Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:MFD)
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

"WP:DFD" redirects here. For deletion of disambiguation pages, see Wikipedia:Articles for 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.

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Education Program:, Module:, Topic:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
  • Files in the File namespace that have a local description pages 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[edit]

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

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own personal userpage deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}}. If you wish your user talk page (or user talk page archives) to be deleted, this is the correct location to request that.
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.
  • Proposed deletion is an option for non-controversial deletions of books (in both User: and Book: namespaces).

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

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

Click to view 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}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
If the nomination is for a userbox, please put <noinclude></noinclude> tags around the {{mfd}}, as to not mess up the formating for the userbox.

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.

or

{{subst:md1-inline|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
if you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page.
  • 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.
  • Save the page.
III.
Add a line to MfD.

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

{{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:MFDWarning|PageName}} ~~~~

    to their talk page, 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 Portal, please make a note of your nomination here and consider using the portal guidelines in your nomination.
  • 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[edit]

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Contents


Current discussions[edit]

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

March 26, 2017[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject IP Vandalism[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject IP Vandalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another non-Project. Created 4 months by @Adotchar who has semi-retied, there are no other edits to the page and the talk page is still a redlink. Only two incoming links: one from the WikiProject Directory, and from a usertalk notice left by page's creator. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Orifice plate[edit]

Draft:Orifice plate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft is already copied to the main page, and unnecessary Michi zh (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

March 25, 2017[edit]

Wikipedia:Translation/Political verse[edit]

Wikipedia:Translation/Political verse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Notice says "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference."
But the edit history consists only of the page creation and one tweak, so why keep it? This translation was deprecated since 2009, and there is no history to be found here. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. The historical reference tag is part of a transcluded translation header. — Train2104 (t • c) 03:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:The Williamsburg Independent Film Festival, inc.[edit]

Draft:The Williamsburg Independent Film Festival, inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale and abandoned draft that has no improvements so far to become an article. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 02:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

March 24, 2017[edit]

User:Michael Palomino[edit]

User:Michael Palomino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Michael.palomino-at-gmx.ch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User page includes biography, link spam and extensive conspiracy theories. WP:UP#GOALS, WP:UP#PROMO and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Similar page was already deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Michael.palomino-at-gmx.ch. This account appears to be inactive but the user is editing the page from their other account (Michael.palomino-at-gmx.ch). —DIYeditor (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

User has just now created a new page at the previously deleted User:Michael.palomino-at-gmx.ch. May need administrator intervention. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Portal:Atlantic Archipelagoes[edit]

Portal:Atlantic Archipelagoes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This portal is an archipela-no-go.
It is only half-built, with redlinks festooning the main page, no incoming links from articles or categories, and only 59 pageviews in the last 90 days.
The portal was created in 2009, but it creator Wiki User 68 has not edited since 2010. In the intervening 7 years, nobody else has finished the incomplete portal, so there's no reason to expect an imminent revival. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Josh M. Parker Jr.[edit]

Draft:Josh M. Parker Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned hoax. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC) @NorthBySouthBaranof: Are all the related/linked "Parker" articles also hoaxes? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes - so far as I have been able to ascertain, it's a giant linked hoax farm. I thought I tagged them all before but obviously not... NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Portal:Brachiopods[edit]

Portal:Brachiopods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another portal which never came out of its shell, this time about brachiopods, a type of shelled marine animal. Incoming links only from other portals and a total of 4 categories, so it is unsurprising that it has had only 25 pageviews in the last 90 days. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Low page views are not justification for deletion. Abyssal (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

TWC books by User:Ershtor[edit]

103 pages
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC - 01 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/Episode 51: Asha Rawat to Glossary of cricket terms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/Episode 5: Mainichi Issho to ReBoot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC - 04 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC - 05 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC - 06 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC - 07 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC - 08 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC - 09 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC - 10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC - 11 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC - 12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC - 13 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC - 14 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC - 15 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC - 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC - 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 001 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 002 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 003 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 004 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 005 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 006 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 007 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 008 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 009 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 011 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 017 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 020 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 021 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 022 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 023 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 024 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 026 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 027 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 028 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 029 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 030 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 031 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 032 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 033 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 034 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 035 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 036 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 037 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 038 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 039 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 040 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 041 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 042 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 043 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 044 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 045 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 046 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 047 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 048 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 049 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 050 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 051 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 051a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 052 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 053 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 054 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 055 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 056 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 057 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 058 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 059 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 060 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 061 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 062 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 063 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 064 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 065 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 066 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 067 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 068 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 069 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 070 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 071 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 072 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 073 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 074 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 075 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 076 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 077 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 078 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 079 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 080 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 081 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 31 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 64 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ershtor/Books/TWC/Episode 67 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Some sort of game using lots of user-books, WP:NOTGAMEHOST violation. The Wikipedia Chronicles was an A7'ed article back in 2015, it may be relevant especially if it was created by the same user. As these are being actively created, this MFD shall include all similar books created by this user at the time of closing. — Train2104 (t • c) 02:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

