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
Intangible (talk | contribs)
7,421 edits
Line 13: Line 13:


===[[2006-12-01]]===
===[[2006-12-01]]===
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Intangible}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Emceet}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Emceet}}
===[[2006-11-30]]===
===[[2006-11-30]]===

Revision as of 15:28, 1 December 2006


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 Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
CfD 0 0 10 0 10
TfD 0 1 12 0 13
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 3 0 3
RfD 0 0 67 0 67
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.


Discussions

Active discussions

Articles currently being considered for possible deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed.

Purge the server's cache of this page

2006-12-01

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 per G7. —Doug Bell talk 22:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Intangible

Delete. I like to delete my User page and all of its subpages. I've decided to move on to greener pastures. Intangible 15:28, 1 December 2006 (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 miscellany 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. —Doug Bell talk 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emceet

Wikipedia is not myspace. User has made one edit, which was to this page, and has been inactive since last May. MER-C 09:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange, since the page seems to emphasize "articels", or does that cover "articels" in userspace? 68.39.174.238 17:26, 2 December 2006 (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.

2006-11-30

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. (Radiant) 09:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mind Benders

Inactive, unencyclopaedic, violates WP:NOT a place for social networking and a webhost for games, and distracts horribly from the encyclopaedia - I mean, creating fake articles in your userspace on imaginary topics? WTF? Why not just write real FAs for a change? Bizarre. Moreschi 10:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Also nominating the following 110 subpages - Jesus Christ! Moreschi 20:25, 30 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 keep, tag with {{indef}} and protect. —Doug Bell talk 11:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gorelman

Page only used for nonsense and vandalism; multiple article recreations

Page doesn't exist and there's nothing in the deletion log? Something strange happened here... 68.39.174.238 17:28, 2 December 2006 (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 miscellany 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

User:Nikolaic

Wikipedia is not myspace. Also nominated is User:Sixthcrusifix. Users have not been seen for months and have made few encyclopedic contributions. MER-C 05:47, 30 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 del abuse of user space. User is long inactive `'mikka 21:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ruchirabajaj

Personal essays. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Also nominated is User:Richard Hill. Users has made few encyclopedic contributions and have not been seen for months. MER-C 06:00, 30 November 2006 (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.

2006-11-29

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. (Radiant) 16:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bestlyriccollection, User talk:Bestlyriccollection and various subpages

This is the textbook example of what a user page should not be: reading from the TOC, contents include "Jours de garbage", "Cellphone Brands", "Cellphone Technologies", "LONG CITY news" which is quite descriptive of the content - a nonsensical mishmash of MySpace-ish content, external links, news reports and whatnot which violates every tenet of WP:USER by any reasonable definition.

Note that this user is especially egregrous because he has also copied his stuff to the Cantonese, Chinese, Min Nan, Spanish, and French Wikipedias. (The same page was probably on Chinese classical Wikipedia but was deleted.)

Also in this nomination are the equally unencyclopedic subpages User:Bestlyriccollection/beokguk and User:Bestlyriccollection/lyrics, and last but not least the equally trashy User talk:Bestlyriccollection. (He has other subpages which are copies of valid articles so I hesitate to nominate them too.) I would have speedied all these but this is not strictly advertising, so not CSD G11 territory. Kimchi.sg 06:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I warned the user but met with this in reply. Kimchi.sg 06:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And not even good Chinese, either. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 14:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 无观点: 英文维基执意将我家页删除. 看来我在英维命运在所难免. 心想很大程度在于英文SYSOP, KIMCHI 的清教徒作风, 以及其他附和KIMCHI的英维会员的GROUPTHINK思想. 其实英维上投票大多数赞成删除, 也和本来不倾向删除者没有兴趣讨论或投票有关面目(也就是说并没有"站出来反对删除"者). 我不愿作出一个为自己利益力争的姿态. 但是愿意为删除会员本页的标准表表态. 我觉得我自己在自己本页的资料存放, 与很多别的会员大量耗费存量的"高密度本页"相比, 小巫见大巫. 而且我没有毫无节制地制造分页, 影响维基整体. 我自己的本页的规模, 在两年之内, 没有出现几何级数的增长, 而是维持在两页可维持的范围内. 我和我的各位参与维基编辑的朋友, 两年来很大程度上依赖我本页连接提供的信息. 承认我本人并不是一个娴熟的编辑者, 个人贡献不大. 也承认本人的主要工作语言是中文. 但是, 本人确是多语的, 所以不能因为本人"对英语或别的语言没有价值"而对本人在所有非中文维基进行清扫. 而且本人的本页的主要目的是为不少有联系的维友提供信息资料. 这并不是MYSPACE性质的"个人生活页面", 并且在信息匮乏的中国, 超出了你们可以想象的意义. 转移该页的目的, 首先是由于对KIMCHI所提出的清理措施的恐慌. 但并没有大量复制并几何级地制造非维基信息的目的. Bestlyriccollection
  • No opinion: I am not trying to defend myself here. It seems like the English Wikipedia's will is bent on obliterating my account. However I do want to make an appeal to criteria for deletion. My own user page, compared to many extremely space-consuming user pages is quite moderate. I haven't so far been perpetually creating subpage after subpage that will innundate the Wikipedia. The scale of my user page, throughout its TWO YEAR tenure, hasn't been increased EXPONENTIALLY. It remained primarily within "User" and "User:Talk" within roughly the same, manageable size. Me and my associates on various Wikis have been relying on the limited, but valuable information provided by these links for thse two years. Admittedly, I am not a skilled contributor, unlike many of my friends. And admittedly my main working language is Chinese. But I AM a polyglot and there is no reason to consider my a dismissible, unimportant user to wikis other than the Chinese. I object to the categorization of my user page being "MYSPACE"-ish. It is certainly not a homepage on my personal life. It's rather valuable for many of my friends who live in China and consideres the links indispensible. They ARE Wikipedians. But due to the strict internet policy of the country, the sighting of Wikipedia only happens once in a blue moon. And my English user page is considered an unofficial portal of hyperlinked materials for some, but not all of my friends in China, who are advocates in certain causes. Only under such circumstance, can you appreciated my efforts to provide them the quick access they need for their composition of articles. I reacted to Kimchi's proposal out of panic. But I have no intention to exponentially increase my space consumption on wiki space. For two years I've had no need to do so, and I happily contributed now and then, some information on normal wikipedia articles that I deem valuable. Why no look at the whole thing and then make you judgement whether or not to sentence a person to death? Why the groupthink based on the accusation of one Sysop? Why the panic for the data innundation that I actually haven't caused? We know that Wikipedia, like a real world street, is no place for cookiecutter personality. Why prefer uniformity to heterogeneity? Bestlyriccollection
  • Delete, inaproperiate use of userpage.__Seadog ♪ 13:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all I am more receptive to Mailer Diablo's comments than Kimchi's. The former is an invitation to discuss what Wikipedia is not, the latter is just a taunt. I am not sure if my userpager has ever helped you guys writing wikipedia articles. It certain has helped me and all those who are drawing from it. But primarily, it helps me. Like I said I am not a skillful, or regular, contributor as I do have many other priorities in life. But this is no reason to dismiss my work here as worthless (and I do honestly believe that I have been and will continue to contribute to Wikipedia articles in a serious manner). Another thing: I might appear to you as worthless, but subjective judgments are deceptive. In real life, this is often the case: we think of ourself---our own causes, careers, cultural concerns, habits, hobbies---as "serious" and dismiss activities by others---however serious they are in their own right---as trivial at the first glance. As a result anti-war protesters become "those f**ng lefties", feminists who seriously talk about their rights as "those f**ng feminists", environmentalists as "those f**ng environmentalists" and Native Americans participating in their own cultural activities "those f**ng Indians". Luckily, in real life, the only ones that hold the keys of legal exclusion and the means of violence are the State, and the extension thereof. As a result, personal prejudices don't usually take on the life of crusades that immediately perilize the liberties of "lefties, feminists, environmentalists and Indians". But on the Cyberspace, we derive our authority through a much easier channel than the State did in real life. And it is here that we should guard against the actualization of our ego- or ethnocentrism. If I did create subpage after subpage of "personal blogs", it would be a clear violation of my privilege here. And such is not what I have ever intended. However I did notice, many of the user pages of my fellow wikipedians par excellence (perhaps including a few of you who voted for my immediate bannishment), have taken the license to substantially "personalized" their userpage in a way they would never do on wikipedia articles other than their own userpage. It reveals to me a little truth: that in all society, including a cyber society like Wikipedia, there IS a "private" sphere vis-a-vis the public, however limited and disputably private it is. It might be just a theory but I do not intend to use this as an excuse to justify the "MySpace-ization" of wikipedia. I just want to bring to your awareness that, through our several years of practice as wikipedians, a culture that separates the private from the public has somewhat developed (however precarious it might seem against our constitution), and if we keep the "private" sphere within manageable limits, it can serve some positive purposes. Bestlyriccollection
      • 忘了说,歌词的家页须删除是由于版权关注。首先,你不应该把家页抄到所有不同维基语言的启口,这很容易创造误会。看来你英维家页在这情况很难换救,但你还是随时欢迎编写白科。我只能说请细心地观读这个讨论,以后善用家页,不要重蹈覆辙。— 米乐· 地阿伯 05:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above. Inappropriate use of userspace. ><RichardΩ612 ER 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inappropriate use of userpage space. feydey 03:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete The user has a large number of mainspace edits and we normally give more leeway in such cases but that's a lot of material that doesn't help the encyclopedia. JoshuaZ 04:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Changing to weak keep is a sub-optimal situation and I would encourage the user to find somewhere else to put this but the user has a large enough set of edits that I think this arguably falls under the discretionary use of userspace. JoshuaZ 04:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • In this case, I offer not to do any further "chunking" (adding sections of links that do not lead to present encyclopedic projects) and dedicate further changes on my user:Bestlyriccollection and User:Talk pages mainly to the purpose of current/immediate encyclopedic contributions. If the purpose of any further change is questioned by fellow wikipedians, they can request for my proof of relevance while questioning. I will keep any further change to "minor edits" or edits that do not increase hosted data, rather than adding substantially. I also agree to search for a wiki where the same software is used and where such links on user pages will be less problematic for fellow users. Bestlyriccollection
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 miscellany 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 keep. (Radiant) 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:NFAN3/Christmas Wishlist

