Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Srose (talk | contribs) at 13:00, 1 February 2007 (→‎Closed discussions: +User:Fleetcraft). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

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

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

Before nominating a page for deletion

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

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

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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

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

I.
Edit PageName:

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

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V May Jun Jul Aug Total
CfD 0 1 31 0 32
TfD 0 0 4 0 4
MfD Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil).
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 89 0 89
AfD 0 0 2 0 2

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.

It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating the miscellany. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the miscellany.

Discussions

Active discussions

Pages currently being considered are indexed by the day on which they were first listed.
Purge the server's cache of this page

2007-02-01

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 delete. >Radiant< 10:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tisni

Found on a recentchanges patrol. Has not edited anything but their resume/homepage type userpage since coming her mid-last month. Delete, unless my message on their talk makes them an active contributor. - Mgm|(talk) 12:31, 7 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 speedy delete as tagged by User:MER-C (G11). Srose (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fleetcraft

Blatant advertising - X201 10:52, 1 February 2007 (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, and not just due to the avalance of Keep !votes already in. If any current arbitrator would like this deleted, please talk page me and It will be speedily deleted. — xaosflux Talk 05:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC

Rejected Arbcom cases are not archived. Because Uninvited Company move the bulk of the arb case to this sub page, it was not deleted when the case was rejected. Due to the fact that the entire rejected case is copied here, it is functioning like an archive, which is against standard arbcom practice. Additionally, the continued existence of the page is divisive and has functioned to promote and prolong community arguing while accomplishing nothing. This is a rejected case and should be deleted like all the others. pschemp | talk 06:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Too obvious to elaborate even. --Irpen 06:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think ignoring standard arbcom practice for this case is a good idea. No point in following process for the sake of it. Catchpole 08:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Note that rejected ArbCom requests are not deleted, but stay accessible at [1]. I don't see a reason to treat this case differently just because it is on a subpage; if it should not be googleable, redirecting will do fine. Kusma (討論) 08:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All these comments are still in the history from when they were moved, and accessable there. This, however, is an unauthorised archive. pschemp | talk 14:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like a fair application of WP:IAR done by Uninvited Company to shed light on a broader issue. Agne 09:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Newyorkbrad's remark here. --Van helsing 11:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the page, arbs are as entitled to express their opinions as anyone else (although as obiter dicta the authority of these statements may be negligible). However, the user comments copy/pasted from the RfA don't really belong. I dislike people moving comments from one context to another. They are not from arbs, nor are they commentary on the opinions of arbs. They give a false impression. I have thus removed my comments from that page, and would encourage others to do the same. -Docg 11:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC) (No objections to userfying it either--Docg 18:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • I'm not sure about removing them, as the choice seems to be oblivion or there. It's a choice that no one really should have faced. I thought Irpen's, Giano's and Bishonen's "statements" were quite good from the original. They were pretty temperate and well spoken, and I hate to see them lost to eternity. All we may really need is a header saying, "Comments ported from the rejected RFAR" or something. It's better to have those carefully crafted and weighed statements than the hair pulling and shin kicking that follows. Geogre 12:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oblivion is where failed RfArb statements usually go, so I see no reason why this should be different. OTOH, if people wish their earlier statements to be recorded on that page as a contribution to a discussion on IRC and Arbcom, that's their choice, I have no objection. But moving other people's comments to a new context without informing them is poor form. I don't want my comments there, since I've no interest in prolonging, or being involved with, that debate. I tend to think that the comments should be removed, with an invitation to those who do wish their earlier comments on that page to do so. But I can't get worked up about this either way.--Docg 13:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Geogre, your editorializing is not necessary here. If we are to open up that subject, I would love to keep the part where Bishonen challenges David Gerard to provide diffs showing Giano's personal attacks and gets pounded with thirty-two of them. --Ideogram 20:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are "responding" with a "fight" here to something said to you? Didn't think so. So, why are you here? David Gerrard's citations didn't answer the question at all, as there were no personal attacks in them. In fact, they rather seriously indicted David's understanding of either "personal" or "attack." Now, please go on inserting comments randomly wherever they will do least good. Tell us how you feel about Giano again. In fact, you should feel free to do so everywhere. After all, there is some small chance that someone, somewhere, talking about something else, might want to know. Geogre 02:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Doc, the old talk from the arbcom case should not be commingled with comments. Separate those up. I'd prefer to see this as not a subpage of RfAr... I think it is very good to have a page with a place for people to give their views (without discussion) though.. Arbitrators or anyone else, all on the same page.... but not here, and not with the "don't edit this page unless you're an arbitrator" badging.... just create it as an essay. keep but move and refactor. Where it is now and how it is structured now, is unacceptable and divisive. ++Lar: t/c 12:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you notice that this is for the talk page only, not the personal essays? Did anyone notice that? pschemp | talk 14:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I did, but thanks for the reminder. I think others did too... But I think there are some non arb essays on the talk page, mixed with comments and questions on the arb essays. I think having the talk from a case commingled with essays from non arbs, commingled with comments from others on those essays, is not helpful. I'd archive the talk from the case the normal way, move the main page to a different namespace and open it to all, not just arbitrators, to make position statements, with no replies on that page (if THAT page then had a talk, sure). But the current structure is a mishmash and needs fixing. No change in keep but refactor as my considered opinion on what needs doing. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • On further discussion with folk (on IRC as it turns out) raising some good points to me, I think userify is a good second alternative. I don't change my !vote from keep but demuddy but if it gets userified and the case leavings get separated out and archived, I'd be fine with that. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with catchpole. Moreover it isn't a valid argument to say we delete some history in order to "maintain peace". It would be like the Japanese government deleting certain descriptions about the Nanking Massacre from history textbooks - it would only provoke another conflict. Hereby upon using the above argument I claim a conflict of interest: I am an ethnic Chinese. --Deryck C. 12:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's not keeping the peace, but it's not accelerating any hostilities. The arbitrators have expressed their views, and this is the page for talking about those views. Some people have been remarkably hostile, some have not. That's just plain normal for Wikipedia. Besides which, I rather like getting some views documented. If nothing else, it helps when the fifty-third chorus of "Where is the evidence that ArbCom agrees that there have been problems" gets sung. Geogre 12:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wont make the obvious comments which would be adding petroleum to an already raging fire. Giano 13:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a case of rather large significance and saving it as a reference point would be helpful so that possible future disputes don't end up reinventing the wheel. TheQuandry 16:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Get it out of RFAR land, now. Any volunteers? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That does sound like the best option. Maybe one of the arbitrators who made a long comment would want it. --Cyde Weys 18:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely not. I don't know why Josh is feeling that way, as he hasn't offered a rationale publically, but, given the fact that the page was created by members of ArbCom, has hosted the views of several other people on ArbCom, Josh's position on that body is not germane to the discussion. Sooner or later, the use of a particular IRC channel is going to have to be dealt with. The best solution would be a code of conduct that the users themselves endorsed and adhered to. The next best would be ejection of those who have documented abuses of IRC. The third best would be to jettison the thing, as it doesn't represent Wikipedia, isn't for "administrators," and is hypothetically not under the jurisdiction of any Wikipedia body. We don't link to MySpace chat pages and urge users to go there, so, unless IRC is somehow more "Wikipedia" than that (and therefore carrying with it ArbCom oversight), there's no reasoning for linking to those snake pits with our pages. If "people will just create their own anyway," then why are they fighting so tooth and nail to preserve this? If it's no big deal, why is it such a big deal? If certain problem users feel free to "quit Wikipedia," why are they still operators there? No. Barring prosecution of an actual ArbCom case, this is the better solution. If Josh doesn't want to weigh in with a view, that's fine, but telling other people that they can't, or that it has to be a user page, is a bit contradictory. Geogre 02:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's really just that I don't want this thing conflated with any official ArbCom activity; it's not, at this point, since the case was rejected. Since the case was rejected, "Arbitrator's views regarding IRC" are the views of individuals, not ArbCom per se. That's the only reason I don't think it belongs here, but rather some equally accessible, equally visible room next door. It would even be preferable as some sort of subpage of Village Pump, or other places where policy is discussed and debated. Certainly I have my own opinions about the channel and the use of the channel, but since I don't think ArbCom has any authority whatsoever over any of the channels, I don't think my opinions are in any way special here. If the community wants ArbCom to have authority over the use of the admin channel, the community will have to make it clear to us in unambiguous terms. I really don't see that happening. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:06, 2 February 2007 (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, Unnecessary.