March 23, 2017[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki loves sea turtle monuments[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki loves sea turtle monuments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another project which never swam. No incoming links except WikiProject directories, and the only edits to the talk page are notices posted by MediaWiki message delivery. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep Sea turtles are great swimmers! New images have been added to wikimedia through this project and it does provide a wonderful reference (highly publicized) for everyone, not just wikimedians. A lot of work has been put into this project and we continue updating it. Please don't delete! JennyMed (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC) JennyMed
  • Delete. Just because you like the topic of a inactive Wikiproject doesn't mean it has to stay. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to MEDASSET. Way too specific, and fails WP:NOTADVOCACY. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I don't think a cross-namespace redirect is of any benefit here. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    • It is not a discouraged WP:CNR, is it a viable WP:ATD that could be applied to all unsuitable and stillborn WikiProjects. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Core Ontology Engineering[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Core Ontology Engineering (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another project which never really existed. Page created in 2015, but the only edits to either the main page or the talk page are by the creator, User:BenXY, who has made a total of 42 edits in exactly 3 years (all but 11 of them to this project).
The only incoming links are procedural listings. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

March 22, 2017[edit]

User:Ark25/Blog[edit]

User:Ark25/Blog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:NOTWEBHOST. Just the act of naming the page "Blog" is a violation. Some of the content might be useful as drafts of essays, and as such could easily be copied to appropriately named pages in the userspace. The screed on Romanian Wikipedia needs to go tho. John from Idegon (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep: - I am using the page in order to comment my activity and my ideas regarding the development of Wikipedia. I am not using it for file storage or for dating or for memorials or for projects unrelated to Wikipedia or for social networking or for amusement. Every single topic I was opening there is about Wikipedia - even the short pamphlet at User:Ark25/Blog#Scientific facts is a reaction to the three months block, followed by a cooking teaching session done by Accipiter Q. Gentilis, made in order to warn someone else to stay away from the hot topic of blocking me, because it can be dangerous. Everything I wrote there is for trying to directly improve Wikipedia. The only exception might be the "Similar faces" section, which might be seen as "original research" - and if that's such a big problem, then I can delete it easily.
Sure, the content can be used in separate drafts and essays, but I have no idea why I can't keep the drafts and essays in a single page (as you suggest) and why the page can't be named "Blog". If it's named "Blog", it doesn't imply that it contains anything else than Wikipedia-related ideas. I can simply rename the page into "Drafts-Opinions-Ideas-Essays" or "A Wikipedian Blog" or "Wikipedia-related Blog" but can you provide evidence to support your claims?
According to which rule the "screed on Romanian Wikipedia needs to go"? I can't post on Romanian Wikipedia, since I was blocked forever for improving Wikipedia (saving two articles from deletion). I didn't wanted to make my post on meta:Requests for comment/Extreme abuses at the Romanian Wikipedia too long, so I tried to find a place to post the examples of the abuses of the administrators. How can a user provide examples of their perceived abuses of the administrators without writing them somewhere? If you recommend me a better place to place those examples, I will move them into that place. Maybe a sub-page of meta:Requests for comment/Extreme abuses at the Romanian Wikipedia is a better place?
Meanwhile I removed the content that is already duplicated at Meta. —  Ark25  (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep With one HUGE caveat. The section regarding the Romanian Wikipedia needs to go, and it needs to go now. The rest I can see as a page dedicated to the user's work (and we have users that do this, so I don't see a problem there). The Romanian Wikipedia section however is bad faith, and need to be removed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I will delete it, but how can one notice the things they perceive as not going well at Wikipedia, without writing them somewhere? There should be a place where I could store such examples. —  Ark25  (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
That you need to take off Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
You didn't answer to my question and you just repeated your request but OK, I moved that content to meta:Requests for comment/Extreme abuses at the Romanian Wikipedia. —  Ark25  (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and question yes, it's clearly an effort. but, the title 'blog' is keep making me think about WP:NOTBLOG. even though it doesn't seem like a blog. this is not some kind of command or something, just a question. will you planning to rename the page? :p ProDuct0339sayworkproj 08:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how is that necessary, but sure, I will rename it if I will get any suggestion for the new name. Preferably a one-word name. —  Ark25  (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The prohibition against userspace "blogs" cautions against userspace pages containing "large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia." The entire contents of this page relate directly to Wikipedia, so the page is in the nature of a userspace essay (or series of userspace essays), which is a permissible, and indeed encouraged, purpose of userspace. The name of the page is irrelevant and surely is not grounds for deletion. Compare User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Leafbuyer[edit]

Draft:Leafbuyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Clear company campaigning which never improved beyond the last review, which is then sufficient for deletion since we're not a business webhost, a non-negotiable policy. SwisterTwister talk 21:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Cleeng[edit]

Draft:Cleeng (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Simply company campaigning which holds no convincing substance in our policies, over half-dozen submissions have shown no better thus nothing notable overall. SwisterTwister talk 21:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Ancharakalyanam[edit]