Using Wikipedia as a webhost. Page is not related in any way to building the encyclopedia. --Slowking Man 05:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - suboptimal, I agree, but this is an active user with good-faith edits made today, and current users are allowed leeway on a page or two in userspace. I'm not buying him any of the stuff he wants, though. Newyorkbrad 06:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To echo Doug Bell below, I'm not trying to be a userspace Nazi or anything, but I think this falls pretty squarely on the side of things that don't belong on Wikipedia. If something's encyclopedic worth is iffy, I'm willing to give leeway for a good-faith editor, but I can't think of any way this could possibly be related to the project. --Slowking Man 07:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep — Yeah, it's not related to Wikipedia, but I think people need to stop patrolling userspace for stuff that "shouldn't be there" and start doing something remotely useful. — Werdna talk criticism 06:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Good to have you back, Werdna. Newyorkbrad 06:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I actually found the page when somebody vandalized it. --Slowking Man 07:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — While I don't mind some leeway on allowing contributing users some unencyclopedic stuff on their user subpage (although not much), I think a Christmas list is too far. Borders on being a solicitation, and I'd hate to see where this led if it became commonplace. —Doug Bell talk 07:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. User is an active contributor and it is about as encyclopedic as "countries I would like to visit". Not useful for encyclopedic work, but acceptable if kept to a bare minimum. - Mgm|(talk) 12:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, this can be used for someone to look at and be able to get an idea of what the person's game interests are, so they can be asked to contribute on discussions about them. Yes, I'll go through contortions like that in finding a reason to keep a user subpage of an active contributor. -Amarkov blahedits 14:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMO-Its fine. Users have have pages for images they uploaded and stuff (BTW:I upload a few of those pics). And the statement "(This) Page is not related in any way to building the encyclopedia" is untrue because it helps people get to know me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NFAN3 (talk • contribs) .
    BTW:About the pics, why were they removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NFAN3 (talk • contribs) .
    I removed them when I made the nomination. I'm sorry, but according to the fair use policy, fair use images are not permitted in pages outside of the Main namespace. --Slowking Man 19:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, does not disrupt anything on Wikipedia, and user makes constructive edits, though this has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Terence Ong 06:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am quite astounded by the response here. Perhaps the users did not have a look at WP:NOT; which clearly states that Wikipedia is not to be treated like a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. This user can conveniently have this list on MySpace, Blogspot or any appropriate site. I believe he can be politely convinced to move this list to a free webspace provider. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I am equally astounded at the unwillingness to leave useful contributors alone. The intent of WP:NOT would be effectively, and more civilly, fulfilled by asking NFAN3 whether he would consider moving it elsewhere; which nobody seems to have bothered to do. Since I consider this an unimportant blemish, I'm not going to; but those who felt this important enough to spend WP:MfD's time on should have done this first. Septentrionalis 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. No one told me they had a problem with this until its about to be deleted. Infact, a lot of my friends called it creative and like it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NFAN3 (talk • contribs) 22:45, November 30, 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep; Let's not bite those less prolific than ourselves. Good faith editor who needs to be encouraged and guided. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I don't think this qualifies as "excessive" personal information per WP:USER, and I could see it as an extension of his interests (statement of which is explicitly allowed). Don't see any indication that it's going to get out of hand. Plus, to be honest, I'm more concerned about the nomination of an active good-faith contributor's userpage for deletion without any attempts to discuss the matter with that user than I am about a couple of templates on that userpage whose placement isn't furthering the encyclopedia project. (Good job on removing the fair use images, though -- those did need to go.) Shimeru 07:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nearly headless nick. See WP:USERPAGE/ WP:NOT.__Seadog ♪ 14:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand the images needed to be removed 'cuase of Fair Use. But why is everyone ok with this?--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 22:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kee per Dloh, Shimeru,Pmanderson, and New York Brad. JoshuaZ 04:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no reason to delete a page of an active contributor. That's a dangerous road to start going down. If it isn't violating some tangible policy (NPA, copyright, etc), do we really want to be in the business of deciding which cutesy user pages are allowable and which are not? BigDT 07:25, 4 December 2006 (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 miscellany 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. — xaosflux Talk 06:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anaya

This user's only contributions are creating her user page/biography and copying and pasting it onto a couple of other irrelevant pages. If is largely a copy/paste of [1], although it may not be CV since she may be the original author of that as well. BigDT 04:49, 29 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 the project, keep the user pages. (Radiant) 09:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Once upon a time...

This page is linked from the Wikipedia:Department of Fun. It was/is an attempt to write a story on Wikipedia. It is inactive. It is also questionable whether it should be here even if active--Wikipedia is WP:NOT a site for writing original stories and poems.

Also included in this nomination are the following two user subpages:

See similar MfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AtionSong/World's Longest Poem (second nomination).

--Doug Bell talk 02:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is actually the second nomination of this page. The first one was a year and a half ago at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Once upon a time... and closed as an overwhelming keep. --tjstrf talk 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. If it's just going to be inactive, it's not helpful. But I don't see how this hurt anything to begin with. Transwiki might be the correct option if it were still active, but as is, maybe we could tag it as historical? --tjstrf talk 02:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. WP:NOT#OR: "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published," nor "original inventions," nor "[p]ersonal essays or [b]logs." WP:NFT: "Wikipedia is not a free wiki host for you to use for your own purposes. It's an encyclopedia. Our primary goal here is to write an encyclopedia, not to provide free web hosting to people. Even if your article isn't taking up much space, you are still misusing Wikipedia and preventing it from becoming a usable encyclopedia." The overriding purpose of this website is to build an encyclopedia, and things that subtract, slow down, and take away from that purpose do not have a place here. Editors contributing to this story could be contributing manhours towards articles and useful environments. — Whedonette (ping) 02:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Whedonette. Nonsense and offensive content. Of no benefit to the encyclopedia, and is totally unrelated. Yuser31415@? 04:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:NOR does not strictly apply to Wikipedia space. Our policies, for example, are all based on original research of Wikipedia's needs and behaviours. --tjstrf talk 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:NFT and WP:USER this page should be deleted. It's not benefitting the encyclopedia so WP:IAR doesn't apply. Also an inactive project is simply wasting Wikipedia server space. Yuser31415@? 04:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you seriously suggesting that only WP:IAR lets us use original research in Wikipedia-space? Your server space argument is a misconception, seeing that it's still on the server even if it's deleted. I am neutral on this, but could you use arguments that actually apply to the situation? --tjstrf talk 04:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, that's not what I mean. If the article benefitted the 'cyclopedia, then WP:IAR would apply. But since the article certainly doesn't, it should be deleted outright. Look, I realize that Wikipedians are normal people; they need entertainment just like everybody else, and Wikipedia's a great place for it, if the game actually benefits the encyclopedia. I would probably vote keep on a game that required users to make improvements to articles. Yuser31415@? 20:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this is just plain silliness - if you want policy, WP:NOT a place for social networking, and this distracts horribly from the encyclopaedia. I am becoming ever more convinced that the wretched Department of Fun is causing far more harm than good. Slay all related subpages as well. Burn with fire, lots and lots of fire. Moreschi 19:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Moreschi pretty much said anything useful I might have said myself. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Irrelevant to writing an encyclopedia. JChap2007 03:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Moreschi, who seems to be turning into my mouthpiece in these matters... riana_dzasta 04:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- although the project never got off the ground, note that USER PAGES are being targeted for deletion. Part of the agreement with Wikipedia users is to allow them to create user pages for their own and common use. As such they are private property and I do not want my user page deleted. If the concensus is that the Once Upon a Time Project be deleted, user pages should be retained. See established Wikipedia guideline -- Ownership and editing of pages in the user space in Wikipedia:User page. WBardwin 06:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: You have some misconceptions regarding user pages. For example, the User page guideline you reference states in WP:USER#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space: pages in user space still do belong to the community. Also from that page: Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. And from WP:USER#Removal: In excessive cases, your user subpage may be deleted, following a listing on Miscellany for deletion, subject to deletion policy. —Doug Bell talk 06:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sorry, Wikipedia is not a web host and even user pages should have some general connection with the encyclopedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the others,_Seadog ♪ 16:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WBardwin was mistaken about userpage policy, and the page in his space certainly isn't private property. But please don't take that as a reason to delete his harmless userpage, as one thing doesn't have to do with another. I ask people to consider this part of the userpage policy:
"The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia."
I think everybody who's been here for a while could give their own examples of userpages that are purely for fun (="building the community"). I've had some egregious examples in my own space, notably User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder, which those of you who've been here long enough may remember seeing on the front page on April 1, 2005. Nobody ever offered to delete that one, in fact it was nominated on WP:FAC at one point. ;-) I assert that playful nonsense of such a type in the userspace is actually useful for the encyclopedia. User:Filiocht argued once that editing "European toilet paper holder" had relieved his wikistress to the point where he changed his mind about leaving, and cheerfully hung around for an additional number of months, producing more Featured articles. Altogether, while that nonsense was active, the habitual editors of it (who included User:Giano) produced a remarkable number of FAs. I appreciate that the userpages in question here are inactive, but presumably their purpose was originally similar: fun, relaxation, a creative break in the serious business of wiki-editing, a reculer pour mieux sauter (red? a red link? I don't know what to do about that!) of editing. Please show that the wikipedia community is indeed generally tolerant. To give the eminently serious and productive editor WBardwin a slap for letting his hair down seems to me just like thoughtless mistreatment of a good user. Is this something to make him leave over? :-( (PS. There's no need to nominate "European toilet paper holder" for deletion, btw; it was deleted at my request long ago, and I've only temporarily recreated it as an example--I'll delete it again in a day or two.) Bishonen | talk 21:14, 30 November 2006 (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.