No delete opinions were given, several opinions were speedy keep, with good grounds. General consensus is that Misc For Deletion is not a means to decide on whether to start a project or not. This request was not necessary. --Kim Bruning 11:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutrality Project

I have been pondering this one for a few weeks, and have decided that this needs to be determined before the participants get too involved or this project becomes entrenched to the point where discussing the merits becomes too difficult. It is better to resolve it relatively early on. The intentions behind the project are good, but I do not think this is the way to do it. The key issue is that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We already have the POV check and related templates ({{POV-check}}, {{POV-check-section}} and {{POV}}) Wikipedia:POV Cleanup, and established content dispute resolution policies and mechanisms. Any editor in good standing is capable of revising an article so as to ensure it is balanced. We do not need a wiki-club to set themselves off from the community that projects some sort of authority that isn't necessary and, in a way, usurps the role of all editors. Agent 86 03:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - with obvious admission of bias. There might be problems, or different ways of implementation, and I would be very open to them. The thing is, everyone says "that's a problem, fix it" without providing an alternative way to do anything. I can't fix problems if I don't know what people's problems are, I'm not a mind-reader. Talk page discussion on the project regarding this is encouraged and appreciated. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 03:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nature of some WikiProject type groups have lead to an MfD being used to decide their fate, but I see no reason why we need to take this to MfD. Even if this project "closes down", I still don't see the need to delete the pages. Whether these concerns are valid or not, at least take it to the talk page of the project. Different approaches to editing are not always bad, even if they seem a bit redundant in some aspects (I'm not really sure if it is redundant or not, but ether way..). -- Ned Scott 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My personal opinion is that a project like this is better served by just being some sort of noticeboard. However, that doesn't mean that it can't exist, since people are by no means obligated to have them resolve neutrality disputes. I intend to never do so, but as long as they're not intending to enforce their edits, like certain other projects did... *cough ELAC cough* -Amark moo! 05:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, more like a noticeboard for requests though, but its a very different way of a WikiProject. Its mainly like a place where they assist you in neutralising the article. IMO, I don't see why this project should be deleted. Its doing well and its just a different approach of doing things. Don't see any bureaucracy in this WikiProject or whatsoever. Terence Ong 12:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think an MfD is the right place to decide the fate of the project, but after having a quick look at Wikipedia:Neutrality Project and its sub/talk pages, I do get the impression that the project (or rather, the members of the project) speak with an authority that they do not have. I can't really point my finger on it, but the way requests are accepted/declined and comments ending in "On behalf of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project," sound more official than they should be. Being a member of this project does not mean that you're especially good in defining what's neutral and what isn't, or that you have any authority in doing so. But that's exactly the impression I get when I look at the project, and I don't think that's a good thing. --Conti|✉ 16:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was just about to post the same thing as Conti... there is something a bit "off" about this. Seems process centric and laden with titles and decorations and so forth. Has this actually worked a number of times in the past? MfD may not be the place to decide the fate of this but it merits some discussion. No decision on what I think just yet, pending more info. ++Lar: t/c 17:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been something people have complained about in the past, without offering ways to change it, or alternatives. That's my frustration, really. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK: ... Lose all the trappings... i.e.: fancy formatting, false suggestions of moral authority, governance, etc, and just leave perhaps a place for people to point out that there are potential issues and for volunteers to comment on what state things are in. As it is, I think it's divisive. Further... I point to not necessarily positive trappings of this project in your own signature, User:Wizardry_Dragon. ++Lar: t/c 18:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's tangiental, but how is "Neutrality Project" with a link to WP:WNP offensive? ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Carries a connotation of some authority that is not present in reality. The links to esperanza in people's sigs tended to be looked at with some trepidation and that wasn't even a group that claims what this one does. I note that people don't normally put that they're a crat, or a Beatles project member, etc. in their sig. You may not see the problem, but that itself is part of the problem right there. ++Lar: t/c 19:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, from the point you wrote that, till the point I wrote this, I counted no less than fifteen -different- projects in people's sigs. If it's a Bad ThingTM, then I'll remove it in mine, but it's not just I that does it. (And aren't sigs odd things to be upset over? *scratches head* Tony Sidaway's sig RFC has to have been the stupidest RFC ever.) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fifteen? Wow! I had no idea. Well, can you give me any examples? Do any of the rest of them give the same sort of connotation that "The Neutrality Project" does? Maybe the problem is more widespread than I realised though. Was Tony's sig RFC the stupidest ever? not sure that's relevant, that was about sig size, not content. Your sig IS big in source though, it takes up 3 lines in my window, now that you mention it. But that's not relevant here. What IS relevant is that this project has a lot of trappings and the trappings can easily mislead some folk (in my view anyway) into thinking there is some official standing, when there isn't. That's what I am concerned about, more than your sig. Your sig is just ONE trapping. ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, why not be bold and take out things that are Bad ThingsTM? To go on a tangent, I have a love/hat relationship with the indicators, and introduced them to make it clear when cases are rejected that they are. There have been a few cases where there is simply a very vocal minority that sees a problem when consensus is that the article is fine, and I introduced them as a way to gently cluebat these users that their requests were disruptive. If you have a better way, please go ahead and feel free to implement it. Contrary to any impressions, you don't need my permission :-) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me) 20:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I went ahead and removed one thing that appeared to be dead weight, the approval process for requests. This simplifies the process to: (1) Place a request, (2) hope for feedback. The value added by the approval process was not clear; anyone is welcome to revert but I would request they explain what the approval aspect is intended to accomplish. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I don't mind the ad in the sig. Actually, I do mind ads in sigs, but I do mind ads in sigs in general, and that has nothing to do with the neutrality project. So let's use a more obvious example: Don't use "On behalf of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project". Ever. Because that indicates that the words you wrote before that sentence are in some way official and in some way important, more official and more important than those words by other people who didn't wrote "on behalf" of something. I'm sure that this wasn't your intention, but that's the way it comes across. --Conti|✉
        • No, it wasn't, and I didn't read that as ever meaning that, however, this issue was raised with me on IRC, and I do see how it could be taken as such, and have since ceased to do so. Have other users been doing this? If so, they should be gently reminded that the WNP has no special authority, because it doesn't. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me) 20:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Why would this be deleted, it is a good project for wikipedia.Tellyaddict 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ZOMG! Procedural Speedy Keep. Procedure can be silly sometimes. Just keep going, if the neutrality project sucks, it'll fail, if it rocks, it'll run. Good luck, and have fun. :-) --Kim Bruning 18:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there has been a lot of MfDing of various things going on lately, but if there is a problem with something, that problem should be attempted to be addressed first! Only after there is little hope of creating something that the encyclopedia finds useful (not to say that this is or isn't) should something be put up for MfD. -- Natalya 21:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep based on the fact that I have yet to see a single policy reason for deletion. Anyone? If you're going after things that already replicate what any editor can do and have templates, well, better kill the CVU, Kindness Campaign, Welcome Campaign, and every non-topic Wikiproject such as WP Inclusion and WP Systemic Bias. Spare me. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 23:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The very first reason I gave was based on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which is policy. Item 2.4 of that policy is "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy", which I clearly linked in the nomination. In all fairness, I did bring my concerns to the creator of this project a few weeks ago and I think "taking it to the talk page" would bear little fruit as the audience would largely be limited to those who supported the project in the first place. The guidelines for project namespace clearly state, "To make information easier to find, try to avoid creating new pages in the project namespace unnecessarily. If you want to add material, you might discover that the same thing already exists somewhere else." I pointed out the duplication, above. In any event, despite WP:BOLD, it is customary to discuss proposals for new policies, guidelines and projects ahead of time. As that discussion was never held, and because I in good faith believe that this qualifies for deletion, it is fair and proper to bring this to MfD. Instead of focussing on the procedure, I would like to focus on the merits of this project. Agent 86 02:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clue: no one else agrees with you. Clue: If you want to discuss the merits of the project, you should do it at the PROJECT. You didn't do that. As for new wikiprojects, again, there are dozens that are started with no discussion at all. If you had concerns, you should have addressed them on the project. As for good faith, your statements here, particularly where you claim most of these organizations are "groups of editors who set themselves up with an extra air of authority" doesn't sound like you're assuming much good faith on the part of anyone else. This is not suprising, as it seems everytime I see AGF nowdays is when someone else isn't following it. To me, you should have tried to resolve the concerns you had on the project talk pages, then MfD'd. You want us to decide the merits of the project, and EVERYONE so far has said the merits of the project are fine...so, what exactly do you see that's so horrible it should be deleted? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 05:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I fail to see how the ad hominem attack or the ad populum argument addresses the merits of the topic at hand. By the way, what policy reasons do you have for "keep"? Agent 86 05:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) The project does not fail the Deletion Policy for miscellany, where it CLEARLY states that a project should be sent to MfD only when it is guilty of being "Wholly inappropriate pages in the project (Wikipedia:), Help:, MediaWiki:, Portal:, and various talk namespaces, where discussion, renaming, merging, or simple editing cannot resolve the problem." (emphasis mine).
2) Also in deletion policy, it again clearly states "Any problem with a community-accepted policy or guideline page, including m:instruction creep" should result in you coming up with proposed solutions, and then you "Make the proposal on the talk page, seek comment in community discussion areas.".
3) WP:AGF, since you flung it up, although it isn't a policy, since it says "Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions. Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act like their mistake was deliberate", yet in your statements here and on Peter M. Dodge's user talk page, made it out as if all members of the project were out to assert their own importance and authority.
4) WP:CONSENSUS. The majority of the community sees this as an unnecessary deletion. The only reason you have given so far is you don't like it and you think it fails WP:NOT. The portion of not talking about bureaucracy does not say "Projects can't try to organize how to help Wikipedia". I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your argument, and ad populum is not even valid, since there is no appeal to the masses -- they simply rejct what you're saying, and in a consensus based forum, that's equal to "no". Your argument, that MfD is a place to discuss a project's failings, is false. Your argument that the guidelines for proposals are talking about GUIDELINES, POLICIES, and not WIKIPROJECTS. I'm sorry, but if you conflate the two, and make completely spurious arguments (and they are) then it's hard for me to accept what you're saying on merits that I can't find, so sorry. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 08:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kim has it right. It's good to encourage neutrality on WP, to state the obvious. The worst thing the project can do is not help; don't see how it will hurt. IronDuke 05:16, 2 February 2007 (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 02:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Drake & Josh

Okay, bear with me, this is my first time nominationg an article for MFD. This project has been inactive as of September 2006, and through its entire hisory, only one member has joined and helped. And this only user has been blocked indefinitely as a confirmed sockpuppeteer. It's left the project abandoned. And I usually see a Scope in a WikiProject. ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 03:53, 1 February 2007 (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.

