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tikiwont (talk | contribs)
31,783 edits
filing
Larsinio (talk | contribs)
6,146 edits
Line 9: Line 9:
<!-- PLEASE ADD your discussion BELOW this line, creating a new dated section where necessary. -->
<!-- PLEASE ADD your discussion BELOW this line, creating a new dated section where necessary. -->
===[[2008-12-09]]===
===[[2008-12-09]]===
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/user:larsinio}}


===[[2008-12-08]]===
===[[2008-12-08]]===

Revision as of 18:40, 9 December 2008


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

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText: and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
  • Pages in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
  • Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion

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

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?
  • Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD
  • Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

I.
Edit PageName:

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.
If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.
Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
  • Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
  • Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
  • Save the page
II.
Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

  • Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
  • Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
  • Save the page.
III.
Add a line to MfD.

Follow   this edit link   and at the top of the list add a line:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".
  • Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
    Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
  • If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add
{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.
  • If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
    For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

    {{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~

    to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as

    Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
  • If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V Apr May Jun Jul Total
CfD 0 0 12 6 18
TfD 0 0 5 6 11
MfD Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil).
FfD 0 0 0 5 5
RfD 0 0 4 0 4
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.
Purge the server's cache of this page

2008-12-09

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/user:larsinio

2008-12-08

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 topic is not broad enough to justify existence of the portal. Ruslik (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Ranger's Apprentice (series)

This portal relates to a single series of books which in total have less than a dozen related articles; a portal is overkill. Additionally, it's a cross-namespace redir to even get to the portal from the series title. Portal should be deleted, content (the 'article' version is located at Portal:Ranger's Apprentice (series)/Render2) should be merged back to Ranger's Apprentice (series).

//roux   20:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deleted by Rlevse as noted below. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:144.136.148.19

This was a dynamic IP address, not likely ever to be used by me again. smadge1 (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm the one that investigated this, I've deleted the page in question. This MFD can be closed. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Photofm

Being used to sell his photo prints; if this was an article, would be a spam deletion. Orange Mike | Talk 02:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - user hasn't even touched the project since May. //roux   03:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's quite reasonable for a user who does photography to have links up on their userpage to point to their work, if you consider the commercial link a problem, it can be removed, but I don't see a valid reason to delete the entire page. (The user did contribute and might consider returning if we handle this carefully) - Mgm|(talk) 11:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait (weak keep) A number of editors who are photographers have links to websites and use them for "commercial purposes" - probaly well over a hundred in fact. If the user did nothing useful, I would be inclined to agree on deletion, as it is, I think "wait" is more appropriate. Collect (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I made a CSD 11 per "What to do if you find someone else's user page being used inappropriately" which says, in part, "User pages that go beyond this into advertising may be tagged for speedy deletion however: most of the speedy deletion criteria apply equally to user space as to main space." However it was denied for the reason CSD's can't be done for userpages. So it was sent here. My reason for the CSD, and for the "delete" opinion here is that the bulk of the, now deleted, images the user had uploaded were all images having a "business card" feel to them with the photographers name and contact information as part of the images. When I looked at the user page the first line that caught my eye was "To buy some prints, goto PhotoFM on DeviantArt". This alone qualifies as "blatant advertising", even if you ignore the images. As for the user being active - Yes, for two days over an almost two year period. The activity was to upload advertising and to insert it into the following articles: "Patrick Monahan" dif, "Escape the Fate" dif, "Chiodos" dif, "Scary Kids Scaring Kids" dif and "Nonpoint" dif. When you remove the "blatant advertising" you are left with "Cumulus mediocris cloud" dif which shows the user inserting two images that were not blatant advertising: Image:Calico basin red rock cumulus mediocris.jpg and Image:Cumulus mediocris clouds redrock.jpg. All things considered, outside of these two images and the one article they are included in, all edits have been forms of advertising and were made on April 25, 2007 and May 13, 2008. Based on the the "work" the user has done here, and the nature of their user page, it seems their actual user name is a violation of the Company/group names policy which states "Use of Wikipedia for promotion of a company or group is not permitted, and accounts that do this will be blocked. Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem." Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove external links The whole userpage isn't spam, just the links. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has not really edited in a while and most of his pictures have been deleted. I'm not fond of having his information plastered up there. On the plus it's better than a faux article and I'm not fond of blasting userpages. Perhaps, a courtesy blanking maybe? Yanksox (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no prejudice for recreation. Page is currently meant to advertise his photographic work. I support the deletion of his userpage; if user returns and would like to refactor/recreate his userpage in a manner fit for Wikipedia, that would be fine. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Redvers. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:OlioStudios