2006-11-28

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. (Radiant) 16:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bruno Putzeys

Somewhat of a mini-resume. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. User has made zero encyclopedic contributions and zero edits in two years. MER-C 05:47, 28 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. (Radiant) 16:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geck0

Personal essay about SuSE, instead of a user page. User's only two edits were to this page. No other contributions have been made in one and a half years. MER-C 05:25, 28 November 2006 (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.

2006-11-27

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. I would have userfied it if not for the fact that its creator has been permablocked. (Radiant) 09:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/NPOV-rewrite1

This is a copy and paste from the September 11, 2001 attacks article which was created by those who failed to gain concensus for their changes in the main article and is therefore a POV fork.--MONGO 19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep The debate isn't over, neither side has concensus, and this page is to create a proposed version that's less POV, not a POV fork. Right now an RFM has ben filed but I'm wondering if it will go through, especially due to past comments by mongo, like saying mediation won't help fix the article.--Acebrock 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This appears to be a work in progress. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is in the talk namespace and the need for this page arose from a small, but tenacious group of disruptive editors and administrators who refuse to allow the majority of editors to add any balance to the article. This page allows the majority of dissenting editors a place to discuss and draft a version of the article that conforms with Wikipedia's NPOV policy wihtout the disruptions from these editors. --Cplot 20:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cplot has been blocked [2] for two 3RR violations on the September 11, 2001 attacks article in less than three days, and had made three reverts to the related Steven E. Jones article and was only saved from probably going over 3RR on that article by my protection of the page on his preferred version. If you can't POV push conspiracy theory nonsense into regular article space, you don't go and try and work on a rewrite outside of that article. The conspiracy theories have an article at 9/11 conspiracy theories and there is a short summary of their nonsense and a link to that article from the main article. You're most definitely not in the majority.--MONGO 21:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mongo, you know full well that the disciplinary actions taken against me are part of a vindictive approach, by a small group of relentless editors, to punish editors they disagree with. The admin who blocked me was involved in these debates and so did so inappropriately. This is not a POV push, this redraft is to make the article comply with NPOV policy All civil editors are invited to join intio the discussion and redraft. My position is that the conspiracy theories have no place in the article or even to have their own artilce. They're not notable enough around 9/11 attacks. Finally, I was the one who requested the protection on the Steven Jones article to avoid a potentially libelous editor to the article. --Cplot 21:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you violate 3RR you get blocked...that is policy. I protected the Steven JOnes article before I saw you had requested for the protection, but after i saw yu had, I notated there that it was protected. You added a long list of well known CT books to this fork on this edit [3], so not sure what you mean when you claim that conspiracy theories don't belong when you add links to books about them. I am trying to assume you have good intentions, but what you need to do is discuss in as brief a format as possible, what changes are necessary to get the real article to be NPOV. If the person who blocked you has abused their admin tools, it should be reported to AN/I.--MONGO 22:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment the draft has it's own history and the intention is to incorporate portions back into the article so it will then be a part of the eidtor history of the main article
comment: Aude, I think you meant keep. This version gets rid of the conspiracy theory section. --67.37.179.61 03:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC) — 67.37.179.61 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Comment. By "bypass the 3 revert rule" I guess you mean having a page to edit with some compositional room to commit and commit again without being hounded by a small group of tenacious editors malicsiouly reverting every edit made (no matter it's merit)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cplot (talk • contribs)
Response - no and the above statement clearly and repeatedly violates wikipedia policy of assuming good faith, particularly in a case when the user has already been banned from the page in question, in addition to going unsigned. In the event that such a situation were to ever develop, just about every computer in existence has a program which would allow a person to write a proposal on it and then propose revisions on the talk page, even if he had been already banned from the page. Badbilltucker 19:09, 29 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 no consensus, 16 delete, 14 keep with 7 suggestions to transwiki and 3 suggestions to move. I must say that transwiki or moving this into the Sandbox would be the best idea here as this does not belong on Wikipedia, even in a user page. Personally, I think this issue merits further discussion, and a no consensus result is not an endorsement by any means. Please do not use a no consensus result as an argument to keep in the future. —Cuiviénen 23:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:AtionSong/World's Longest Poem (second nomination)

Also see the first nomination.

See similar MfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Once upon a time... and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Once upon a time... from 18 months ago.