2007-01-31

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 already speedy deleted Garion96 (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2007

User:Jrandell

The user's edit have all been adding spamlinks. This user page is nothing more than an advertisement for the same product the spamlinks were advertising. IrishGuy talk 23:27, 31 January 2007 (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< 14:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Vanguard: Saga of Heroes/beta

I noticed this link at the bottom of Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. Wikipedia isn't a review site, and I don't think this belongs here. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:39, 31 January 2007 (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. Daniel.Bryant 06:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SpongeSebastian/101 Things To Do With Microsoft Sam

Unencyclopedic material that surely constitutes "Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia" - which WP:USER forbids. Flyingtoaster1337 14:18, 31 January 2007 (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 Prince of...; Speedy Delete Djadam. — xaosflux Talk 20:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prince of bhangra and User:Djadam

User page for non-active editor whose only edits have been to create this page, vandalise an article and deprod the page. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Also nominating the page of his apparent buddy, User:Djadam for the same reason (the latter is plausibly speedyable as nonsense). Flyingtoaster1337 13:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Sfacets 13:54, 31 January 2007 (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 20:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snanna banana

Is using Wikipedia as MySpace and a chatroom. I'm not prodding because he is still active. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)05:23, Wednesday, January 31 '07

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 20:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maxxiboy

Is using Wikipedia as MySpace and a chatroom. I'm not prodding because he is still active. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)05:23, Wednesday, January 31 '07

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 19:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Twilightluver

Is using Wikipedia as MySpace and a chatroom. I'm not prodding because he is still active. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)05:23, Wednesday, January 31 '07

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.

2007-01-28

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 keep. >Radiant< 10:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia

Page name is self-explanatory. Priors: 1. AfD, closed as Keep; 2. MfD, closed as Merge; 3. DRV, closed as Overturn and relist. Here is the relist. Please consider prior discussions before contributing. Nomination is procedural, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exactly the same opinion as last time, for the same reasons. And if you haven't read the previous discussion, you shouldn't leave an opinion here until you have. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per mindspillage --Docg 01:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What mindspillage said. --Rory096 02:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. ~ Arjun 02:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to various pages. --- RockMFR 03:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I said on the MFD... if it was just a list of random vandals like WoW and such i'd be pro deletion... but it isnt... We're talking media people with actual public influence behind them. Large public pushes to vandalise, and/or motivate their following to vandalize (ala Stephen Colbert) need to be recorded somewhere... this article does that.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with Alkivar. Jorcoga Hi!09:10, Monday, January 29 2007
  • Either keep or merge based on what ALKIVAR said. - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DENY and WP:BLP. >Radiant< 11:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand what you are saying when you reference WP:BLP... could you explain further? There doesn't seem to be anything in this policy that relates directly to this article... As for WP:DENY, I'll not say much but WP:EANP and also wish to strongly note that this essay doesn't reflect my opinion, or even a significant section of Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete serves no useful purpose. I note one of the above saying this "needs" to be recorded somewhere (Doesn't specify why it's needed) but I disagree, I can't see any useful value in this and as per last time around the risk (no matter how small you believe it is) that others will just copycat these outweights that zero benefit. --pgk 13:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless page. Nothing I can find anything useful here, just a bunch of trivial stuff because some well known media personalities come and vandalise Wikipedia. So what? Terence Ong 13:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Prominent vandals deserve no more recognition than non-prominent ones. CharonX/talk 22:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found the page interesting and unharmful. Greeves (talk • contribs) 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • procedural keep In my opinion renomination is almost never warranted, I remember the first discussion wasn't so long ago. Wikipedia process is not the place to try to hammer through things by endless relists. Sure this is only the second time, but we've seen 3rd, 4th and even 6th renominations lately. Consensus spoke then, let it stand. Wintermut3 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - I don't want to see this deleted without something being decided on how best to record the information. I still think some form of record at the Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media pages is best, but following the merge discussion (here) I do now realise that splitting the items up amongst those pages loses the essential character of the existing page. Seeing how my last suggestion went, I'm actually hesitant to throw another idea up, but I think part of the problem is with the word 'vandalised' in the title. That puts too much focus on vandalism. A more balanced approach would be to document incidents where someone has written/blogged/broadcast about their editing of Wikipedia, both in a positive way (I can dig up some examples of that if Ta bu shi da yu would like to see them - they are fairly easy to find once you start going through the 'WP in the media' pages), and in a negative way (what the article currently focuses on). This would balance the article out, and actually serve to contrast the different ways journalists have responded to Wikipedia by editing Wikipedia in different ways. In light of these points I have just put forth, I suggest an expansion and move to Wikipedia:Editing of Wikipedia by the media. Essentially, this is a keep, with a sort-of-promise that I'll try and help improve the article to make it more balanced, and less about vandalism, (hopefully this will satisfy the "deny vandalism the oxygen of publicity" !voters). On a more general point, what this sort of article essentially does is gather similar of-a-kind examples from the 'WP in the media' lists, and brings them together to make an overview list/article about related stories. This one happens to focus on vandalism, but there is much more that could and should be said to make the story balanced. Vandalism is not the only editing of Wikipedia that should be written about. In fact, I like this idea so much that I really want to carry out this move and start expanding the existing article to be more balanced. If I did this, would that be a gross contravention of MfD etiquette? and/or something that Ta bu shi da yu would blow a fuse about? I know WP:OWN makes it clear I don't need to defer to Ta bu shi da yu, but I am being polite and cautious here. Carcharoth 00:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saying that you don't have to defer to me (since when have I ever said that you had to? Just because I argue robustly doesn't mean that I want you to defer to me) and that I'm about to blow a fuse is an interesting take of being polite to me. I would also like to point out that you don't have to dig out good media references from WP:PRESS, as if you look at the history of that page you'll notice I was almost the sole maintainer of it for a 6 month period. However, I heartily agree with your move suggestion. I happen to think that it's a very good idea. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologise for the 'blowing a fuse' bit. I'm glad you like the idea of moving and expanding the page. The only question now is what the closing admin will think of this idea. I guess if it is deleted, you can always ask if you can userfy it and work on this idea before returning it to Wikipedia namespace under this new name and with the new content. If it is kept, I'll be straight in there to move it! :-) Carcharoth 10:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is interesting enough and useful - and it is sourced. There is no harm in keeping it. Baristarim 01:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge according to the previous MfD. Somehow, this page does not sit well with me. Others have raised WP:DENY, and I don't think it's a good idea to have a page devoted to famous vandals of Wikipedia. I also think we shouldn't be so self-important to think that vandalism against Wikipedia is really important; as opposed to the Siegenthaler controversy, which was important. The POV in the first paragraph of the article is also problematic, and is echoed the whole way through. I see why y'all are voting to keep, but I'm going to disagree. YechielMan 04:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and DON'T merge - though some have said that it attracts vandalism, I disagree. What mostly happens is that copycats find out about the vandalism through the media itself... as it is the media, it's hardly likely that vandals will be looking to copycat due to this article! And let's think about it: what is the likelihood that a media personality will vandalise Wikipedia just to be on the list? I doubt that will happen. As for reasons as to why it's valuable: the best reason is that it shows great examples how the Fourth Estate deals with new and emerging media, such as Wikipedia. It also helps show that traditional media is not always as respectable as is made out by... well... the media :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 07:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (merge/rename distant second). Let's try to apply the policies we normally apply to articles, although this time in "meta" space:
    • WP:V. No problem, obviously.
    • WP:NPOV. I don't see any.
    • WP:N. Well, I guess the "meta" criteria apply: many of the events were covered in Wikipedia:Signpost; it is an interesting piece of Wikipedia history.
    • Is it useful? Maybe; no; only just.
