Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion: Difference between revisions
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/ |
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Larsinio}} |
||
===[[2008-12-08]]=== |
===[[2008-12-08]]=== |
Revision as of 18:41, 9 December 2008
Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). |
Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information. |
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, and the MOS namespace (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect)
- Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
- Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.
Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.
Before nominating a page for deletion
Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:
Deleting pages in your own userspace |
|
Duplications in draftspace? |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
Alternatives to MfD |
|
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.
|
Administrator instructions
V | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 19 | 28 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
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 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 38 | 19 | 57 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
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.
- 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 Delete by Aitias Lenticel (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Personal attack vandalism. Semiprotected but still ongoing. Want to just delete user page completely -- larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - you can just add {{db-user}} to your userpage to have it deleted.. but unless it's full-protected, the attacker can keep going. Better option: get the attacker blocked and fullprot your upage as you prefer it. Any admin can make any future edits you want done, or unprot it for a short period of time. Or, I have no idea if this is technically feasible... build your userpage on a subpage of your userspace with the ending '.js'. Then transclude that to your actual userpage, and have your userpage fullprot. Only you or admins can edit any userspace page of yours that appears to be .js. Dunno if that would actually work.. //roux 18:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Question I put the {{db-user}} on my userpage...how long will it take before it is speedy deleteD? Thanks! --larsinio (poke)(prod) 19:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was delete. The topic is not broad enough to justify existence of the portal. Ruslik (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
- Delete - As inappropriate portal, creator should see WP:PORTAL. Even though I have read this series, it's not broad enough to deserve a portal. —Ceran»^« 23:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Hopelessly b0rked portal. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete series is currently too small and not noteworthy enough to be a portal, but original page should be kept NighthawkLeader 01:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deleted by Rlevse as noted below. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This was a dynamic IP address, not likely ever to be used by me again. smadge1 (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Delete - user hasn't even touched the project since May. //roux 03:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Keep but remove external links The whole userpage isn't spam, just the links. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Spam "article" on userpage by a role account Orange Mike | Talk 02:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy - blatant advertising. //roux 03:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and block user - spam, inappropriate commercial username. MER-C 12:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was Tag as historical. Ruslik (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
- Tag as historical - //roux 03:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Tag as historical. If someone wants to make a similar project, the current one can be moved elsewhere, or they can choose a different name. I see no reason to delete a project someone might want to revive. - Mgm|(talk) 11:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was Keep, and tagged historical. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Delete - deletion of template is not a good sign. Also, although the idea has some merit and members, as expressed it strikes me as both overambitious and unworkable, particularly for such a small group. Basically, there doesn't seem to me anyway to be any specific content, etc., that demands to be kept, and the idea is irrelevant to other existing and generally more successful projects. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Five minutes looking at this show a number of bad signs about the future of this project, which need not be listed here (start at the Members list if you really must know). I suggest we avoid future problems right now. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - "which pages need editing" is every article on the site. Mr.Z-man 00:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unfocused project with red link template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
- 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: Yes. see their talk page. No response. User has not logged in since September 15, 2006 so it is not surprising. Soundvisions1 (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough.. I seem to have some sort of blind spot when it comes to checking datestamps. // roux 14:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - inappropriate use of userpage. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was Delete--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
- Comment - I've removed the attack content pending outcome of the MfD, which I now won't vote on. User also bears close scrutiny; only a dozen edits so far, all to userspace except for one vandalism to mainspace. // roux 00:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete (G10) and block user as VoA. Icewedge (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Quick! Get rid of it! It still exists! --➨Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 11:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete attack. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was No consensus--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
- keep - suggest moving it to User:Mech515/Mechanical 515, but eventually it could move to main space - if a valid topic! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was Keep--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
- Keep A single line, and no link, does not quite constitute major promotion. The single line does no harm.There are well over four thousand user pages which mention youtube. And were we to only allow "material related to Wikipedia" on user pages, we would have very little use of user pages. Collect (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment While I agree that a single line referencing YouTube is acceptable on someone's user page, I think that would be the case only with other content on the page. In this case, it seems to be that the only purpose of the user page as it's currently written is to promote the YouTube channel, especially considering that the user page was created after Mevish1 was deleted. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- But it was appropriate for the user to create this page after Mevish1 was deleted. The content was not acceptable in the mainspace, but it is acceptable for the userspace. With no link to the YouTube page, the level of promotion involved here is so low that it's not worth worrying about. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment While I agree that a single line referencing YouTube is acceptable on someone's user page, I think that would be the case only with other content on the page. In this case, it seems to be that the only purpose of the user page as it's currently written is to promote the YouTube channel, especially considering that the user page was created after Mevish1 was deleted. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per WP:BITE and WP:EM. There isn't even a link on this user page to the editor's YouTube channel. Furthermore, after creating their user page, the editor has gone on to focus on editing the mainspace of the encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- There are some copyright concerns. They copied the image for Britney Spear's fragrance Believe from http://www.parfummafia.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=P&Category_Code=womens-fragrances which means it's highly likely they did not in fact made the image themselves, which puts all their images under scrutiny. They've also uploaded screenshots of videos. - Mgm|(talk) 15:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- Per your request on my user talk page, I would ask the same question as Collect. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Well... that may be the case but... it could of course be a muse of some sort... we don't want to discourage creativity... on the other hand... it may well be a code of destruction... --➨Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 11:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Did you have a point in there somewhere? If you did I think I missed it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
Abandoned scratchpad. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Comment. The user posted a "retired" sign on June 19, 2008.[1] If he returns and would like to work on the page again it could be restored. Meantime I see no reason to keep it if it's not part of an active editing effort. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was Keep - 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- I don't see confirmation that the user is Robin D. G. Kelley, the book's author, or am I misunderstanding? It's certainly possible, but I think it's just as likely to be someone who's interested in the book. Gotyear (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy G11 - //roux 12:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Speedy G11 - // roux 12:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 Delete all. Tikiwont (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
- Note: Also added User:Terryeo/subpage1. Cirt (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)Delete - and add all other subpages in userspace:
User:Terryeo/subpage1, User talk:Terryeo/subpage1. //roux 22:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Cirt (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete. They appear to be pages that support POV editing. Since the user is indef blocked, we don't need to retain them and keeping them could only lead to the harmful effect of someone using them.0- Mgm|(talk) 15:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - as per excellent statement above by Mgm. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2008 (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.
Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 03:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC) ended today on 14 September 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action. |
- 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)
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)
I didn't really think that I'd be able to keep it. Oh well...Hi878 (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
And by the way, couldn't the GA articles still be improved? Just a thought...Hi878 (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- Keep - David, maybe it would have more members if you actually let it exist a little longer before sidelining it - little acorns take a damn long time to grow into oaks, you know. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Move to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games as a task force. It looks like there's more than a dozen similar task forces. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 taskforcifyper WhatamIdoing. Let WP:VG deal with it; comes under their purview. //roux 18:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC) - 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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Comment. A project or task force could help maintain the quality, with nip/tucks and small additions, or larger ones created from notable out-of-universe material. Gotyear (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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))
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Guyinblack25 talk 23:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
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
- Portal:Stargate/Intro (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Stargate/Intro|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Portal:Stargate/Did you know (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Stargate/Did you know|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Portal:Stargate/Selected Picture (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Stargate/Selected Picture|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Portal:Stargate/Things you can do (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Stargate/Things you can do|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Portal:Stargate/box-footer (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Stargate/box-footer|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Portal:Stargate/Best Articles (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Stargate/Best Articles|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Portal:Stargate/Featured article (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Stargate/Featured article|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (contains just the best bits of Stargate Atlantis, nothing to merge)
- Portal:Stargate/Next Episodes (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Stargate/Next Episodes|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Portal:Stargate/Stargate news (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Stargate/Stargate news|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Portal:Stargate/Topics (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Stargate/Topics|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Portal:Stargate/box-header (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Stargate/box-header|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Portal:Stargate/Categories (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Stargate/Categories|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Portal:Stargate/Featured picture (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Stargate/Featured picture|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Portal:Stargate/Previously featured (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Stargate/Previously featured|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Portal:Stargate/Stargate quotes (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Stargate/Stargate quotes|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Portal:Stargate/Wikiprojects (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Stargate/Wikiprojects|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
– sgeureka t•c 15:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Move - I'd remove the mention from the talkheader, and then move all the pages into some subspace at WP:STARGATE for ease of resurrection at a later date. //roux editor review 15:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Move - I'd support Roux's mass move, linking only to its new location on WT:STARGATE. It has a lot of information and framework still useful to the project for a resurrection/update of the portal at a later time. TransUtopian (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Roux's Move - A once-useful Portal w/ foundation for a future (and IMO likely) resurrection. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - (how predictable :P) - I see no use to the portal at all, Stargate does its job twice as well. Delete it, or if you must then archive it on the wikiproject *yawn*. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Roux's move. Its layout is much more compact than Stargate, yet it conveys a quality and detailed overview for both the reader and editor. It looks great, is easy to navigate, and much is still applicable. Its news and redlinks could be easily updated, and I love the Did you know? section. Gotyear (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was No consensus--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
- Week keep No reason to delete other than not meeting potential is not quite enough for me. Collect (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep. EuroHistoryTeacher joined after the MfD was opened, showing there's interest in the project. The structure is extremely skeletal, including its banner on only one page at the moment, but it is a start and has potential. Gotyear (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Sadly, the lack of interest would suggest to me that people aren't really interested in joining this project. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- Neutral - If kept then at least move / rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Colonial Empires. That is IMO a better and somewhat broader title and would aslo correspond to Portal:Colonialism which seesm to be stganat as well. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2008 (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.
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Imunchies! (withdrawn)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chaotic articles by quality statistics (speedy delete)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chaotic articles by quality (speedy delete)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Chaotic project class/doc (speedy delete)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Chaotic/Assessment (speedy delete)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kenneth Sikes (speedy delete)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mixed bag of nuts (delete)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daedalus969/Roland Nicholson (delete)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Amwestover/Swiftboating (speedy keep)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Politics and the election (delete)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkside2000/Class of Wikipedia (speedy delete)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:LDSInfobox (speedy close)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Who/Voice actor (never mind)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MacBot (delete)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/WikiProject Sports video games (delete)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PokeHomsar (withdrawn)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hollander Consultants (speedy delete)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Front Sight Firearms Training (speedy delete)