  • Delete. I renominate this page for deletion because I believe its violation of existing policies is rather egregious and was not given adequate coverage during its last nomination. Specifically, I cite the following:
    • The WP:NOT policy states, "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published." Point two of that subsection specifically forbids "original inventions"; point three forbids "[p]ersonal essays or [b]logs" (cite).
    • Later, that policy also states "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia" (cite).
    • That policy also states "[Y]our user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion" (cite).
    • The WP:USER guideline states, "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia," and then goes on to state unrelated content includes:
      • "[e]xtensive discussion not related to Wikipedia"
      • "[o]ther non-encyclopedic material"
      • "[g]ames, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to 'entertainment' rather than 'writing an encyclopedia'"
      • "[c]ommunications with people uninvolved with the project or related work"
  • Because of the violation of the above policies and established guidelines, I strongly urge this article user subpage's deletion. — Whedonette (ping) 19:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition: Some rudimentary calculations outlined in a comment below indicates that the article up for MfD has the ability to consume, if carried to completion, approximately five (continuous, 24/7) months' worth of editing that could instead be devoted towards what Wikipedia is truly supposed to be about: building an encyclopedia. — Whedonette (ping) 01:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I withdraw this nomination. — Whedonette (ping) 16:42, 1 December 2006 (CST)
    • Comment Per User:Elkman below, "Supposedly, this poem would take up to 3,715 hours to complete ... There appears to be a concern about editor productivity being lost to this poem ... If spending a few minutes per day to add to a pointlessly long poem is a waste of time, how much more of a waste of time is it for someone to leave the computer for a weekend [ie. holiday] and do something other than Wikipedia editing?" Yuser31415@? 00:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia has no policy against editors taking time off to do whatever they like. Obviously. It does have policies about what its own resources can be used for, as quoted in the original nomination. — Whedonette (ping) 00:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you've killed your own argument that Wikipedians are "wasting their time on a doomed project". You've just stated Wikipedians can do whatever they like with their time, which is true. Your only argument left is that the page violates policy. Yuser31415@? 01:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The straw man argument you and Elkman are mounting attempts to link time spent doing things external to Wikipedia with time spent writing the poem. The flaw in that is that time spent writing the poem is not being taken from time that would have otherwise been spent outside of Wikipedia, doing scuba diving and such; the time spent writing the poem is being taken from time that would have otherwise been spent doing things on Wikipedia, such as contributing to article namespace, that would have had a beneficial effect towards the goal of writing an encyclopedia. — Whedonette (ping) 01:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please remember WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. It is also good ettiquette to notify the user in question on their talk page. Thank you. Yuser31415@? 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WP:IAR policy you linked to states, "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." I very obviously don't think that this page improves or maintains Wikipedia. The snowball clause you linked to states, "If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process." I don't think this applies here; the former discussion arrived at no consensus. Finally, I will notify the user in question now. Thanks. — Whedonette (ping) 20:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Please realize that just because everything in policy says this page should go, it is not deterring any users from editing. In fact this MfD is taking up people's time more than the poem. If people don't like the poem, they don't need to have anything to do with it. It is not being disruptive, it is merely a Wikipedia user's collaborative project. However, I do think it would be better off in a subpage of the Sandbox - for example, "Wikipedia:Sandbox/World's longest poem". Yuser31415@? 00:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In fact this MfD is taking up people's time more than the poem. Looking at the talk page, the truth of that statement is rather doubtful. Plus, here's some idle calculations. The page states 5,974 words in 701 lines. That's an average of 8.52 words per line. Divide that by your goal of 1.9 million, and you have 222,949 lines to write. Let's say a minute per line — a conservative estimate given time to come up with the line and then the time spent to edit it. That's 222,949 minutes = 3,715 hours = 154 days = 5 months. So we're talking an extremely conservative estimate of 5 continuous months of editing, with no stop for sleep or food, of editing time spent to create this project. Even dividing the manpower among, say, five editors yields a continuous month's worth of five editors' editing lost to a nonsense project. — Whedonette (ping) 01:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Strong keep - while this 'poem' clearly doesn't benefit the encyclopedia, it doesn't hurt it either. Per WP:IAR and WP:SNOW I suggest putting this page into a subpage of the Sandbox. Yuser31415@? 21:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons I nominated this the first time. I think it was a flawed decision to have kept it the first time (not the closing admin's, but rather the majority of the keep !votes rationale), although I think it would have been preferrable to wait a little longer before renominating it. --Doug Bell talk 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Interesting, perhaps, but not of any encyclopedic value. I'd also like to echo some of the above comments in saying that I can't see how WP:IAR or WP:SNOW relate to this issue.--Fyre2387 (talk * contribs) 22:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Alright, once again, I am biased, because this is my project, but may I direct your attention to Wikipedia:Department of Fun, please. This is no different than any of those pages, except I created it as a user subpage instead of a project page (although, I would note, some pages are also user subpages 1, 2). This page is no different than any of those. If it's the userpage thing that's bothering people, then this can be moved to a project page like the other Department of Fun pages. Why is this any different than the other Department of Fun pages? -AtionSong 22:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The argument I'm about to give holds no water usually, but for user subpages, it is appropriate. Is it hurting anything? -Amarkov blahedits 01:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it is hurting anything. Look at the amount of people involved in it, and how deeply they're involved in it. This is not an idle endeavour for these editors. — Whedonette (ping) 01:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not hurting anything. You argue that it ties up valuable editors and editing time; I counter, ho w do you know any editors at all would go the the articles if this page is deleted? It is more likely, in my opinion, that they would go to other Dept. of Fun projects or off WP altogether. If there is no fun to be had on WP, then the edit counts would drop dramatically from editors leaving. Alethiophile123 20:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If an editor doesn't enjoy the work associated with writing on any one of the sheer universe of topics that the 1.5 million articles in Wikipedia articlespace cover, and thus derives a sense of fun only out of contributing to Department of Fun projects, then I daresay Wikipedia is not the most optimal environment from which they can be deriving their fun. In any case, if an editor active in the poem goes to another Department of Fun project, it will hopefully be one much more finite in length, without quite so much potential for becoming such a massive sink of manpower. If an editor active in the poem leaves Wikipedia altogether, that is his or her decision, of course, but such a decision would reflect on the departing editor's sense of priorities. If a 1.9-million-word poem was the most important thing to them on Wikipedia, then, again, in such a case Wikipedia might not have been the most optimal environment from which said departing editor could have been deriving their fun. — Whedonette (ping) 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well-argued nomination. I fail to see how this is anything other than entertainment and how this is related to Wikipedia. To Amarkov, a page exclusively for non-Wikipedia related conversation "doesn't hurt" either, but well we have had one such page deleted not too long ago. Kimchi.sg 01:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I'm put off by the fact it was relisted again in a matter of weeks. If this result is keep, will you relsit it again? And again? And again after that too? The tribe has spoken, let it be for a while. So I was going to vote delete, but because the nominator's sheer despise for this page forces him to relist it only a few weeks later, I'm hesistant to vote in favour of deletion. This I feel, is an abuse of the proccess - simply relist it again & again if you don't get your way. This page isn't really hurting anything. Spawn Man 02:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki, such a project, if formulated right, could be transformed into a poetry learning project over at wikiversity. I'm always on the lookout to see if I can find stuff like this to move over.--Rayc 04:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikiversity. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yuser31415 Yao Ziyuan 13:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per Rayc. This does not belong on Wikipedia, even in the userspace. That said, I'd hate to see the work be deleted outright.--Isotope23 15:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unlike Esperanza, this is kept in userspace, promotes harmonious editing and collaboration, and creates a Wikipedian culture to which anyone can contribute. If someone wants to delete the Department of Fun, I'd vote delete, but you'll ahve a problem given Jimbo's a member... 15:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talk * contribs) .
    • Kindly back up the rather pleasantly phrased sound bites of "promotes harmonious editing and collaboration" and "creates a Wikipedian culture to which anyone can contribute" with proof as to same. And, for that matter, I have yet to hear one person's defense as to how said page isn't a massively flagrant violation of multiple Wikipedia policies ... aside from the WP:IAR catchall, which really doesn't apply as this isn't a project whose intent is to improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. — Whedonette (ping) 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why don't you back off and chill out? Where the hell were you when Esperanza was being MfDed? I am totally for deleting all and any unnecessary Wikipedian projects, including Esperanza, Concordia, and the Department of Fun, but I fail to see how a collaborative project merits deletion. You have to both use good editing skills and prose composition to create a line, and you have to work together with other editors to make it a decent poem. I do not see how this detracts from editing the encyclopedia. In addition, the poem is sortof about Wikipedian history, so it not only teaches new editors what has already happened here, but it creates community. Editing community cohesion is good. You need to severely calm down. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why don't you back off and chill out? Where the hell ... I can definitely see now how it promotes harmonious editing! :-) — Whedonette (ping) 16:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whoa now, I'm not sure Whedonette is the one needing to chill out here. Whedonette asked a perfectly reasonable question regarding the issue and I don't think you needed to bite her head off for asking. As to your claims that good editing skills and prose are required to create a line in the poem...well, that seems a bit of a stretch, especially as a rationale to keep the poem. I think ability to write a poem is not particularly relevant to creating good encyclopedic articles and that any editing skills necessary are better honed contributing, but YMMV. --Doug Bell talk 17:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I consider aggressively demanding "Kindly back up the rather pleasantly phrased sound bites" of someone who had made a single comment overly hyped up. I have never edited the poem, and do not intend to, but I have no problem with other people doing so, and do not understand why Whedonette has taken such a harsh dislike to it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, here's the problem: you tell us that the poem "promotes harmonious editing and collaboration" and "creates a Wikipedian culture to which anyone can contribute." To me, those are pleasantly phrased sound bites. Until you began blasting at me, after the "what the hell" stuff, that "[y]ou have to both use good editing skills and prose composition to create a line" and "you have to work together with other editors to make it a decent poem," all that we were given in support of your keep vote were rather prettily phrased nouns and verbs. And although a porn actress knows how to assume the role of a character and how to be aware of where the camera is, I wouldn't call her ready to play Ophelia in Hamlet. Similarly, the supposedly "good editing skills" and "prose composition" 'skills' required to write a goofy limerick aren't very translatable to writing Wikipedia articles (and, BTW, prose != poetry — "literary medium distinguished from poetry" [5]). That was a weak argument ... at best. — Whedonette (ping) 18:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • My vote stands. Harrassing me isn't going to change it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Look Whedonette, that's not the point. Apart from policy, why do you feel the page should be deleted? If you don't like it, don't go near it. If someone wants to spend their time on a harmless project, let them. What do you have against these people or their project? It's just a Department of Fun poem, and surely one poem isn't going to hurt 1,506,611 whole Wikipedia articles? It's peoples' choice. If they wish to spend their time on this, then let them do so, although if it could be changed to become more educational that would be great. Yuser31415@? 19:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Apart from policy? Policy is the cornerstone of this encyclopedic work. Process and policy (and guidelines) prevent this place from becoming chaos.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Policy isn't something that should be set aside in this argument. To illustrate by exaggeration: "Listen, aside from the fact that I ax-murdered your husband, what do you have against me?" The core issue is policy. But to answer your question nonetheless, essentially, I believe that the page should be deleted for the feelings and reasonings that originally, presumably, inspired the policies and guidelines cited: the overriding purpose of this website is to build an encyclopedia, and things that subtract, slow down, and take away from that purpose do not have a place here. This poem is a frivolous and yet very huge energy suck, and, as the calculations show, would conservatively take a good 3,715 manhours of editing. That makes this project quite different than games of chess or checkers which were, in and of themselves, deleted when Esperanza's Coffee Lounge was. If those were considered timewasters and deleted, this meets that same standard of timewasting and multiplies it by a factor of a few thousand. Further, since the "people" do not own the Wikimedia servers, it is not the "people"'s choice — it is the Wikimedia Foundation's choice, as outlined in the policies and guidelines formulated by those who actually wish to compose an encyclopedia. — Whedonette (ping) 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki somewhere, no idea where. It would be a shame to lose the info here, but it isn't relevant to Wikipedia. --ais523 17:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - or maybe send to Wikia?. WP:NOT a place for social networking. Silly and distracting. Moreschi 19:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Moreschi! Could you give me an example of how it's destracting? Cheers! Yuser31415@? 19:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be far better if editors spent their writing talents actually improving the encyclopaedia for a change, rather than time-wasting on this nonsense. Quite apart from the multitude of policies this thing violates. Moreschi 19:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, but just deleting a page is not going to stop them from wasting time. All it's going to do is induce bitterness on the part of the editors who've spent such a long time on it. Nobody would sign up if we said they had to have a fixed template on their page that didn't violate any policies. To an extent, a user subpage is a user page and people can put what they like on it, as long as they don't get excessive. Yuser31415@? 20:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If they wish to waste their time, they can do so on an external website - just not on Wikipedia, where it distracts other users from editing the encyclopaedia. And no, actually, per WP:USER you can't put basically whatever you like in your userspace. There are rules and they should be respected. What is more, I think I have stated my views on this at quite an adequate length, and I'm afraid I have better things to do with my life than bicker all day and night at this MfD - like actually write some articles! Moreschi 20:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • a user subpage is a user page and people can put what they like on it, as long as they don't get excessive. Here's the problem with that statement: you don't own your userpage. That's outlined both by policy and guideline (which I cited in my second nomination). Therefore, no, people can't put what they like on it. And, seperately, if you don't consider a 1.9-million-word poem "excessive," I marvel to wonder what the scope of something you might find excessive would be. — Whedonette (ping) 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • A 1.9 million word poem is excessive, but it shows no sign of getting that large. Yuser31415@? 21:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • So you find the page's stated goal to be excessive, and furthermore believe that the editors will not reach their stated goal. Illuminating. — Whedonette (ping) 21:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • So if the editors wish to waste their time on an already doomed project, why not let them? Yuser31415@? 21:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Because (a) that's not what Wikipedia or its resources are for; (b) it's not a useful project, it's frivolous and useless entertainment that won't even — as you admit — succeed at its intended purpose; and (c) they could be contributing manhours towards articles and useful environments that have little or no chance of being "doomed." — Whedonette (ping) 21:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • B. and C. are irrelevant as they apply to the editors in question; A. is the most important. May I alert you to Wikipedia:Don't_worry_about_performance. I do think it should be in a subpage of the sandbox, but nobody seems to be listening. Why should this page be nominated for deletion when the Department of Fun isn't? That seems silly to me. And the Department of Fun is an established group, as far as I know. Yuser31415@? 21:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • With regards to your counterargument to point (a), your cite of the intended page does not support your cause, as the page's stated caveat starts off by saying, "When making some improvement to Wikipedia's content ... " This is very obviously not an improvement of Wikipedia's content. Therefore, point (a) stands. With regards to your dismissal of (b) and (c) as irrelevant, you write off the very underlying arguments of the policies and guidelines that were cited above and forbid such entertainment-only subpages as the poem in question. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. It is not a place for social networking. It is not a place to do fun little entertaining projects. It is an online encyclopedia. Free webhosts, social networking, and fun little entertaining projects are, in and of themselves, not unworthy things; they deserve homes. This is not the place for same. — Whedonette (ping) 21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well detailed nomination; this page is a failure of WP:NOT and WP:USER--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 21:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in agreement with the nomination and WP:USER and WP:NOT#USER. Barno 21:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the page in question could be moved to a subpage of the Sandbox, ie. Wikipedia:Sandbox/World's longest poem. Yuser31415@? 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, it is in userspace and it doesn't hurt to keep it.__Seadog ? 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (Changed to Delete)[reply]
  • Comment: The Department of Fun has been around for over two years on Wikipedia. It is basically a collection of things that "simply take up space, have no encyclopedic value, and take away the time of editors from doing other things" (arguments previously stated in the thread). So far, in two years, nobody has thought that it posed a threatening problem to the Wikipedia community. If it's the user subpage thing that's bothering people, I would be happy to move in to a project page at Wikipedia:World's Longest Poem, just like all the other projects in the Department of Fun. -AtionSong 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously delete a project whose explicit goal is to produce 1.9 million words of nonsense. Opabinia regalis 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. When the community considers a page for deletion, the decision is made by policy. As such, from WP:USER (the section regarding "What can I not have on my user page?"), I quote: Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia." Srose (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, just like to add that the transwiki option is still on the table. I hope in the future colaberative projects can be moved over to wikiversity without a deletion debate, just like dic defs or books.--Rayc 16:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that the Department of Fun has not been put up at MfD.
Yet. Moreschi 18:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep a)You never give up, do you? That's not a compliment. We just did this a few weeks ago. I voted Keep then, and now I'm doing the same. b)This is not a meaningful MfD. We did this a few weeks ago and received no consensus. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that it will produce any different result. c)WP:IAR states that if a rule is preventing improvement to WP, we should ignore it. d)Your main argument seems to be that it distracts from other editors' time editing articles. Per my comments above, which I will repeat for those who are too lazy to scroll up, we don't know that deleting this will get any editors onto article space. I contribute to articles on a regular basis, ditto with the poem, and I don't find them mutually exclusive, which leads me into e)There is no proof that this is distracting anyone anyway. Alethiophile123 20:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure which "you" you are referring to. I just wanted to point out that WP:IAR has nothing to do with deleting rules. It has to do with ignoring rules, and not frivolously, but rather when there is a need to ignore rules. I haven't seen any claim here on this page of a need to ignore the rules. --Doug Bell talk 20:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if this commentary was directed to me, so I would make the following observations in response to your vote. (a) I note that I am not the individual who nominated this the first time. That would be Mr. Bell. This being my first attempt, this isn't a question of "never giving up." Furthermore, I would request that you not insult your fellow editors and make your arguments civilly. (b) The closing administrator, when making a decision, should assess consensus not in a straight up-or-down count but based on the weight of the arguments presented on each side. In my own opinion, those believing the article should be kept have not been able to cite policy to support their views, whereas there is an overwhelming amount of policy supporting the position of deleting this article. (c) Indeed, WP:IAR states, specifically, "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." I do not think an argument can effectively be made that contributions to a 1.9-million-word poem composed of utter nonsense in any way improves Wikipedia or assists in maintaining it. Therefore, I don't believe WP:IAR assists your argument. (d) I replied to this where you laid out your argument above. (e) Proof that it distracts editors is not required (and, indeed, given that one cannot read minds, is an unfair burden to require) — the proof that it violates multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines is already present. — Whedonette (ping) 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again: WP:IAR. I am not referring to users whose only priority on WP is this poem; I am referring to users--like me--who are under a substantial amount of stress and would probably leave if they didn't have at least one way to simply have fun. Wikipedia, or another wiki, is the only way that a project such as this could be carried out. Free wikis such as PBWiki are not a good option--they are significantly disadvantaged in usability. Therefore, this page must be on wikipedia for it to have any real meaning. And anyway, your main arguments are thus:
        1. It violates policy, and;
        2. It distracts editors.
      • WP:IAR takes care of the first point; my already-stated arguments take care of the second. In my view, you don't have a case. Also, I'm sorry I was uncivil about "never giving up"; that was mean-spirited. My arguments stand, however. Alethiophile123 22:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't agree with any of the premises in your statement: I do not believe that this poem improves Wikipedia or assists in its maintenance, and therefore, WP:IAR would not be an acceptable argument in defense of keeping it. Additionally, I do not believe that Wikipedia is the only acceptable venue in which this poem can be constructed. Finally, I am sincerely sorry that you find yourself under a substantial amount of stress. However, Wikipedia as an institution should not be responsible for providing for the relief of its editors' stress, given that there are a plethora of venues and ways in which an editor can relax themselves, whether it is reading a book, watching a television show, playing an online game, engaging in a sport, or what have you. — Whedonette (ping) 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Random section break 1
  • Comment: Whedonette's contributions show nothing but two months of nominating various items for MfD - aside from wondering why this champion of the Wiki never actually edits in the article namespace herself, I cannot help but wonder where this phenomenal grasp of Wikipolicy came from, given this person signed up and immediately leapt in Mfding? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • An ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, and thus offers no real defense as to the topic currently being discussed. Attacking the person instead of the argument is what's soured a lot of people on politics; I find it equally as distasteful here. — Whedonette (ping) 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find it distasteful that you insist on arguing with every person who has voted keep, but whatever. I find it somewhat interesting that you decided to sneer at my comment rather than deny my implicit accusation of sockpuppetry. I'm going to see if tehre are any blocked users known for deletionism. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was asked that question directly by another person on my talk page, and answered it there. I honestly don't think it's relevant to this discussion — or, for that matter, that I should be indulging your discourtesy — but, no, this is the only name I edit Wikipedia under. But a sockpuppet would say the precise same thing, so there's no real way to satisfactorily answer that charge, is there? No one would ever say, "Yes, I'm a sockpuppet." So a "no" answer can either be treated with belief or disbelief. — Whedonette (ping) 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to say that an ad hominem attack here is only going to undermine the strength of your other statements. Please be civil and stay focused on the subject of this page. --Doug Bell talk 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not arguing here. I am expressing concern that this apparent all-knowing deletionist hasn't any real edits. If that's an ad hominem attack then you're a mushroom. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please remain calm and do not make personal attacks (calling other a mushroom). Doug, Dev has a point. If Whedonette has gained her knowledge of policies by editing under a sockpuppet account before creating this one, sockpuppet vote stacking is serious offense. Yuser31415@? 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Given that the mushroom accusation was brought with the conditional of me making a personal attack, and I was not making a personal attack, I wasn't actually calling Doug a mushroom. However, I have gone further into Whedonette's background and she has 109 edits, three of which are in the main namespace and 65 of which are nominating and defending MfDs. There's something funny going on here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • See [6]. Yuser31415@? 00:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is pointless road to head down. An anonymous IP can nominate an article for deletion, and that doesn't undermine the merits that such a deletion may have. Please stay focused on the discussion here, otherwise I might assume that you [7] are implying that my [8] previous nomination was funny also. --Doug Bell talk 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • "This is pointless road to head down." That depends on whether this continues as simply a discussion on the merits of Whedonette or whether there is the possibility of sock puppeting going on. -AtionSong 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If there is a legitimate suspicion of sockpuppetry then it would be best to confront that head on, as Yuser31415 did, otherwise I suggest that continuing with innuendo would be bad faith and possible incivility. Since nobody has said who the suspected sockpuppeteer is, I'm not sure I understand your point. If you suspect actual sockpuppetry, then may I suggest you take it to WP:SSP. --Doug Bell talk 02:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • (edit conflict) — "on the merits of Whedonette or whether there is the possibility of sock puppeting going on". What a delightfully revealing Freudian slip — evidently in Ationsong's mind, it's either a discussion about me ... or a discussion about me! — Whedonette (ping) 02:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • "...evidently in Ationsong's mind, it's either a discussion about me ... or a discussion about me!" That's not what I was trying to say at all. I agree that yes, there is no point in arguing on the merits of an articles nominator whatsoever, unless there is suspicion that they are a sockpuppet, which I was not accusing you of. The comment was not directed at you, it was directed at the discussion. -AtionSong 02:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Stopping your not-so-gentle sarcasm might encourage others to be civil. I have never said you were a sockpuppet. Would you like a Wikipedia:Checkuser to be carried out to remove all suspicion? Yuser31415@? 02:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • *gentle smile* So in the midst of multiple ad hominem attacks, the civility or incivility of those making those attacks is now somehow my responsibility? My appreciation of the surreal and absurd is helping me deal with this in good humor. An editor's choice of whether to adopt a civil tone is theirs and theirs alone, Yuser. As for sockpuppet allegations, that was indeed just a typo — your mention of sockpuppetry came in the form of an interrogatory, not a declaration. As for bringing up this Checkuser thing, that presupposes (a) my guilt and (b) the idea that the allegations are relevant to this discussion. As I agree to neither of these suppositions, I would not initiate nor assent to such a request — although it appears to me that you need neither my assent nor my initiation. Plus, who am I supposed to be a sock puppet of? — Whedonette (ping) 02:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ad hominem is, quite simply, attacking the person instead of the argument he or she is putting forth. That's precisely what you're doing. — Whedonette, the sneering all-knowing deletionist, who of course might be mistaken about the personal attack thing (ping) 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Now you're being sarcastic again. Although you seem to have a problem with Dev making alleged personal attacks against you, you obviously have no problem with certain ad hominem attacks made against me BY DELETIONISTS responding to my Keep votes in prominent MfDs:

            Furthermore, Alethiophile, and you should know this,

            I suggest you reconsider your priorities

            Alethiophile123 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • First, I'm not going to take people to task for arguing for the same position I am. Second, if you employ ad hominem attacks, you are not in a good position to complain about receiving them. — Whedonette (ping) 22:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              I have not employed any ad hominem attacks. You are trying to categorize everyone who disagrees with your position as someone who uses ad hominem attacks, and thus, by implication, someone who cannot back up their argument by any other means. Furthermore, it is completely reasonable to investigate the person who is nominating anything, including RfA, MfD, AfD, RfC and anything else. If there is a suspicion that the nominator is either not working in good faith or is not experienced enough in actual article space edits to know what is worth deleting, doubly so--and if there is suspicion that the nominator is a sockpuppet of something, triply so. I am not making any accusations, I am simply defending the idea that people need investigating, as well as pages. Alethiophile123 21:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For those arguing that the poem is a waste of server space, this page is now larger than the poem itself, making the nomination for deletion more of a strain on the server than the article. -AtionSong 22:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then we better delete it quick so we don't have to go through this again. :-) Actually, the issue is not space, it is on drawing a line on which activities belong here and which don't. This discuss here will not only decide the fate of this page, but also serves as a forum for users to express their views on where the line should be drawn. --Doug Bell talk 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding editor productivity: Supposedly, this poem would take up to 3,715 editor-hours (or five editor-months) to complete. There appears to be a concern about editor productivity being lost to this poem. Is there an expected standard of productivity for editors, or some expectation that Wikipedia editors put a certain amount of time into editing? As an example, I spent a weekend last month at Wazee Lake near Black River Falls, Wisconsin, doing some scuba diving. Instead of working on articles like Antoine Auguelle, Ard Godfrey or Battle of Birch Coulee, I was instead experiencing problems with buoyancy and blowing O-rings. I lost some 56 hours or so of Wikipedia editing time in that weekend, with nothing but an Advanced Open Water Diver certification to show for it. If spending a few minutes per day to add to a pointlessly long poem is a waste of time, how much more of a waste of time is it for someone to leave the computer for a weekend and do something other than Wikipedia editing? --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there an expected standard of productivity for editors, or some expectation that Wikipedia editors put a certain amount of time into editing? No, there's not. Very nice straw man setup. — Whedonette (ping) 00:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know, it might help your case if you weren't sarcastic to every single person who says to keep... -Amarkov blahedits 02:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I wasn't voting, per se. I was wondering if there's a standard for productivity for editors, since the subject has come up before. (It came up in the MfD for Esperanza and all its subpages, for example.) Since the argument has come up before, saying "Editors are wasting time on this instead of creating the encyclopedia," I'm looking at this for a test case to determine if we need to quantify how much time editors should spend on Wikipedia as a whole, or some sort of time balance between editing articles, editing silly poems, hanging out in a virtual coffee lounge, or arguing over MfDs. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 03:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki. Poem doesn't really belong on an encyclopedia, but may be a worthy Wiki project elsewhere. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would like to again lay down the evidence why this page should be kept or transwikied.
Evidence that the World's Longest Poem should be kept
  1. In no way does the article harm Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia project.
  2. The project is in userspace, is active, and nonintrusive.
  3. The poem is related to Wikipedia, in the form of a poetic history of Wikipedia.
  4. "If it ain't broke don't fix it." I would translate this to, "If it ain't harming Wikipedia don't delete it."
Best regards,
Yuser31415@? 03:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki Irrelevant to building an encyclopedia. JChap2007 03:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Relisted comment removed by Amarkov.) I'll pretend I didn't read any of the above aside from Whedonette's opening statement. It was nominated as violating multiple components of WP:NOT and WP:USER. WP:USER is rarely utilized to delete the userpages of members in good standing. Unfortunately, neither the author (AtionSong) nor the nominator (Whedonette) can be classified in the good standing category. Point stands. The citing of WP:USER fits. The citing of WP:NOT is rather tortured. Personally, I think the page is a ridiculous waste of time, that the arguments are spurious to the point of hysterical equine necrobrutality and that Whedonette is almost certainly a sockpuppet or at least a rabblerouser intent on using deletions to make a point....but sadly, Whedonette is correct, and it is completely hypocritical for me to vote anything but delete simply due to my dislike for this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaragirl (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Fails WP:USER. If I say anything more I'll say something rude, so I'll just stick to that. riana_dzasta 03:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's nothing wrong with working on a 9000000000???-word poem during your spare time in between editing articles. The poem is a work in progress, and Wikipedia might actually become famous on Guinness World Records for making the longest poem!!!--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how to interpret your tone, Ed, are you being sarcastic? Wouldn't you rather Wikipedia became well-known for being a good encyclopedia? A few editors working on this have edits primarily to this page. That's a bit worrying, I think. riana_dzasta 04:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not sarcasm. I seriously vote keep. I'm surprised many editors are working on the poem, to tell you the truth. I regarded the project as something to work on when I needed to take a break from an article. (It always helps me to switch my tasks every 30 minutes). Besides, writing a poem can improve your composition.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for responding politely (that's in short supply on this page). True, it may not be a problem for you and many others, who are able to balance themselves well. But a few seem unable to do so. riana_dzasta 04:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or weak keep as long as the owner has copied it to his computer (if it gets deleted, which it loogs like may happen). —  $PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 05:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This page is in violation of a number of policies. Wikipedia is here for writing an encyclopedia. This page seems to me to have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. The stress relief argument has never held any water for me. It's not as though when you are editing Wikipedia you are unable to access the rest of the internet. It's perfectly easy for an editor to work on an article for a while, get stressed out, go to another website and play some pong, de-stress, and chill, and then come back to Wikipedia. WP's focus is broad enough, we need to stay focused on what the goal really is. To write an encyclopedia. Not to do whatever the heck we feel like as long as it's not in article space. Mak (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, violates policies, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, write this elsewhere. Terence Ong 06:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons given by Doug Bell. --MichaelMaggs 07:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Does not help the encyclopedia. And does violate WP:USERPAGE. I think.__Seadog ♪ 16:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've said before, if people are just bugged that this violates Userpage regulations, I'll be happy to move it to a Wikipedia project page, just like everything else in the Department of Fun. When I created it, I just was not being very bold, and only created is as a subpage. But I'll be happy to move it to conform to WP standards. -AtionSong 22:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not just move it per WP:BOLD? I personally feel it would have a better chance in a subpage of the Wikipedia:Sandbox, but it is up to you. Yuser31415@? 22:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • AtionSong, hopefully you can understand that there should be some discretion of what can be included under the department of fun, and that that is the point of this MfD, not whether it exists in user space. The user space arguments are primarily being made as reasons why this should be immune from deletion, and thus there are many counter user space arguments to make the case that user space does not afford some overarching protection for these kinds of pages. The same will apply in project space regardless of what umbrella (i.e. the Department of Fun) it is placed under.
        And to Yuser, moving an article under discussion at XfD is considered disruptive. Don't do it. —Doug Bell talk 22:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The following comment is not intended as an attack or to be sarcastic, it is just a comment: ...that that is the point of this MfD, not whether it exists in user space...The user space argument are primarily being made as reasons why this should be immune from deletion (from directly above) "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia"..."[Y]our user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion"...The WP:USER guideline states, "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia," (from the original nomination). Because about half the nomination for deletion that syou wrote was relating to what should not be on a userpage, I respectfully disagree with your comment that this debate is not over the userspace. -AtionSong 00:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is the second time you seem to be making the same mistake in thinking that I wrote this nomination. Here is the nomination I wrote. You'll notice the word "user" does not appear in my nomination. —Doug Bell talk 01:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry about that! My bad. The error is now fixed. However, it still stands, that the argument that this is about userspace policies still stands. -AtionSong 01:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, not to continue back and forth here until we're indented off the right side of the page, but the nomination starts with a description of WP:NOT: The WP:NOT policy states, "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published." Point two of that subsection specifically forbids "original inventions"; point three forbids "[p]ersonal essays or [b]logs" (cite). The following discussion of user page policies and guidelines is, as I made the point above, to attack the arguments to keep presented at the first MfD that basically argue that people should be allowed whatever they want to have in user space so long as it's not doing any harm. So I think my point above is still valid. You also didn't address the issue of discretion regarding the department of fun. Is it your view that whatever somebody thinks is fun should be allowed as long as it's not doing any harm? Because this, I think, is the defining separation in the positions of the keep and delete proponents, not the user space vs. project space issue. —Doug Bell talk 01:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't believe that I ever said that this is not doing any harm, and I still won't(talk about double negatives!). I also believe that the points you cited from WP:NOT are irrelivant to this situation. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published. This fact links to the original research page, wich basically says that Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. This does not apply to the article in question. Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. I believe that this is just saying that all articles need to be about something that is widely considered as significant, not just something that you and your friends created, and somebody else will not know about (such as the term "frindle", which is from a book of the same name, in which a boy renames a pen a frindle). Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. The article in question is neither an essay, nor a blog, and shows no opinions on any topic (except perhaps that vandals are bad).
                As for if I believe that discretion should be used in the Department of Fun, the idea of the DoF is to create fun side projects for people to participate in when they're not editing. If there was a rush of people who created a bunch of pages that "think are fun", which proceeded to just sit there, taking up space, then I would object to the Department of Fun. However, this is not the case. Even though it has been around for two years, only about 30 pages exists as pages for the Department of Fun, and over half of them are actively edited. Considering that now over 1,500,000 pages are being hosted on the Wikipedia server, 30 pages do not create any extra strain, and removing them will not make it run faster. Secondly, the Department of Fun is not the supposed huge blob of evil that sucks up editors precious editing time. Most of the active pages are edited from every two or three days at the least to five times a day at the most. The DoF is not attempting to compete with the rest of Wikipedia, it is attempting to compliment it, and to give the users a stronger sense of community. -AtionSong 13:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I suppose you are correct, however, after this MfD, then is there any policy that specifically says AtionSong may not create it in another namespace? Best wishes, Yuser31415@? 22:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I hope everyone knows that Jimbo Wales is a member of the Department of Fun, of which the World's Longest Poem project belongs to. Thanks. Yuser31415@? 00:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - harmless fun is semi-private user namespace is perfectly OK. Zocky | picture popups 02:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per zocky Editors seem to be acive. If this diversion helps them edit more productively, sounds good to me. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly agree. Yuser31415@?mop 03:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same here. Writing poems are one of the ways to improve composition.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As per above, I wrote: I would like to assert that there is supportive policy for this page. WP:USER specifically states, " The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption." Best regards, Yuser31415@?mop 03:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't see how this hurts the process here at Wikipedia or why it has causes such an uproar. If people are really so worried about productive editing, lets stop nominating these kind of things and actually edit articles. Interestingly enough, this discussion is longer (71 kilobytes) than the subpage in question (37 Kilobytes). Keep. -- AuburnPilottalk 04:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It might be fun to start a page specifically dedicated to the World's Longest MfD discussion. (Then again, MfDs are more contentious than the world's longest poem, and poems usually don't cause hard feelings. So, never mind.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Esperanza MfD had it's own WP:SHORTCUT. And the talk page was huge too. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 21:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Auburnpilot. I would also hope that such a keep would change WP culture - by discouraging nominations like this; which have taken more storage than the poem is ever likely to. If it gets above 255K, get back to us. Septentrionalis 06:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I fear the time spent on this XfD could have been spent on improving the encyclopedia, which ironically is what this deletion page seems to be about. I really don't care about a page like this being in userspace. --Deskana talk 17:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After Whedonette has argued above that users spend too much time on the userpage in question, take a look at the user's edit count, which makes it clear that the user hasn't been actively engaging in article editing.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 21:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - absolutely NOT what Wikipedia is providing userspace for. Go chase world records somewhere else. -- nae'blis 00:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but I consider your statement incorrect. WP:USER says, "... community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia ..." Best regards, Yuser31415@?clean 00:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Move Ever heard of fun? And i think it would work better if it were to be placed in a community thingy. Definitely keep.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 16:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to sandbox. bibliomaniac15 05:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/move - There's a lot of discussion here but I don't see how any of it really requires the page to be removed. There's so many things that could be described as distracting editors from editing Wikipedia - but I really think that some people are a bit nervous wading into the deep waters at first and tend to keep to the shallows of Department of Fun, plus these sorts of pages until they feel fully ready to contribute. In the process they meet a heap of other Wikipedians (including more experienced ones), learn how to edit pages properly, some syntactic type things, and whatever. If we're to open this thing up to everybody, we should expect some people learn or adapt at different rates. That being said, I'm not in favour of people who use disruptive (even if well-intentioned) edits to established articles to achieve the same purpose. The poem is harmless, amusing and for that matter survived an earlier XfD. Orderinchaos78 14:28, 4 December 2006 (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 miscellany 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. (Radiant) 16:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fsf