    • Is it harmful? I fail to see how WP:DENY (to which I, frankly, have certain reservations, especially when people treat it like Bible) applies. What, that page would supposedly cause a bunch of celebrities to say "ZOMG! c00l! Gotta get to that list and vandalize t3h w00kiep3dia! Elephant penis! I like cheese!"? Sorry, I don't buy that argument. Duja► 08:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      If you want to go down that path, then try WP:RS to go with WP:V and WP:ASR. But I think you miss the point, a bunch of celebrities on seeing this are unlikely to follow suit, a bunch of weak willed kids are however likely to imitate their favourite celrbrity, witness the Colbert related vandalism of the last few hours.--pgk 09:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I meant to imply that WP:RS (guideline) is under WP:V (policy). WP:ASR obviously has no sense in Wikipedia: namespace. Re your other point, I admit it has merits, but it seems that Colbert on Wheels! is doing a good job with or without this article. Duja► 10:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Well not to labour it too much, "with or without this article." - well clearly it is with this article rather than without (Though I agree some (even much) of the vandalism will not be impacted by the presence or otherwise of this). As for WP:ASR, yep it generally applies to mainspace and indeed is aimed at that, that doesn't mean we should shut our eyes and ignore any pertinent rationale in any other discussion (wikipedia is not a bureacracy a reasonable rationale is a reasonable rationale with or without a little tag saying "policy" on it, (Of course a policy directly contradicting something holds a fair weight)), but it was more in direct response to "Let's try to apply the policies we normally apply to articles". You say WP:RS applies through WP:V, but the you use signpost for WP:N, signpost definitely fails WP:RS. Anyhow already said more than I intended so I'll shut up now. --pgk 11:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify before I shut up too: the page already has multiple external WP:RS. I mentioned Signpost as the argument that the events are notable within Wikipedia, thus the page is of interest within wikipedia namespace, not among articles (where WP:ASR would come into force). In the end, it boils down to the debate "is this page harmful?". Me say no. Others say yes. But then, we're entering the WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT domain. Duja► 12:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Signpost editor-in-chief, I'd like to say that I personally don't consider the Signpost a reliable source (while it's perfectly fine for noting that something happened, it should not be used as a primary source, even in Wikipedia space). Most of the Signpost is, by design, original research. Ral315 (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid that I may have started the signpost arguments. My partiticular argument is that we would need to apply WP:DENY when our wikijournalists write the newsletter, and therefore exclude talking about incidents where the media vandalised the project. After all, Signpost has reported on these incidents before. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is interesting and notable. A mere reader, not a Wikipedian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.142.90.33 (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge per Mindspillage. --bainer (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Historical record, and a chronicle of an increasingly common trend. - rernst 15:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DENY, but if not deleted, Keep over merge. -Amark moo! 15:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:DENY taken as a reason to delete this is just silly, IMHO. Does anyone seriously think that the existence of this page will lead to a noticeable increase in vandalism? I also don't think that we're making vandalism into a "big deal" in any way by keeping this. Otherwise, what stops us from deleting WP:BJADON for the same reason? To me, this is just an interesting, harmless little page that shows the growing media attention Wikipedia gets. I wouldn't mind a move to a more neutral name like Wikipedia:Editing of Wikipedia by the media, tho, so we can get rid of the "vandalised". --Conti|✉ 16:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think anyone's made a good case for the deletion of this page, either at the previous deletion debate or the deletion review. The page is harmless. No opposition to moving, merging, or otherwise editing the material. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . It is not in anyway a violation of any legal codes that I know of. It is definitely an historical database of how noted persons are responding to a rather amazing phenomenon. Who would want to lose it? In fifty years people will be amazed at what they read here. Malangthon 01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Crikey, It's in the WP namespace already. As to wp:deny, does anyone think that media personalities give a rats loogie what coverage WE give THEM? HA! Good one! SchmuckyTheCat 08:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Conti's comparison to WP:BJADON. The arguments based on WP:DENY are weak imo: this is not really about glorifying the cleverness of media personalities who have vandalized Wikipedia, it's rather a potentially useful page on the history of Wikipedia and how its relationship with mainstream media evolves. Pascal.Tesson 20:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:DENY. Celebrity status does not merit Wikipedia recognizing a particular user's vandalism solely because of that status. Vandalism is vandalism. --Coredesat 04:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you give a more detailed argument than just referring to WP:DENY? I know that many people have said that either it's silly to quote it in this instance, or they disagree with it entirely. How do you respond to their concerns? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the idea is that ordinary people see the media doing this and think it is OK for them to do it. That is not the message we should be sending, or at least it should be balanced with a "look, the media have also edited Wikipedia in a responsible and positive way" message as well. Carcharoth 09:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not a very useful page, and it's not well written at all. It hardly deserves to be in project space, either. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Kat. Ral315 (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2007 (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< 10:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jerry E. Alexander

Only contribs of user; WP:NOT homepage Xiner (talk, email) 00:32, 29 January 2007 (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< 09:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Penn Alexander

Only contribution of the user; WP:NOT personal homepage Xiner (talk, email) 00:30, 29 January 2007 (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< 09:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:South Park (2nd Nomination)

This is a new nomination for a previously deleted portal. Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:South Park for the prior discussion. — xaosflux Talk 22:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This portal is still under construction (having been created a while ago) and I feel that the standard template of South Park is sufficient to link articles. Watch37264 22:16, 28 January 2007 (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< 09:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:David Nason

Wikipedia is not myspace. Also nominated are User:Morten Brørup, User:Unfadeable E.R.G. (copy of deleted content), Image:UnfadeableERG.jpg, Image:MLC and Aztecasmall.jpg, Image:ERGsmallcool.jpg, Image:Cover1new copy.jpg and Image:NewUnfadeable2.jpg, the latter of which are the last user's vanity pics. Contested prods. MER-C 07:34, 28 January 2007 (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< 09:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Yes ads, Wikipedia:WikiProject No ads

For a while we had Wikipedia:WikiProject No ads, which was harmless enough as a statement of principle, but now we have WikiProject Yes ads, which means that instead of a single thing advocating no adverts, we have factionalism between two diametrically opposed "Wikiprojects", and advocacy for political campaigning by Wikipedians. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nom: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject No_ads
As the creator of Yes Ads, I can definitively say that it had nothing to do with the Virgin Unite business - the text was based on this category I created in October based on an idea I hatched nine months ago. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:01, 29 January 2007 (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.