Spam "article" on userpage by a role account Orange Mike | Talk 02:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

2008-12-07

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 Tag as historical. Ruslik (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject English

MfDs for this WikiProject:
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject English
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject English (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiproject English

Project was created in March, 2008, and has had virtually no activity since then. Creator of the page is the only listed member. While having a project relating to the English language might be useful and encourage some collaboration, I have to wonder whether this page has much of a chance of being effective in meeting that goal. Suggest that the page be deleted, to clear the space for a project which might have a better chance of success later. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep, and tagged historical. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Dog photos task force

All activity on the page was in February, by the creator of the page and only member of the task force. Propose deletion on that basis. Creator of the page, and the parent project itself, are being notified of this discussion. John Carter (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait - let the parent project figure out what they want to do first; makes more sense for it to be hashed out by people who are actually interested, especially since XfD is not a place many people enjoy venturing into. //roux   21:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark historical unless the Project people want to do something else. It is quite possible someone will want to revive this at some point which this choice would facilitate. - Mgm|(talk) 05:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This info needs to go somewhere within the project. If you don't like it under this name, please suggest another location. Elf | Talk 04:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Wikiteam

The template was deleted and so was the category, "pages [that] need editing" is highly ambiguous, and if it means what I think it means we already have a {{cleanup}} tag for that purpose. — neuro(talk) 12:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mulavelil cheriyanadu

Somewhat of a "chat room". See Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site Policy, number 1. Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait - has anyone had a conversation with this user about appropriate uses of userspace? Suggest withdrawing nom and having that conversation first, then renomming if necessary. // roux   08:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2008-12-06

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

The result of the discussion was Delete--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bummysheep

Used for personal attacks. Has not responded to query on the talk page. Only non-user page edit was vandalism on Mary (mother of Jesus). The User page was also modified by the schoolblocked IP 212.121.193.251 --Jh12 (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 No consensus--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mech515

Main space article hanging out in userspace. Seems to be the users made up profile "story". I did a search for the actor "Christopher John Masnica" all that came back with this user page and this MS live profile - Chris Masnica, A Star Wars search for the character "The Mechanical 515" turns up nothing but this user page. Users main work has been to this "article"(Special:Contributions/Mech515) worked on this article along with and I.P 71.180.159.90, who may or may not be the same user. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mevish1

On November 23, I left this user a personalized note about my concerns regarding their user page. Since then, the content of the user page has not been altered, and the user has not replied to or acknowledged my message, although they have been active on Wikipedia. The current content of the user page is completely unrelated to the Wikipedia project and seems to serve only to promote the user's YouTube channel. Nick—Contact/Contribs 17:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request on my UT page, are you saying that the images uploaded by the user (not to their user page) are directly relevant to the issue of their user page being deleted? Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per your request on my user talk page, I would ask the same question as Collect. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 No consensus--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cnrqhrdl