Draft:Ancharakalyanam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As mentioned by the declining reviewer, Wiae, the draft is for the creation of a page that already exists within the main article namespace (Ancharakalyanam). It also does not include any information not already within the already existent article. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Portal:Bangladesh Premier League[edit]

Portal:Bangladesh Premier League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another mortal portal, not updated since 2013, and with an average of only 1 pageview per day. Could be archived. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Bangladesh_Premier_League. I think this is the appropriate thing to do to all moribund portals. Redirect to the parent article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all subpages and redirect mainpage to primary article. A stale portal is useless, and on the rare chances something links to this from outside, they'll get a relevant article. — Train2104 (t • c) 03:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains in Philippines[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains in Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A portal which never left the station. No incoming links, and no discussion on talk page, just two bot-delivered notices. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Michael Cole (public relations)[edit]

Draft:Michael Cole (public relations) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cole (public relations)

Listing here as a purely administrative action per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 14. I offer no opinion on the outcome. There was a long discussion at the DRV. Rather than trying to summarize it here, I'll just refer folks to the link above to get the background. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarification to my nomination statement. Per a discussion on my talk page, I see there's some confusion about why this is at MfD vs. Afd. I'll reproduce part of my talk page comments here:
Yes, I was aware this was a draft, and made a conscious decision to leave it in draft space. My logic there was if we ended up accepting the WP:BLPDELETE, leaving it in draft space now would cause less harm than restoring it in mainspace. And if we ended up rejecting that, then it would be easy enough to move into mainspace later. What I didn't realize is that when I ran the XfD tool, the discussion it generated would get listed under MfD. I was expecting it to be listed under AfD. So, yes, an accident that it's in MfD. But, no, not an accident that it's still a draft
I was also asked on my talk page to clarify what should happen in the event of various scenarios this discussion might evolve towards. It's really difficult to predict the future, so I'll just leave things with the above clarification and trust that whoever comes along and closes this will exercise good judgement and do the right thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I advertised this at WP:BLPN, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Discussion_to_reverse_a_BLPDELETE_decision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I fear that if a BLP is deleted, it is generally not likely to survive as a draft either. Collect (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I can't parse what you're even saying. Can you explain this using more words? Also, did you not read the DRV discussion to get the history on this? —Locke Coletc 07:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • This article has never been deleted. It was speedy deleted, and that deletion was recently overturned at DRV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Michael Cole (public relations) was deleted pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cole (public relations). Recreation requires consensus per WP:BLPDELETE and this discussion is intended to test whether a consensus for recreation exists. What you should have done was create a draft of your proposed new version of the article and start a discussion proposing recreation. We'd have gotten here a lot faster if you'd done that, instead of just recreating it without regard to WP:BLPDELETE. WJBscribe (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
        • WP:BLPDEL does not apply. The original article was deleted at WP:AFD, it was not summarily deleted (which is what WP:BLPDEL covers) by an administrator, and thus did not follow the process outlined there. WP:BIODEL, which is part of the deletion policy, does not take a position on recreation for biographies. Regardless, it is a slippery slope to begin deleting articles because of complaints from their subjects. —Locke Coletc 15:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
        • An article was deleted there. It was not this article. Your assertion of what I "should" have done is utterly without basis or merit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, move to article space, not sure why this was relisted given the comments at the DRV. Confused further why it's here at MFD and not AFD which is where the original deletion discussion took place. Regardless: this is a well sourced article about a notable subject, and there is no reason whatsoever to delete a BLP article because the subject of the article asks. That's a slippery slope I strongly urge we NOT go down... —Locke Coletc 07:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Clarifying keep —Locke Coletc 14:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Locke Cole and what I said in the previous discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep/Restore – per Locke Cole. It seems obscure to argue that the BBC Royal correspondent is not automatically notable when the incumbent is a household name (eg Nicholas Witchell, Jenny Bond). Michael Cole was similarly omnipresent (in the UK) in earlier decades. (Michael Cole was not disputing his notability. He was protesting about unspecified inaccuracies and pleading a case for privacy.) Oculi (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete/disallow recreation. I note from the talkpage that this article has been rated as "low importance" by the relevant wikiprojects. I think that is a correct assessment. The coverage of Wikipedia is not left with a striking gap if this article continues not to exist. Whilst I accept that the notability of this person is sufficient that Wikipedia can have an article about him, I do not think that it is so great that Wikipedia must have an article about him. As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cole (public relations) shows, the article subject would strongly prefer that we not include an article about him in Wikipedia. I think this is an appropriate case to respect such a wish. I do not think being a royal correspondent for the BBC makes someone a public figure and would say that this person is relatively unknown. Accordingly, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. Having articles about living people can have a real and significant impact on those people; it can cause harm in ways we may not readily appreciate. It would therefore be callous for us to disregard a BLP subject's request for privacy when there is no appreciable damage to the project if we comply with their request. WJBscribe (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Project ratings (applied by one individual editor, not by consensus at a project; not that projects have a stronger voice than the sum of individuals involved, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) are not deletion criteria. And while a royal correspondent, who appears on BBC national news on a regular basis, is a public figure, the subject passes GNG even without that part of his CV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep in article space Clearly notable public figure, passes WP:GNG by a mile. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep/allow restoration to mainspace (Which is what I assume the keep !votes above were pushing for based on their comments). Folks, [1] is a crazy-good source. 99% of our BLPs don't have anything like that. [2] is also a stellar source from what I can see. [3] is a shorter article, but from the BBC. And again is solely about the subject of this article. This isn't a "low-notability" individual in any way and his request for the deletion of the article is irrelevant given he is/was such a high-profile person. I honestly don't see how that can be in debate. Hobit (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Folks, it's probably important that when !voting, you distinquish between keeping the draft and moving the article into mainspace. Could everyone please try to clarify their !votes wrt that issue? @Collect, Gerda Arendt, Pigsonthewing, and Locke Cole:. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Given that the DRV for the deletion of the artcile resutlted in "overturned", the issue is moot. The artcle must be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep draft, and when it’s ready, ‘’’restore to mainspace’’’. We are doing an AfD on a DRAFT? This is kind of ridiculous. Montanabw(talk) 17:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