2007-01-27

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. >Radiant< 13:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Webb idiot

  • note I have removed the db-spam tag as IMHO it isnt advertising/spam, I agree that the page should be deleted only if this reaches such a consensus at the end of the current mfd. Gnangarra 08:07, 30 January 2007 (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.

2007-02-01

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 as tagged by User:MER-C (G11). Srose (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fleetcraft

Blatant advertising - X201 10:52, 1 February 2007 (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.

2007-01-30

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 deleted. I double-checked and the entire contents were already at the correctly spelled page. Newyorkbrad 05:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Curandero101 (3nd)

Page is result of a spelling error, content is at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Curandero101 (3rd). Seems like this could be a speedy delete, but didn't see an appropriate category. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2007 (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 Delete as Attack Userspace is not a place to collect evidence for lawsuits, barring that it is not a space for hosting non-Wikipedia related content. Encyclpedia Dramatica userspace is strongly discouraged in the most way. No foul to the creator, good faith is assumed. Teke (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For posterity, this is what I posted on AN/I today. A bit more descriptive reason:
Hey folks. I deleted the page last night speedily after much consideration as an attack page. It's purpose was to collect information to disparage its subjects. The subjects may be reaping what they've sewn, but two wrongs don't make a right and we don't need that kind of counter-attack on Wikipedia. Encyclopedia Dramatica is all about the "lulz of drama." Pages like this only feed the trolls the drama they want and belong off-wiki, especially if any talk of legal action is involved. There is really no need to mention ED on here anymore, even if you're upset that they're talking about you or other users in their uncyclopedic fashion. Don't slow down to gawk at the car wreck. Happy editing to all. Teke(talk) 18:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[2]