Fsf uses his userpage to advertise free software. Also involved in spamming[10] and advertising[11]. May be part of the spammers targetting Spyware although he made a variety of good small edits. Username indicates conflict of interest. Delete the userpage. Should user be blocked? -- Mgm|(talk) 10:24, 27 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. —Doug Bell talk 07:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various subpages of User:Vuara

At least some of these are copy-and-paste jobs from random web sites; most of them have the URL at the top, but not all do. Some are Vietnamese, which I can't read (but the few loanwords suggest that it's more of the same). The rest are nonsensical text dumps (including one Star Trek fanfic!) - in general, nothing that would help build an encyclopedia. The user hasn't been active in over two years. I've gone through everything here, and found nothing coherent or helpful. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:30, 27 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. (Radiant) 16:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tetsumonchi

See What can I not have on my user page?, page does not present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia →WP:NOT. User has almost no contributions other than this page (his contributions). Page was originaly deleted: here, 15 April 2006. User was warned about his page. Philip Gronowski Contribs 02:47, 27 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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. — xaosflux Talk 06:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cowhig

Note, this MFD is for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cowhig%E2%80%8E ... note the special characters after the page name. Just going to User:Cowhig will not take you to the correct page.

This page was originally a vanity article that was userfied, apparantly to the incorrect name. Oddly enough, it displays its title as User:Cowhig (whatever %E2%80%8E is is invisible) and Special:Logs doesn't work on it.

Note: this page has now been moved to User:Cowhig (without the special characters) and the redirect has been deleted. BigDT 12:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the user who created the vanity article has only one other contribution and hasn't been around since July. He blanked [12] his own user page, so that could be taken as a sign he isn't overly interested in the page. -- BigDT 01:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment %E2%80%8E is encoding for Unicode character U+200E, Left-to-Right Mark. It's a formatting character, and as such supposed to be invisible, but it looks like the software doesn't handle formatting characters in input very well. --Derlay 01:46, 27 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 Keep. — xaosflux Talk 06:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lexingtonbridge

Spam for unpublished band. Derlay 00:52, 27 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 Keep. — xaosflux Talk 06:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wuya'sbabydaddy

This looks like the beginning of a book, not a Wikipedia:User page. Derlay 00:47, 27 November 2006 (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.

2006-11-30

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 per user request. New user page was moved to User:Normanr. —Doug Bell talk 10:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:NormanR

I renamed User:NormanR to User:Normanr, so the old page (which is now just a redirect) can be deleted. Normanr 09:57, 30 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 nomination withdrawn. MER-C 08:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dj5dj

A copy of a source text, not a user page. Wikipedia is not a free web host. User has not been seen for six months. MER-C 06:08, 30 November 2006 (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.