User:TeofProf[edit]

User:TeofProf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per WP:FAKEARTICLE and CSD:G11. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Riceissa/Timeline of effective altruism[edit]

User:Riceissa/Timeline of effective altruism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Apparent plan for an expanded COI article, by a COI editor. , emphasising the organizations with which the editor is affiliated. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete, exactly as per nomination. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Just flush everything in their user space. They are indefinitely blocked, so what's the issue? Exemplo347 (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Riceissa/t test[edit]

User:Riceissa/t test (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

working fragment for use by a COI editor. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Indefinitely blocked editors have no need for pages in their user space. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Riceissa/Spokes (replication system)[edit]

User:Riceissa/Spokes (replication system) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Riceissa/Read the Docs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Riceissa/Solarized (color scheme) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Riceissa/fzf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

COI editor, apparently listing the programs they use. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Note: I was a part of the same paid editing ring as User:Riceissa, so that is a COI I hold; I am not getting paid for any of my comments related to the Vipul/Riceissa ordeal, they are of my own accord. I was not asked by Vipul or Riceissa or anyone else to make any of the comments below. Ethanbas (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Riceissa/Spokes (replication system) – I think this is an internal thing the Github team uses, not Github users. Although, I'm not sure this is notable enough/has enough verifiable sources covering it to warrant its own article (could be integrated into the Github article on WP). I guess now that Riceissa is indef'd, who cares :P Ethanbas (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Riceissa/Read the Docs – It seems a notable topic worthy of drafting. The only reason justifying deletion is calling it promotion and noting that the author is blocked for promotion.

    This account is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:
    08:49, 20 March 2017 MER-C (talk | contribs) blocked Riceissa (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Promotion / advertising-only account)

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
VQuakr, if something gets draftified, will it ever get worked on, or does it effectively remain a draft forever? (big draft backlogs?) Ethanbas (talk) 07:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Forever is a long time. There are semi-organized efforts to find and "rescue" old drafts, but they are not really organized in a queue in which a backlog could form. VQuakr (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
OK. I'll refrain from taking a stance on the drafts, since I have a COI. Ethanbas (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
VQuakr, I mean it looks, or seems, tentatively, to be plausibly notably, but I don't mean to assert that it *is* notable. The history of promotion of the author a bigger problem. I support WP:TNT for the topic, in case someone else is considering working on it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. My problem with this editor is that in my experience (after reviewing a lot of his articles) it takes a lot more work to check for spam and POV than it would to WP:TNT for any genuinely significant topic. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - They're indef-blocked, so they have no use for any of the pages in their user space. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

About reusing drafts: the unlikelihood of anyone else reusing a drat is one of the faults of our current system. I think there are at most 4 people (including myself) who rescue old drafts. I generally only do them in my primary field of interest (academic faculty and related), but even so I have a very long list, and very rarely have time to do one. We do not even have a system where when someone starts an article, it shows whether there is a pre-existing draft on the topic. The default Wikipedia search does not pick them up, and even if set to Everything only finds them if spellled the same way. Kudpung, you know this system best--is there any reasonable solution? DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

At the moment I do not believe there is a system for specifically locating unused drafts by content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete (I don't think I was clear above). User blocked for promotion, it is all tinged with promotion. The topic(s) are not necessarily unsuitable, if any user in good standing requests, WP:TNT applies as good advice, provide them with the references. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Riceissa/Delvote[edit]

User:Riceissa/Delvote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Contrary to policy. We don't count such votes, but we do not block for them. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

lol Ethanbas (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The page was created as a joke I think, or Protest art Ethanbas (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • T2...but since we can't do that on userpages, delete. — Train2104 (t • c) 14:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete They won't be needing the pages in their user space any more. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Modify cut the blocking part, and change the picture to softer one. also, lol at baklava. ProDuct0339sayworkproj 08:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Riceissa/Comparison of methods of malaria control[edit]