User:Azer Red/ED discussion page

violates userpage policy as advcoating action aganst group. arbcom request abotu mongo suggests avoidng discussing ed anyway and hostting tihs page on wikipedia gives teh impresssion of wikipedia advocating tihs sort of action. delete tihs and tell user to cooordinate offwiki. Cunderpants 20:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Has nothing to do with Wikipedia. --- RockMFR 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSpeedy delete I am not disagreeing with this but the nominator is clearly a WP:SPA. Check his edit history. MartinDK 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether or not the nominator is a SPA, the page still should be deleted. This has absolutely nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. --- RockMFR 20:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The purpose is to explore the options we may have for protecting the privacy and right not to be defamed of our fellow editors. It is a discussion about a practical problem related to building the encyclopedia. MartinDK 20:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The discussion does not belong on any Wikimedia website. If users of a Wikimedia website are having problems with actions occurring at non-Wikimedia websites, the best thing they could do is to hire a lawyer. --- RockMFR 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mfd nom is suspicious and the comments are in userspace and are mostly about what can or cannot be done about another website that is attacking Wikipedia editors. It doesn't suggest that Wikipedia or the foundation itself is going to sue the ED website. It's no different than if I created a user subpage that asked who on Wikipedia has a beef with the ED website. Sorry, I can't see a reason to delete this.--MONGO 20:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a forum to wage counter attacks against other websites. Not to mention, the way they are handling it is completely flawed. The site that they are trying to shut down thrives on the dramatic reactions of other people in response to the content on their webpage. Not only is it wrong to use Wikipedia as a place to plan out an attack against them but actually trying to plot anything against them is just giving them the attention that they want. In short, they should just ignore them and then things wouldn't escalate to where they are now. The page in question should be deleted before this turns into an all out internet war causing needless drama resulting in nothing but everyone simply embarrassing themselves any further by providing ED additional content for their website through the drama. --machriderx 20:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This site does coordinate actions against other groups as necessary. See Wikipedia:Abuse reports for an example on how we try to stop vandals who won't quit. Since the issue being discussed here is much more important (a site that is trying to ruin the lives of notable Wikipedians, and probably has opened the spam flood gates to some of them by publishing their email addresses), we need to keep this page. Jesse Viviano 21:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the page doesn't discuss abuse reports of vandalism, edits to Wikipedia or account creation on Wikipedia. It's entirely about another site. It would be foolish indeed for Wikipedia to distract itself with off-wiki crusades, as you seem to suggest the abuse reports page is intended for. Milto LOL pia 21:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, exporting page history onto another wiki if necessary - been following this for days and was going to nom this myself. Wikipedia is not a support group, nor a front for legal action. The page is nothing but troll-feeding (bad idea) and a drama bomb anyway. Who cares about Cunderpants, ban him as an SPA if that's the procedure, what's important on this MfD is whether the page is worth anything or not. Set up an offsite forum or editthis.info wiki for this sort of support group, this page has nothing to do with the encyclopedia. Milto LOL pia 21:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In a completely unpredictable turn of events, the userpage has turned into a flame war. Milto LOL pia 05:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am being called an idiot and a twat. I am being told to stay away and that I will come running to my mum once the troll community finds out what was being said on that page. Who is flaming who? We were having a discussion until ED turned up out of no where. But I'll keep this in mind. Don't mention ED even when several editors here have a clear conflict of interest including the person posting "warnings" on my talk page. Just pretend like everything is fine and sweep the problems under the carpet. That will make them go away. MartinDK 05:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't warning you. I was pointing out gross incivility on your part-DESU 06:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely irreleveant to the encyclopedic mission of Wikipedia, also WP:DENY. — MichaelLinnear 23:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page is being used as a forum, with a subject only marginally related to Wikipedia, and it gets too close to something we do not want around here. Please take that discussion elsewhere. And there's nothing wrong about the nominator, nor with the nomination (that account was not created solely for dealing with the page in question, which did not even exist when the account was created); there's no need to call for him being blocked or even for his opinion to be discounted. --cesarb 23:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking closer, the user almost admits it's an alternate account, created explicitly to avoid retaliation in a matter related to the exact group in question. Since there's no way to know if the user also commented here with his real account, I can see why his opinion might have to be discounted. --cesarb 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm against having Wikipedia play any role in organizing an "attack page" against anybody else, and that doesn't change even if that other entity is itself engaging in attacks; we shouldn't sink to their level. On the other hand, I'm not big on exerting WP authority to suppress a page in userspace. But ultimately, since the content of that page involves legal threats, the decision ought to be placed in the hands of Jimbo, the Wikimedia board, and their legal counsel, since they're the ones who would possibly get dragged into it if actual legal action happened. *Dan T.* 01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep for the sake of users whose lives are made whatever degree worse by the site. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  P.S. The nominator has only nine edits. 03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite the nominator being a SPA. Would we allow a page attacking Uncyclopedia as an evil website? I doubt it. Should ED be treated differently because they troll us more? No. -Amark moo! 03:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete No legal threats, and make no mistake that is what this is. SchmuckyTheCat 04:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite. Also ban the nom. Page should stay but just be a link to somewhere offsite (like an offsite forum or offsite wiki). Also nom is a sock of an ED troll See contribs and nom should be banned. SakotGrimshine 05:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um... that's not keeping it. Replacing with a solitary link is not just doing a rewrite. Besides, then the solitary link would be MfDed as pointless, and there would be nothing to rewrite. -Amark moo! 05:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This shouldn't be here, as it has nothing to do with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. It's quite close to being a legal threat, and even if it is not, it is a discussion forum, which Wikipedia is not. --Coredesat 05:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine, delete it then. Once ED turned up nothing good came out of it anyway. But Wikipedia shouldn't prohibit people from informing others about the very serious off-site harrasment that will follow from editing here. MartinDK 05:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a legal threat and user space is good focal point for collecting all information. --Tbeatty 06:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete There is, I think, a serious misunderstanding of WP:LEGAL here; such policy means only to go those threats toward the Foundation or other editors, which threats are disfavored in view of their tendency to impair collaboriatve editing (neither, it should be observed, does the existence of this page, at least to my mind and pace Dan T., open the Foundation to any legal claims or insinuate the Foundation into any prospective litigation). Irrespective of that, though, this page surely contraves WP:USER and WP:NOT, to-wit, that Wikipedia is not a web host, and, per Coredesat, serves no encyclopedic purpose. In view of Azer Red's having brought the question of the propriety of this page to AN/I, I was disinclined to MfD this straightaway—I imagined that he'd copy the text off-site and {{db-user}} it—but now that it is at MfD it plainly needs to go. Joe 06:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since aside from a few editors here that I am aware of, those "owners" must edit using different usernames and have not identified themselves. At least one admin here is a regular contributor to that website, but not sure if he is an admin there and frankly don't care.--MONGO 07:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (after edit conflict with MONGO) Well, I'm not certain that I'd agree with your interpretation even were the "owners" of ED also (openly) editors of Wikipedia, but I don't see any factual basis on which you might rest the idea that the owners of that website are users on Wikipedia. To be sure, some who edit Wikipedia also edit (sometimes qua sysop) ED, but I don't know that there's any on-Wiki activity on which one could base your supposition; have I overlooked something in the MONGO RfAr (to which I imagine you to be referring)? Joe 07:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In so far that ED exists to intimidate and harass Wikipedia editors and admins, the Encyclopedia's interest is served by countering that intimidation and harassment. The arbcom decision is clear that links to attack sites can be removed precisely because of the harassment and intimidation. This page serves the encyclopedia by working to provide relief to editors and admins that are subject to ED abuse. Some choose to ignore ED and this might be the correct course of action. Others believe that a unifying approach is best. Regardless, efforts to provide relief to editros and admins of Wikipeida should be supported. If Azer red believes that his page does this, then WP should support it. --Tbeatty 07:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guess - Arbcom wanted links to be removed so ED would get less attention. Milto LOL pia 07:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is, of course, a distinction between our not contributing to harassment and intimidation (by, for instance, our linking to pages on a putative attack site) and our undertaking actively to prevent such harassment and intimidation. Most significantly, though, I'd wonder whether ED has really disrupted the project more than cursorily. I readily recognize that some editors, irked by their being attacked as a result, at least at the outset, of their editing Wikipedia, have been contributed less frequently or have left the project altogether, and I certainly understand such election, but I would suggest that the losses to and disruption of the project have been de minimis and that our having discussions such as this has served to consume the time and energy of more editors than ED has cost the project; it is not, in any event, for us to be particularly concerned about the loss of a handful of contributors or the general discouragement of current or prospective editors from participating (I mean not to sound discourteous; I simply don't think the project to be affected by the loss of but a handful of editors, irrespective of who those editors might be). Joe 07:29, 31 January 2007 (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 and tag as {{historical}} Garion96 (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neglected articles

See Wikipedia_talk:Neglected_articles#OLD_DATA the data for this project is a year old the project appears unmaintained. A entry on the talk page asking if the project was maintained or should be put out to pasture, resulted in one response to "shelve it". I did not find specific directions for closing out a project, so went with AfD Jeepday 13:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Active Wiki Fixup Projects}}

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.

2007-01-28

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 all pages speedily deleted by user request, WP:USER, and WP:NOT. Users are reminded that Wikipedia is not a fun, free webhost. It is a serious encyclopedic collaboration. Obviously activities that build a sense of community are in order, but they should be carried out in an appropriate manner. alphachimp 22:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Masky/Quests/Quest1Index

Role playing page. Guidelines and Policy at WP:NOT and WP:USER Navou banter 21:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apoligies, I should have been more specific in the rationale for nomination. WP:NOT talks about user pages and points out WP:USER "for more information". The quote from WP:USER under What can I not have on my user page? "Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia," particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project". It is only a guideline though, so I am listing here. Regards, Navou banter 21:56, 28 January 2007 (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.

