Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion

Archives

/Archive 1: Aug 2005 – Dec 2006
/Archive 2: Jan 2007 - Dec 2007
/Archive 3: Jan 2008 - Sep 2008
/Archive 4: Oct 2008 - May 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by .

Undoing MfD

I don't know the proper procedure to undo a mistaken MfD. I looked in the main page, perhaps I missed it. Absent clear instructions, I rolled back the notice, struck out the user page message and added an apology; now I assume I can close the MfD section, but I don't know how to do that. Is there a set of instructions somewhere?--SPhilbrick T 13:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed it for you. Closing instructions are at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Administrator instructions, which is linked from the main MFD page in the top right hand corner, though it isn't very prominent. Hut 8.5 15:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--SPhilbrick T 14:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator removing notices from on-going discussion

You'll probably need to keep an eye on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Baseball Bugs/hidden (2nd nomination). The page's creator has removed the MFD notice from the page actually nominated (in an edit marked as both minor and a copyedit), renamed the nominated page, and placed the MFD notice on a different page. This is one of the unstated subtle parts of my question that I'm hoping that Ron Ritzman will spot. Uncle G (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is deletion notice not placed at top of ALL pages listed for deletion?

A deletion notice should be placed at the top of ALL pages listed for deletion in a nomination, not just the first one. Can the instructions be changed? -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This request is likely prompted by the MfDs I initiated. I generally only tag the first userpage for each different user included in a deletion nomination. The reason was that this saves time. An MfD notification on the creator's talk page and an MfD tag on one of the pages nominated for deletion seemed enough. Because this procedure is deemed problematic, I will tag all the pages I nominate for deletion from now on. My only exception will be if there is another MfD nomination on the scale of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dantheu2man/The Odd Subpage/may/pages/lucky/pages/off/will/clicking/closer/soon/Wikipedians, where 84 pages of the same type were nominated for deletion. Is that okay? Cunard (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you very much! -- Cirt (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should pages be moved while they are placed under an MfD discussion?

In Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP Nazi, a page was moved while an MfD discussion about the page was underway. However, the template for an MfD clearly states that “You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, see the Guide to Deletion.” Yet, many people in the Mfd still saw it fit to condone the move and even kept the page as a result of it. When is it appropriate, if ever, to allow the moving of pages that are under miscellany for deletion discussions? Your responses to this question are greatly appreciated. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 18:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we don't need an RfC on this? The MfD you are referring to was an exception to the rule. Moving the page and removing certain content made the page more acceptable to others. Thus, problem solved. It isn't always acceptable to move pages under discussion, but this was clearly the right move. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of PeterSymonds' points. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that pages aren't supposed to be moved is that it breaks the hyperlink in the MFD notice, which we didn't fix in the same way that we fixed this problem for the AFD notice some years ago. If one is prepared to do all of the work to fix the links manually — such as this, modifying the header and links in the MFD discussion, and (if necessary and appropriate) creating prophylactic redirects for the MFD page — then moves are not problematic. Uncle G (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think PeterSymonds is correct in this case. We don't need to be totally rigid about applying the rules if breaking them will solve the problem and make everyone happy. It's generally not a good idea to move pages that are under deletion discussion, and the language should stay, be be applied in most cases. Herostratus (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether these exceptions should be noted under the template for mfd for future cases such as this. I've seen more mfds in the past where the mfd was moved while discussion was underway, not limited to just the one I mentioned above. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 21:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion for userspace

Please see here for a proposal to reinstate proposed deletion for userspace under certain circumstances. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geo Swan's subpages

There seems to be a large number of discussions on User:Geo Swan's use of his userspace. I think there should be a chance for some centralised discussion. User talk:Geo Swan]] is already swamped by the notices, and discussions such as User_talk:Geo_Swan#Pages_you_may_want_to_delete are lost in the trees. Ideally, I think, Geo Swan might propose to move much of the material offsite? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That suggestion has been made, both on his userpage and in e-mails. He seems to be resistant to the idea, but the substantial number of MFD nominations (some of which were speedied, and the vast majority of which appear to be headed for deletion), might make him re-evaluate his decision. He still has a startling number of cross-namespace redirects (from userspace to mainspace) and internal redirects (from one location in his userspace to another) that need to be cleaned out as well. He has been regularly deleting articles in his userspace, but the sheer numbers of subpages he has makes trudging through the list an unpleasant chore. Horologium (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like what happens when the OH&S housekeeping guy discovers one of the old professors in a forgotten part of the building. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:FameWeener/Enter your new article name here

Can someone please take a look at this? I am familiar with the AFD process...but not so much when it comes to what is allowed to be kept in user space. This appears to be...well...nonsense. Is nonsense allowed in user space? Also, unless it is all just made-up, I am worried it may contain some copyvios, or might be a prank, or indirect attack on someone. Anyway, some guidance would be appreciated as I would like to become more familiar with the wp:MFD process. Thanks! The Eskimo (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a backlog

There's quite a backlog. I blame some excessive officiousness, asking for community deletion discussions over trivialities that are better fixed by blanking or redirecting on discovery. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started on this, but honestly, with the the mass noms of nearly everything under User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo, the work to close is a bit daunting, especially since every nom is on a separate page.

Why the heck doesn't mfd have daily log pages like CFD? It's not like their discussions are any longer. - jc37 07:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jc37 and Courcelles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

requesting deletion of User:WookieInHeat/Userboxes/Politically Incorrect

Hi, contrary to the current instructions at it doesn't look like unregistered users are able to get past step one of the MfD process at this time. I'd like to nominate User:WookieInHeat/Userboxes/Politically Incorrect for deletion. For better or for worse, it is still not possible for members of a civil society to use swastikas to describe their own irreverence. 24.162.198.130 (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]