User:Riceissa/Comparison of methods of malaria control (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Apparently the working plan for a COI editor; for the background, see the discussion on March 18. That it was marked to be indexed is an aggravating factor, demonstrated the COI. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Indef-blocked editor, etc... Exemplo347 (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Riceissa/Horizontal, vertical, and diagonal health program[edit]

User:Riceissa/Horizontal, vertical, and diagonal health program (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Riceissa/Comparison of measures of abundance of malaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Apparently the working plan for a COI editor; for the background, see the discussion on March 18. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

yes, thanks. I should have done that myself. DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete They won't be using these pages, and neither will anyone else. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Danielfolsom[edit]

User talk:Danielfolsom (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I realize this is generally frowned upon, but I was hoping to secure a deletion of my old talk page. I work in a public school, and already have had some awkward run-ins with students who have googled me and found my old account. I've requested a username change, but given that my signature is so thoroughly pinned to all of my archives, I'd also like to request a user talk deletion. I simply do not plan on returning as an editor and would like as clean of a break possible so that my current life is unaffected.--danielfolsom 01:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - I've applied {{courtesy blanked}} to the page. If it isn't deleted as you desire, that is at least a small improvement. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Blanking per Godsy is usually sufficient. Bringing it here to MfD was actually counter productive due to the Streisand effect. You have now increased its prominence. You name now appears on more pages, and all the pages now are receiving more download requests, and google is noting that. It is not the end though, it can be ameliorated, we can redact your name on every page on this website.
For privacy concerns, you are usually best advised to contact the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team off-wiki.
To hide your real name, which is a very common thing editors choose to do well after beginning their editing, go to Wikipedia:Changing username
A more extreme version of the above, though not correspondingly more effective, is to request Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Danielfolsom2.bot[edit]

User talk:Danielfolsom2.bot (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting deletion of old bot's talk page (only ever edited by me). Part of effort to vanish. danielfolsom 01:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Ontario Association of Emergency Managers (OAEM)[edit]

Draft:Ontario Association of Emergency Managers (OAEM) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.)PMC(talk) 23:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Stale and abandoned draft that won't become an article. Fails GNG and NCORP. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 23:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - @KGirlTrucker81: Notability guidelines do not apply to drafts, and shouldn't be the primary concern of mfd nominations; WP:NMFD. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Godsy: I know, but no improvements so far to make it notable. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 19:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Notability concerns are not a reason to bring it to MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC(talk) 23:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

March 21, 2017[edit]

User:39 Clues[edit]

User:39 Clues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per WP:FAKEARTICLE Exemplo347 (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fan fiction. Anticipated fan fiction, probably by this user. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedied per WP:U5. The creator is one of a whole nest of alternative accounts; I've blocked all but one of them. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC).

Portal:East Frisia[edit]

Portal:East Frisia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned portal, which appears not have been updated since 2010. Average of <10 pageviews per day. Suggest archiving, and redirecting to Portal:Germany BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • At 178 page views per day, Portal:Germany is worse. Portal:East Frisia at 10 views per pay is 22 views per day per million residents. For Portal:Germany, it is 2 views per day per million residents. Per unit area, it is far worse for Germany. Redirect Portal:East Frisia to East Frisia; Redirect Portal:Germany to Germany. The age of PortalSpace is long over. Portals are not contributing to the project, they are abandoned, purposeless, moribund. Their content is WP:OR or just content forking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    Try looking at the portals' history of edits, or talk page activity. The mainspace articles are good places to send people to, the portals are not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Not that inhabitants should have anything to do with pageviews, as those would rather look at the Portal located on deWiki. Nevertheless a redirection of Portal:East Frisia to either target is fine with me. Portal:Germany is not in scope here and is although in low volume still active with new article announcements and mainpage content (ITN/DYK) filtered to a Germany level as well as an active todo list. Agathoclea (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    • In view of the promise by Bermicourt to look after the upkeep, I now favor keeep Agathoclea (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand and update regularly.
    • Sorry, it is my fault that I haven't updated this as I've been working on other articles, but am happy to pick this up. After all the work to put it together, I'd be disappointed to see it deleted without a decent second chance.
    • BTW it's not quite fair to suggest it's moribund. One smart feature is that the articles and images of the month automatically change on a monthly cycle. So it does get refreshed, but more could be done.
    • To be honest most of the views above are to do with whether Wikipedia has portals at all; views which ought to be expressed at WP:PORTAL before proposing portals for deletion. I fully support the rationale at WP:PORTAL which, nowhere, suggests minimum requirements for them - perhaps it should. Portals are not articles; they are there to help readers quickly and easily find links on e.g. a region which may not be at the main article or at least aren't so clearly laid out. Portals also help project editors identify where the gaps are, where new articles are needed and so on. All of that seems reasonable. But this one needs a kick restart which I'm happy to facilitate.
    • BTW it seems only fair to inform WP:PORTAL and Wikipedia:WikiProject Frisia about this deletion request. Can someone do that please? (Done!) --Bermicourt (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Module:Navbox with nowrap lists[edit]