This looks like it's copied from a textbook, does not appear to have anything to do with Wikipedia... Beeblebrox (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is short, does not violate copyright (it is, in fact, from Wikibooks) and if the person has it in userspace to work on it, then that is the only issue. Perhaps the article should be moved to a formal sandbox, but it appears to dono harm, promote no commercial interest, violate no copyright etc. And Wikibooks is oart of WP, IIRC. Collect (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose it would be helpful to hear from this user, but my question would be, if it's from WikiBooks, why create a mirror page at Wikipedia? Instructional articles are not part of the Wikipedia project.Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It may be worth pointing out also that the page we are discussing amounts to the sum total of this users contributions, they have never edited any other page. If they are working on something for WikiBooks, surely they should be doing that at Wikibooks... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 7 Dzecember 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I notice Cnrqhrdl was editing 1 minute before you added the MfD template. You then quickly welcomed the user, but perhaps the "For deletion" template scared the month-old user into not replying. I'm trying again on the talk page, so hopefully a dialogue is forthcoming. In the meantime, I don't see it doing any harm, and thus !vote weak keep assuming in good faith it has something to do with Wikipedia (experimenting with markup, or assisting in reading articles with Spanish words and phrases). It's weak because, though I disagree, I could see it being deleted under WP:UP#NOT #8. Gotyear (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update *A full week later, no more changes, no explanation, page is a mirror of a page on another Wikimedia project, I still say delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 no consensus--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Simon D M/proposed structure for Sahaja Yoga

Abandoned scratchpad. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or mark historical. Unless the user specifically stated they're not going to use it, I see no point in deleting it. I myself have several sandboxes and notepads with year-old article drafs which are not yet ready for mainspace and which I rarely edit unless new material comes to my attention. I also have rekindled an old proposal of mine, which I couldn't have done if it was deleted. Unless it is particularly damaging, I don't think there is a policy based reason we can use to delete this. - Mgm|(talk) 15:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for deleting it is that it's an out of date and biased version which has not been touched in ages. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2008-12-05

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 - nothing wrong with a sandbox, and no policy says you can't use your userpage as a sandbox.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:JustbeBPMF

This "userpage" is a series of gigantic cut-and-paste reproductions of articles; at the moment, it's Canada, with all the article names having "ASCII" pasted in to create vast swaths of redlinks; earlier today, it was entire articles like "Barrack Obama" randomly cut and pasted in, complete with category tags and the like. Orange Mike | Talk 06:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Looks from here like short-term sandbox playing. Perhaps what is needed is showing the person how to use "sandbox" instead of his main user-page? It certainly does not look like he is trying to have POV forks or anything else deletable, and his "all red links" certainly looks like an experiment to me. Collect (talk) 11:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Race Rebels: Culture, Politics, and the Black Working Class

This "user page" is actually the draft for an article about a book of this name! It may well be a good-faith mistake; but it's still unacceptable. I have userblocked the name itself as a violation of our username standards, suggesting that this editor apply for a change of username. Orange Mike | Talk 05:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete And suggest to the person that WP usage for such a project could effectively lose him his copyright on his work-product posted here. I suspect that would shock him sufficiently. Collect (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G11 - //roux   12:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would the content be acceptable if moved to a sandbox (temp until the user chooses a new name, then to a sandbox under that name)? A WP article is unlikely to give a chapter-by-chapter summary, but the introduction prose and the infobox layout seem to be a reasonable start, and the chapter titles could help with structure in a sandbox. Gotyear (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Red Lion, Inc.