2007-01-27

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 as blatant advert. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Modelsbymalique

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 WP:SNOW, also currently being used for vandalism. Chick Bowen 19:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol/Userboxes/Aintcare

Seems like blatantly against WP:BEANS. It's not policy, but it's worth considering. The only thing this UB will do is annoy vandals and promote further vandalism. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:58, 27 January 2007 (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 not terribly important because I deleted it already. This is a no-brainer; it's clearly not an appropriate use of user space. --bainer (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Weatherman90/deathpool

Page is a betting pool, against Wikipedia policy. Also in very poor taste. Robotman1974 07:34, 28 January 2007 (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 Delete criteria G11(spam)" Gnangarra 07:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xersa

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 delete as blatant advert. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liascottprice

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 delete as blatant advert. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:I l v a c e

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 delete as blatant advert. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nodakfilms

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 delete (CSD G11). Daniel.Bryant 06:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmglobal

Nominated:

User:Drmglobal
User talk:Drmglobal
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 Deletion criteria G11," Gnangarra 07:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Djsatty

Prodded, deleted, reposted. Wikipedia is not myspace. I'd also like a blocking. MER-C 06:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note User has been advised of this decision and WP:NOT and WP:USER policies on the users talk page Gnangarra

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.

2007-01-26

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 pschemp | talk 18:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk

The desk has clearly outlived it's usefulness, and now provides dangerous medical advice that could very easily put the foundation in jeopardy. This project is clearly an embarrassment to the 'pedia, and now must either justify its existence or cease to exist. --anonymous 18:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Up for deletion:

Time to salt the earth this project was built on--anonymous 18:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep of course. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Ehhm. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not speedy. The reference desk has real problems, but they can be solved by building a consensus to deal with them sensibly. Dangerous medical advice can be removed on sight, and other problems are being dealt with more leisurly rate to allow compromise in place of force as much as possible. If people have a problem with how things are on the desk, they should become involved in this process; failing that, as a user involved in improving the desk for some months, I would love to get any feedback on how to proceed on my talk page or by email. -- SCZenz 18:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Nominator is a SPA who freely admits that their acount was created just for this MfD on their talk page, it's not obvious that the Ref Desk has outlived its usefulness, and a process used this heavily should be discussed somewhere other than MfD first before suggesting its deletion (and if there was such a discussion, please provide a link). --ais523 18:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious Speedy Keep. Disruptive and POINTy nomination made by purpose-created sockpuppet. Recommend CheckUser to out the editor playing silly buggers here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Speedy Keep - seconding request for checkuser. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:49, 26 January 2007 (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 was deleted by DragonflySixtyseven, stating "this is not your userpage". Daniel.Bryant 22:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Matvej A. Kozhev

This page appears to be a combination of personal attacks and forged parts of other users' user pages. This user also has little or no substantial edits. Scobell302 09:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw. A more appropriate way to handle the situation would be to contact the user and request that s/he change the page. S/he is a new user and has yet to be welcomed. I think with time the user will fix the page up the was s/he wants it to be; I know, I've done the same thing before! → JARED (t)  20:54, 26 January 2007 (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 article'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 speedily deleted by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) as a U1.[3] Daniel.Bryant 22:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Travb/m

Stalking, Unsubtantiated, Personal vendetta, NPA Violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobile 01 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. This looks like preparation for an RfC or RfARB. Is this the case? If so, it should absolutely not be deleted. I also wonder about a conflict of interest on the part of the nominator, considering evidence against him listed on the page. Srose (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I notified Travb, given it was his subpage. Hopefully he can clear up whether this is any of the above listed by Srose, or if not, exactly what it is. In the meantime, [4] may be of relevance, and worth reading. I hold no stance on the user subpage currently, and will wait for Travb's clarification before making one. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I saved the page off wiki, and don't need it anymore. Instead, I will list Mobile 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s behavior:
  1. User:Travb/m#Third_party_involvment and
  2. User:Travb/m#Third_party_opinions on the Firestone talk page, so future editors know what wikipolicies Mobile 01 has flagrantly violated, and so they will be on notice about her tactics. The rest of the relevant evidence on User:Travb/m is found here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01 where it is shown conclusively that User:Mobile 01 is User:203.49.235.50 and User:203.49.235.50 signed her name User:NeilinOz1, which is Mobile 01's sockpuppet. Unfortunatly, the wikipedia community has let out a collective yawn about these violations. Travb (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2007 (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 Delete WP:SNOW. This isn't even close to what Portal: space is for. — xaosflux Talk 16:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Windows Skins

This is simply not portal material. Portals are designed to help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas as entry-points for Wikipedia content. This is merely a directory of Windows skins (I think, anyway, it's actually difficult to make heads or tails of it). Subpages as well: Portal:Windows Skins/Selected article, Portal:Windows Skins/Selected picture, Portal:Windows Skins/box-footer, Portal:Windows Skins/Intro, Portal:Windows Skins/box-header · j e r s y k o talk · 22:42, 26 January 2007 (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. --Coredesat 06:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kataraisdabest

'This page is hot', etc. It seems to me to be an inappropriate userpage. --SonicChao talk 02:08, 27 January 2007 (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. --Coredesat 06:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jarvis Island/Template:locator

In article space, but look like failed attempts to create templates. As such, I thought this was the best place to bring them. Neither appears to be used. The similar Jarvis Island/locator has been speedied at creator's request. Grutness...wha? 23:32, 25 January 2007 (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.

2007-01-25

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—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Xavier tiny25

Talk page for a blocked sockpuppet. Contents include multiple fair use images. Not a real talk page. ~ BigrTex 04:32, 25 January 2007 (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—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Yumeko Hoshiyume

Similar content to User talk:Mystic Gohan2k3 and User talk:Xavier tiny25, cheers for sockpuppeteer, not a real talk page. ~ BigrTex 04:33, 25 January 2007 (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—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Mystic Gohan2k3

Talk page for a blocked sockpuppet. Contents include multiple fair use images. Not a real talk page. ~ BigrTex 04:32, 25 January 2007 (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. Daniel.Bryant 07:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject The Animals of Farthing Wood

WikiProject with only one member (or two, it's impossible to tell as there is no member list) . It appears to be inactive, and it's also not on the list of WikiProjects. Coredesat 03:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This Wikiproject seems to be based on a series which is first off limited in the amount of articles that it could actually have. It could have easily been included into another wikiproject, per WP:PROJGUIDE. As well, per the nom, it has little membership. → JARED (t)  18:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, I tried to initiate this project, but it's true that very few people have shown any interest in it, and even fewer have contributed to it. I apologize if I did not follow any of the proper procedures (such as listing it on the the Directory List). I did post it on the proposed projects page, but did not realize I needed to do more. I admit that this project has not been successful at all, so I will not object if deletion does occur. MelicansMatkin 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I guess, or at any rater userfy, per the sole project member agreeing to this. Herostratus 21:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per inactivity, two members and limited scope. Jorcoga Hi!07:41, Saturday, January 27 2007
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=104831069"