Module:Navbox with nowrap lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Appears to be an abandoned module without any transclusions outside a sandbox. Its functionality, if needed, could be replaced by a CSS class with the rule white-space: nowrap for <li> elements. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
13:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Jc86035, if you can enact the proposed merger, I would be happy to have it deleted. apparently, even with support, no one has had the time to do it. instead, people continue to add copious &nbsp; tags to the list items to prevent wrapping. Frietjes (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Frietjes: I'm not all that good at Lua, so I don't think I would be the one to merge it. Is it supposed to be enabled for all hlist navboxes by default, and are there still any problems with applying nowrap directly to the list items in CSS? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
16:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Jc86035, hlist had nowrap until this change due to problems with IE. basically, what you suggested, doesn't work with IE. however, what does work, is inserting a nowrap span element inside of the li element. but, you can't do that with css. you have to have something else process the list, inserting the nowrap span elements. this is exactly what this module does. we have general agreement to add this functionality to Module:navbox, but we need to agree on how to trigger it. turning it on for all hlists would be problematic for lists with long items. we were very close to merging it back in this thread, but there was some question about parameter names. I believe we could get it merged with a bit more discussion. the only question is what to use for the parameter name. Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I did not have the energy to look at other issues when Frietjes mentioned a need to merge some items into Module:Navbox during the recent discussions at Module talk:Navbox. However, I can probably now handle a proposal with a suggested parameter. Johnuniq (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Johnuniq, using |nowrapitems= as suggested by Edokter would be fine with me. Frietjes (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Frietjes: Please see Template talk:Navbox#Merging nowrap navbox. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
wt:lua has been notified of this discussion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Advanced Space Civilizations (Media)[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Advanced Space Civilizations (Media) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:WikiProject Advanced Space Civilizations (Media)Userbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Advanced Space Civilizations (Media)/sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WikiProject which never got off the ground (pun intended).
Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Advanced_Space_Civilizations_(Media) shows no sign of activity. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islamic State (ISIS)[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islamic State (ISIS) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned draft portal. Only 1 page, not even a talk page. No edits since mid-2015. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

User:MonThrasher/sandbox[edit]

User:MonThrasher/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a sandbox page about a place that doesn't actually exist -- the article generally seems to be a mashup of bits copied and pasted from Thunder Bay with bits copied and pasted from Nipigon, with bits of total bullshit (Mayor "Emma Roy", population of 589,676) sprinkled on top. Userspace is not a Dropbox server for alternate history "articles" about things that exist only inside your imagination; sandboxing is for draft versions of articles that could actually get into mainspace when they're done, not for storing creative writing exercises. Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete per Bearcat. I agree that this does not have a place on Wikipedia. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Old Norse[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Old Norse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User WikiProject Old Norse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedians who participate in the WikiProject Old Norse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant with WikiProject Norse history and culture. — Train2104 (t • c) 00:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Redirect if true. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
It is not redundant, this is not about norse history, it is about the language itself and creating WikiPages in that language. Schwiiz (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
This is English Wikipedia, where we write pages in English language. If you want to write in Old Norse, you can go to meta:Wikimedia Incubator and start new Old Norse Wikipedia project. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Old Norse, the language, is a very worthy topic to build. User:Schwiiz is to be commended and encouraged. As long as the pages are curated in English, there is no problem with displaying Old Norse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

March 20, 2017[edit]

Draft:ROC Maestro[edit]

Draft:ROC Maestro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft is being repeatedly submitted with only cosmetic changes (i.e., no substantive change in referencing). A search for references reveals nothing of value besides press releases. With fewer than 1000 Google hits arising from a search for "ROC Maestro", it is very unlikely that this software would meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. /wiae /tlk 19:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. 4 tries,no improvements, no potential for an article. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Besancon portal[edit]

Portal:Besançon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Besançon/picture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Besançon/photo-did you know ? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Besançon/introduction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned portal since 2011, with no incoming links. The city of Besancon is a lovely place, but probably too small to sustain a Wikipedia portal. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete or archive. Nearly all Portals should be archived. They are a relic of the rapid growth phase of Wikipedia and are no longer sustained. --SmokeyJoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @SmokeyJoe: I have no objection to archiving, but I wonder if its worthwhile when there is is little content here? There are other bigger portals which are no longer maintained, and they do have substantial content which would be worth archiving. But I don't think this one ever got beyond the skeleton phase of construction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
      • "Delete" is fine. Trivial history. These Portals are WP:OR, and in 2011 they had already lost their purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Besançon is another viable alternative. Redirect would be nicer to offsite links, including Wikipedia forks and downstream uses that may lead to a downstream user backtracking to this page. That backtracking downstream user would be best served by going to the mainspace article, from which they could, in the extremely unlikely chance that they wanted to, examine the redirect history to see the trivial history. NB. I am not opposing deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:CMIA Capital Partners Pte Ltd[edit]