Userpage of an account with a "role account" name overtly proclaims an intent "to support and promote" certain books. Blatant NPOV violation (the username has already been blocked). Orange Mike | Talk 05:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week keep No sign of "Red Lion, Inc." being a publisher. Indeed, no sign of it being a known corporation. Dr. Diana Glyer is a real and likely notable person, and author of what appears to be a scholarly book on Lewis et al. I suspect the user name was ill-chosen, but I have found a bunch of publishers using names here promoting their own books, and they seem to stay around. Here we have one English teacher being hit with a rulebook which really likely should have exceptions for cases like this. As far as showing favoritism to certain authors -- I really do not count that as NPOV violation. And the "certian books" is actually "quality books" and the author's website lists quite a few, so it is not a commercial endeavor. Collect (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - Promotion of organizations, clubs, etc. is still promotion. I happen to support the work the group claims to do (my wife's an Inklings scholar); that doesn't give them a free pass for promotional abuse of userpages. (And if you know of any "publishers using names here promoting their own books" please let the rest of us know so they can be held to consistent standards.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Inklings" is not a live organization. It refers to a group of Oxford dons now all dead. And I can find rather quickly a few dozen pages which would afoul of your srtict guidelies about promoting any interests on a user page <g>. E.g. groups specifically dedicated to issues like "Freemasonry" and the like. Definitely promotion of an organization or club, yet found since the start of WP. As for publishers, I have run across a full dozen or more, and their existence is known to WP admins as far as I can tell with no ill effects. Collect (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not talking about promoting the Inklings; the "userpage" openly proclaims the intention to promote certain books about the Inklings, and is in the account of a corporation name (there are in fact several corporations in the U.S. alone by that name). (And I repeat: if you know of any "publishers using names here promoting their own books" please let the rest of us know so they can be held to consistent standards.) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Promote and support quality books" is not the same as "promote certain books" -- I would, indeed, hope and trust that we would all support "quality", no? And I found no sign of the "corporation" being a "genuine fictitious person" -- the name ought well be altered for that reason, but that is not what was sought. And following MfD guidelines, this is not the place to present counterexamples, just to note that there are a nunber of them which I have found. I suggest, if you wish to be the sleuth, that looking at certain authors and the lists of books and publishers, and then looking at who added the lists, might give some clues. Collect (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and make sure the user picks a new name. Using a business as your username is not allowed by username policy.- Mgm|(talk) 15:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2008-12-04

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

The result of the debate was Delete all. Tikiwont (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Terryeo/Scientology article corrections

User:Terryeo/Scientology article corrections
User:Terryeo/subpage1
User talk:Terryeo/subpage1

No need to retain subpage of this indef-blocked user. See also block log, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Cirt (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Also added User:Terryeo/subpage1. Cirt (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Cirt (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there a policy that banned users pages or subpages are deleted? It does seem to happen quite often. In this cases the pages themselves are OK, being about altering wikipedia, even if that don't match my POV. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Ban#User_pages and WP:NOT#WEBHOST apply. Cirt (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


2008-12-03

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 Taskforcify - did we settle on that as the verb or is taskforcificate still in contention, ackward but taskforcification is a better gerund form. Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Myst