2006-11-29

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:BricksFromEurope/Corny Medieval Costume

I originally speedy tagged this as an attack page, it was contested with the argument that the subject had goaded the author to do it. Wanting to AGF, particularly with children, I changed the speedy tag to db-bio and offered to "userfy" the page, not realizing I could not move a page over an existing one (I've never tried to before, for obvious reasons.) As a result of that compromise, I created this page. Author then went on a vandal spree and got blocked for one month. Delete, as nonsense, unsuitable for any wikipedia space. I'd db-author it, but I'm not sure I can. Dina 01:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest re-tagging as attack for speedy. This shouldn't wait 5 days. Newyorkbrad 01:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged this twice, and removed tags twice. I feel a bit stupid about it all, and would prefer someone else do it. If you will, I'll close the Mfd! ;) Dina 01:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tag it tomorrow unless anyone comes up with a counterargument in the meantime. Newyorkbrad 01:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very possibly, the person in the picture. It could be all in fun, but it could also be a high-schoolish student who had to wear that costume for some school reason, and is now being teased about it over the Internet, giving his real name. "If you wear this costume you may be teased and/or bullied" - exactly, I fear. Newyorkbrad 01:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're probably right, though I was not sure originally. However, subsequent edits seem to demonstrate that too much good faith is probably foolish in this case. Dina 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than prod for a third time, which is disfavored (especially with the creator blocked), I think I'll post this to ANI and see what an admin there thinks. Newyorkbrad 01:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy speedy speedy -- I somehow didn't see this on my talk page when I agreed to userfy [13]. (image is gone, see image name) *sigh* Dina 02:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sort of resolves any lingering doubt, I've posted to ANI so hopefully someone will be by soon. Newyorkbrad 02:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it as well, in spite of my reservations about being a flip-flopper. Thanks for your help. Dina 02:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why was it just not proded? Prodego talk 02:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because prod is only for articles... I need to think about these things first.... Anyway this page is not really an attack, but it might as well be deleted under WP:IAR.. Prodego talk 02:15, 30 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 Read my comment below. Yanksox 01:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:22barney22

22barney22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User account's only purpose appears to be to use talk page as a message-board. Either this is a single account with multiple users (a "role account," allowed only by explicit permission), or it's one person violating WP:NOT. User was notified and promptly deleted the warning diff (since restored, but the edits have continued). Addendum: All edits are in userspace, mostly to the user's own talk page, except this bit of possibly inadvertent vandalism. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:52, 29 November 2006 (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.

2006-11-28

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 per request from creator and user. —Doug Bell talk 23:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Monkey13/Esperanza

This page was created as a copy of the Wikipedia:Esperanza main page during the Esperanza MfD discussion in a mis-guided attempt to preserve the contents of the page should the discussion result in the deletion of the Esperanza pages. It should probably be a candidate for speedy deletion, except there is no criteria that it fits. —Doug Bell talk 21:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't need it anymore. -Monkey 13!!! 23:37, 28 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 Guy. Whispering 23:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:DAde

Delete this user page violates WP:UP and is "Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia," "Other non-encyclopedic material," and a "Polemical statement." This user page does nothing but incite other users and is counter to the wiki spirit of cooperation with other editors to make useful contributions to Wikipedia. It is also a violation of WP:POINT as the editor is using this page as a forum for editions which were not accepted by concensus into articles at Islamic extremist terrorism and Islam. Editor should keep in mind that Wikipedia is NOT a battleground. Strothra 19:13, 28 November 2006 (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.

2006-11-27

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. -- Steel 20:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:First-Ward.com

blatant ad ccwaters 16:28, 27 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 replace content with {{indefblockeduser}}. Kimchi.sg 01:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:1337 h4k0rz

Page is random nonsense, as is the username, and user appears to have vanished. Derlay 00:32, 27 November 2006 (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 miscellany 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 all for abuse of userspace. = Mgm|(talk) 11:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skifdank

I'm back with "Wikipedia is not MySpace 6" (I believe): Submitted again for your official verdicts, more userfied vanity articles for "editors" clearly who ain't here for the editin', but for the publicizin'/self-expression, this batch from February and March this year. And yes, I left messages on their Talk Pages.

And now for the boilerplate text. These:

a) are user pages that were moved from article space by an admin/editor.
b) were originally articles that were originally speedy-delete candidates or speedy-delete eligible.
c) have page creators who have few/no edits outside user space.
d) have page creators who have not edited at all (with a couple of exception)s since the initial page creation seven to eight months ago (with one exception, which was created in July).
e) are, prima facie, not user pages, but attempts to use Wikipedia as a free webhost/promotional vehicle. WP:NOT, stating that Wikipedia is not a free web host is applicable.
Topic:
  • Total edits: 2. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: February 2006
Topic: Page for a student group at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Topic: User's CV.
  • Total edits: 6. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: February 2006
Topic: Bio of a 12-year-old.
  • Total edits: 2. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: February 2006
Topic: Vanity bio
  • Total edits: 12. Edits outside user page: 1 (to Sandbox).
  • Last edit: February 2006
Topic: Vanity bio, with huge photo
  • Total edits: 11. Edits outside user page: 6 (uploading photos and adding self to West Plains, Missouri).
  • Last edit: February 2006
Topic: MySpace-like listing, with huge photo
Topic: MySpace-like listing with photo, linked to the page above
  • Total edits: 8. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: July 2006
Topic: LONG (505 words) vanity bio
  • Total edits: 2. Edits outside user page: 1 (uploading unused photo).
  • Last edit: February 2006
Topic: Short CV.
  • Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: February 2006
Topic: Promotion for a non-notable youth group, founded by guess who?
  • Total edits: 7. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: February 2006
Topic: Vanity bio and long school-assignment essay ("Illegal Immigration - A Topic which we are very concerned about")
  • Total edits: 17. Edits outside user page: 3 (uploading unused photo and adding self to John Allen and Illegal immigration).
  • Last edit: February 2006
Topic: Absurd vanity bio
  • Total edits: 2. Edits outside user page: 1 (vandalism to Roadkill).
  • Last edit: February 2006
Topic: Long vanity bio of minor sportswriter.
  • Total edits: 13 (including removal of level4 vandal warnings from talk page). Edits outside user page: 2 (adding ref to self in Hannah Kearney).
  • Last edit: June 2006
Topic: vanity bio
  • Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: February 2006
Topic: vanity bio
  • Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: February 2006
Topic: MySpace-like page for US Navy sailor
  • Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: February 2006
Topic: MySpace-like page
  • Total edits: 2. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: March 2006
Topic: Vanity bio
  • Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: March 2006
Topic: Long what-I-want-to-be-when-I-grow-up essay (529 words)
  • Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: March 2006
Topic: Vanity page for Kingdom of Loathing player
  • Total edits: 3. Edits outside user page: 2 (adding a friend to Kingdom of Loathing).
  • Last edit: March 2006
Topic: Nonsense article about a "Pixton sandwich"
  • Total edits: 2. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: March 2006
Topic: MySpace-like page for London teenager
  • Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: March 2006
Topic: Vanity bio for a gamer.
  • Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: March 2006
Topic: Some sort of notes page
  • Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: March 2006
Topic: User CV for a writer.
  • Total edits: 7. Edits outside user page: 4 (adding self to 3 different articles).
  • Last edit: March 2006
Topic: Long vanity bio (605 words).
  • Total edits: 5. Edits outside user page: 1 (uploading unused photo).
  • Last edit: March 2006
Calton | Talk 04:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually deletion makes these pages invisible to non-admins meaning it effectively kills the promotion. If it's in the history, people can still link to it even if it's blanked. - Mgm|(talk) 10:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of which you seem to actually be willing to do yourself, I notice. In any case, it's my time to waste -- although that characterization, I'll also note, seems to be almost entirely yours, Mr. "I Can Read Deleted Pages". --Calton | Talk 05:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also note that you sprang into action within 13 minute of my creating this page. Stalk much? --Calton | Talk 05:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • *Cough* Yes indeed, I have nothing better to do than sit and refresh "Special:Contributions/Catlon" all day. Your personal venom aside, there really is no margin in deleting these pages. Blanking would make the content go away, deleting doesn't save any space, and although I'm not sure I'd suspect that mirrors only copy existing pages, so they'd take a blank page and blank it but might do nothing to update a no-longer existing page... Happy to be corrected on that pure speculation, by the way. There's really no need to bring these to MfD as no one is going to object to the material going away. Even a {{prod}} would work most of the time, or simply be bold and use {{db|Userfied advertising page}} or something of that sort. - 152.91.9.144 05:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bah, perhaps mirrors aren't using that smart an updating strategy after all... Searching for the phrase "what about Adam Mathes" from User:Ibrahim Odeh doesn't get any hits and "User:Ibrahim Odeh" only gets the wikipedia discussion. - 152.91.9.144 06:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes indeed, I have nothing better to do than sit and refresh "Special:Contributions/Catlon" all day. You should have stopped after "do". One wonders why you a) respond to what I didn't say; b) focus only my nominations, as opposed to the dozen or so I see on this page; c) don't apply the same "just blank it" strategy here; d) don't just delete them yourself with your special non-admin admin powers.
        • Even a {{prod}} would work most of the time. really? And your proof of this is what, exactly? Especially given that this issue is only being discussed, well, right now? --Calton | Talk 06:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          Dude, not only are you a cranky cuss, half the time I don't even think that you read what you're typing. I'm not "respond to what [you] didn't say" when you throw out an ad hominem like "Stalk much?" And what are you trying to say with the diff pointing to this page? I'm trying to discuss the relative merits of different approaches to problems of this sort. I have no idea what you're doing. - 152.91.9.144 07:13, 27 November 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=91390402"