Draft:CMIA Capital Partners Pte Ltd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 13:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 06:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No serious changes after 1 review which listed our main policy, any changes were simply cosmetics rewording or changing a few words, that alone is not what our policies classify as notability; all PR information and sources largely consist of what's in the Draft, therefore any changes are not convincing. User shows clear signs of being an employee or similar help, given the motivated PR-focus. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see evidence that they are notable, but it would not be impossible. It is premature to list at MfD on only the first re-submission from Draft space. I think we usually wait for a least three tries. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait until at least three cycles? So new contributors are unashameably being sent round and round in circles, to keep junk and work out of mainspace, until they give up and go away? It looks like a WP:CORP failure, but evaluating notability on a draft is a lot of work, because notability depends on sources that exist, not the sources so far listed or the current state of the article. My conclusion and solution: Newcomers should not be writing new articles, they should be first required to improve something, something that includes coverage of their topic in other articles. WP:ACTRIAL in fact. WP:AfC is a massive disservice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Cyber Defense Labs[edit]

Draft:Cyber Defense Labs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 13:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 23:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Overly focused in what the company advertises to clients and that itself would be unequivocally unacceptable in our main policies since we never compromise in accepting business advertising or attempts close to it, wherever the sources were published, and actually examining them showed nothing but PR-focused business announcements, profiles, company-authored columns, press releases, etc. and that is not what we consider notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 23:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. three tries without improvement enough for an article is sufficient reason. DGG ( talk ) 09:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Just to observe yet again, the contributor would have received more help, or more timely accurate feedback, if he had added the content directly to mainspace. New contributors are ill-managed by AfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

March 19, 2017[edit]

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits[edit]

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale, and not historically useful. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Out of date and not really of any benefit to the project (despite my name appearing on the list, with a measly 444,871 edits). bd2412 T 21:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I concur.--greenrd (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (but automate updates). Being out of date doesn't necessitate deletion, it necessitates fixing that. Clearly the process of manual updates has been proven to be ineffective, but if someone with the technical knowledge could set it up similarly to List of Wikipedians by number of edits it would mostly neutralise that problem. Unless there's a Labs page I don't know about, there's no replacement method to get a decent overview of heavily active editors, and I feel that it's a tool that the project could definitely use. For those concerned about it functioning as a "scoreboard", relatively infrequent fortnightly/monthly updates (as opposed to the daily updates on other similar pages) could help negate that, with the added benefit of only showing users that are consistently active. SellymeTalk 23:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep or archive – I don't think we're in a position to judge whether this page could be historically useful. How do we know that no-one might ever need a list of active editors that happens to span the time period covered by this list? It could also be moved to the historical archive. Updating it would be nice, too. Graham87 02:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. WPhas a history. It is very helpful to have snapshots at various time periods, rather than need to reconstruct it from the database every time. I do not see how there can possibly be any harm in this. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep No valid criteria for deletion has been given. It seems to me that "Stale" is an argument for improvement rather than deletion, and as noted above, we can't really say something isn't historically useful. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Update or Archive, and Speedy Keep #1 no reason for deletion. "Not historically useful" is an opinion specific to person time and place, it speaks to archiving not deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and revive updates – we keep pages like this so that the present and future generations of Wikipedians do not lose touch with the past. That's why we have the "historical" tag: so that departments like this can be revived if needed, or when the required resources (usually interested and talented persons) become available. Lose the page, and there's no record that this (reporting currently most active editors) has ever been done before. The page's history serves as a directory of the people involved, who may be able to teach those who wish to do this again. In a sheer coincidence, I was looking for the ability to do this today. See Wikipedia:Help desk#How do you get a list of the currently most active editors, and someone pointed me to this list as a lead. I'm glad I found it - it's the appropriate place to post an updated list - there's no way this should be nuked. The Transhumanist 14:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (disclaimer: came here after lurking at the Help Desk, cf. above). If motivation times ability divided by technical difficulty is high enough in one or multiple editors, automate and revive; if not, mark as historical. But "it is not useful" is falsified by any claim of "I want to use it". TigraanClick here to contact me 15:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is clearly tagged as "historical". Dismissing/forgetting history is shortsighted. Staszek Lem (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

March 18, 2017[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Justin Bieber[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Justin Bieber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Incomplete WikiProject proposal page, was started by User:Shane Cyrus, a today-blocked sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked User:MaranoFan, but never updated after its creation five weeks ago. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as I see no reason for a Justin Bieber WikiProject now anyways. —IB [ Poke ] 12:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as a sock's proposal, and even if it wasn't, this clearly had been abandoned and I'm not so sure there's enough Bieber-related articles to warrant a WikiProject to begin with Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Ogik Francis Peterson[edit]

User:Ogik Francis Peterson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per WP:FAKEARTICLE Exemplo347 (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete no likelihood of an article DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