Project created with only one member. Aside from the fact that the scope of the project is ten articles, all of which are already GA or FA, a similar project failed to attract significant attention previously on WikiProject council. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really think that I'd be able to keep it. Oh well...Hi878 (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, couldn't the GA articles still be improved? Just a thought...Hi878 (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But WikiProjects with such a small scope and only one member aren't effective. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Considering most of the Myst related articles are already FA or GA status, I don't think a task force is even necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtyq2 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per the above user who forgot to sign. Since this is a project with only one member, and most of the Myst articles are well loved (unlike, say, the COUNTRY MUSIC ARTICLES, hint hint), this wouldn't even be useful as a task force. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - project was only two days old when nommed for deletion (I glided right over the creation date, doh). //roux   23:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Move and taskforcify per WhatamIdoing. Let WP:VG deal with it; comes under their purview. //roux   18:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TPH - as much as I'd love a Myst Wikiproject (and have, in the past, thought of setting one up) it's just plain not needed. As stated above, we don't even need a taskforce - the remit of this project covers a small number of articles, most of which are already at a very high standard. TalkIslander 19:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form. Upon further consideration, the extreme youth of the project warrants keeping it where it is, unless there is consensus to change it to a task force. Also, Thor Malmjursson has joined the project. My "on the other hand" was addressed by Hi878 and has been struck out. Gotyear (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Weak move and taskforcify. On the one hand, this was created on November 30 2008, so it's hard to determine lack of long-term interest. GAs and even FAs can be improved or drift off of their gold standard, potentially spawning additional good subarticles if the source material exists. (I know there's WP:FAR and WP:GAR, but such a taskforce could help if there's interest.) On the other hand, Hi878 didn't reply to Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs' concerns for 2 days while adding more WikiProject Myst banners, responding only once the MfD was underway. (Is Hi878's 2nd comment a keep !vote?) Gotyear (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh wow, I'm an idiot.. I didn't even notice the creation date. Nominating a project for deletion when it's only been alive for three days? I'm changing my vote. //roux   23:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could not have read Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs' concern, because for some reason my computer crashed every time I tried to open my talk page. It started working again after a couple of days, after I had already posted the banners. Hi878 (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Taskforcify. Just not needed, articles are already as good as they are going to get, all that I can see happening is more low-quality/stub articles being created, diluting the good work that has been put into the current set. Quality over quantity and all that. Seeing that there is unlikely to be any more Myst games, at least in the foreseeable future, there's no further expansion even required, the articles are totally stable. 6 months ago I would have welcomed and joined such a project, but any work that could have been done has already been completed. Rehevkor ✉ 17:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This reminds me of a similar Kingdom Hearts project. I'm sure this project was created in good faith, but the amount of work left to improve on the limited amount of articles does not seem to justify a project or even a task force. The necessary discussions and collaborations are already taking place on the article talk pages. I hate to be bitey to a newcomer, but I think such a project would serve more as a distraction (unnecessary bureaucracy) to improving the articles, rather than help. The limited, cosmetic edit history also means very little would be lost if deleted. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Guyinblack25 talk 23:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or taskforcify and re-evaluate in a month or two: a one-person Wikiproject is inappropriate, particularly when all the articles are already of a high quality. I appreciate the editor's good faith effort to get involved, though. Randomran (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With the exception of a single article which is undergoing a merge discussion, every single article in the project's scope is a GA, about half of them are FAs. The job is already done and there's not going to be a glut of new articles appearing under its remit, so it's serving no purpose apart from being another tiny project which will slide into disuse and end up getting folded into the video game project as an unused taskforce or deleted altogether. Which isn't to say that the participation isn't welcomed (as I'm sure everyone here feels), but there are a thousand better things to sink time into than more red-tape and paperwork when the whole lot's just going to get wrapped up at some point and binned. Someoneanother 12:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2008-12-02

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 Move - anyone can do this  Done. The pages should also be marked {{historical}}, I'll mark the main page for now.  Done but the subpages still need to be tagged . Normally historical would be the result for Portal that has sufficient articles within scope but for which no one is interested in maintaining, but the consensus is pretty clearly to move this one. Should the portal ever become necessary in the future, consensus at the Project should be sufficient to relaunch. Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Stargate

I am not really familiar with MfD, but I've seen fiction Portals MfDed before and nominate Portal:Stargate for deletion because it makes sense to me and because my note at WT:STARGATE from a week ago didn't get any comment to keep this portal around. My reasons for deletion are that this portal is unmaintained and hence completely out-of date (nearly two years behind), two regular wikipedians from WP:STARGATE (I and pd THOR) didn't even know it existed for long times; this portal has to my knowledge only even been linked from a handful of Stargate articles (there used to be over 500 SG articles at one point), although it is admittedly linked from each {{Stargateproject}} talkpage banner now; and it reproduces content that is already present in the article Stargate (where any reader is directed when he types "Stargate" into the search box). Included in this nom are the transcluded portal subpages

– sgeureka t•c 15:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

2008-11-30

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 No consensus--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Colonial Empires

Potentially interesting and useful project, but it has had little if any attention since creation, only two listed members, and at best minimal development. Subject might be better covered elsewhere, perhaps as task forces of the relevant national projects. Both listed members are being notified of this dicussion. John Carter (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The stated purpose of a WikiProject is to promote collaboration between multiple editors, so, on that basis, not meeting even that minimal "potential" could be seen as being grounds for the deletion of a project, or perhaps merger to a more active WikiProject. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

2008-12-08

2008-12-07

2008-12-03

2008-12-02

2008-12-01

2008-11-30

2008-11-29

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=256877513"