March 18, 2017[edit]

User:UnitedStatesOfWireless2/sandbox[edit]

User:UnitedStatesOfWireless2/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Biography of an individual who does not appear to be notable per WP:PROF. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. no possibility of being notable enough for an article. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Khurram6050/sandbox[edit]

User:Khurram6050/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Resume for a non-notable researcher. Created apparently as part of an undisclosed class project; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MarcellusDWallace. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Endorse no conceivable likelihood of an article DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Tianyang Bai[edit]

Draft:Tianyang Bai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Resume for a non-notable researcher. Created apparently as part of an undisclosed class project; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MarcellusDWallace. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. no possibility of being notable enough for an article. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Chao Chen (researcher)[edit]

Draft:Chao Chen (researcher) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Resume of a non-notable researcher. Created apparently as part of an undisclosed class project; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MarcellusDWallace. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. no possibility of being notable enough for an article. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Runhua Chen[edit]

Draft:Runhua Chen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Biography of a non-notable researcher. Created apparently as part of an undisclosed class project; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MarcellusDWallace. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. no possibility of being notable enough for an article. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011/Popular pages[edit]

Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011/Popular pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page is no longer needed (and is no longer being updated). It was originally created to help identify which articles should be prioritized for adding new images from the 2011 WLM, but it wasn't even useful for that as the list was never fleshed out. (Only 85 pages were ever added to the project.) Kaldari (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

March 17, 2017[edit]

User:Mathias Hollstein[edit]

User:Mathias Hollstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page would be eligible for speedy deletion under criterion WP:U5 ("Wikipedia is not a web host"), except that it does make reference to editing Wikipedia. However, in the eight months since setting up this user page, the user has made no edits to any other page on English Wikipedia : Noyster (talk), 12:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

As the last time the statement is as follows: "I cannot and will not (ever) publish, donate or anything else under my real name, since I contribute in areas such as intelligence and politics" (especially when it comes to BND, NSA and other agencies). Please follow the 3rd party links within the lower section of my user page, if you have any doubt about what I just said. I am part of the community and feel I have the right to be visible. Thanks for your reconsideration in advance!
Mathias Hollstein (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Mathias Hollstein Thank you for your message. Let me explain that entries at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion normally remain open for discussion for a period of seven days. I am sorry but I cannot myself close the discussion of your user page there, as I am not myself a Wikipedia administrator and in any case other editors may wish to add their views.
In the meantime if you should decide to request the deletion of your own user page, you may do this by adding {{db-user}} to the top of the page. As regards protection of the page, you could make a request here, but such a request might be refused on the grounds that by our protection policy "pages in userspace should not be automatically or pre-emptively protected", and your user page shows no history of vandalism or abuse. I hope this clarifies the situation.
One final thought: I'm not familiar with Citizendium, but our article about it tells us that unlike Wikipedia, contributions there must be made under their authors' real names. If you do wish to edit Wikipedia without linking your edits to your name, I'm sure your contributions will be very welcome; but in that case I can see no place for a user page, which has the function as explained here of "organizing and aiding the work users do on Wikipedia, and facilitating interaction and sharing between users". With regards: Noyster (talk), 20:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
(CONTENT ABOVE COPIED FROM NOYSTER's PAGE.)
Thank you again for your reply, Noyster! I will then consider to wait for the 7-day period of time to pass.
In addition to that I just read within the mentioned article (Wikipedia User Pages), that "limited autobiographical content" is in fact acceptable on user pages. My user page is similar to the one of the Wikipedia founder (quote from my user page: "Given the style, you may have noticed it looks similar to the one of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. That is intentional, since he set a great example."). I think that is an irony somehow, since my user page is marked for deletion for (exactly) that reason — because it is similar to Jimmy Wales' user page!? How can that be? Also the article Wikipedia User Pages explicitly says, that bio content is in fact allowed.
Finally I agree with your note on Citizendium, to the extend that it requires real names. However, they are much more relaxed on user page style and content.
Mathias Hollstein (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Mathias Hollstein, I think Noyster's main concern is that you do not appear to be part of the Wikipedia community. Your account has made no edits to any page besides your userpage and pages directly related to it. I must admit that I'm not sure why you're wanting to keep the userpage of an account that has never actually edited any Wikipedia article. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Howicus, I actually understand your concern. However to me that seems to be a problem with the Wikipedia itself, since it does not provide adequate protection mechanisms for users. I can either go anonymously or register with a nickname and do my thing, which however would make it hard for me to add my bio on a user page then. The point here is that I can't/won't publish, donate or do anything else under my real name, because I contribute in areas such as intelligence and politics. As an alternative I could go on an register with my real name and add my bio on my user page then, however that would mean to contribute to Wikipedia articles with either a nickname or anonymously (reason see above). You see, one cannot have both here; have the cloak and present oneself. Interestingly for the last eight months it was not a problem, but turned into one when I made a minor edit on my user page. The reason why I want to keep the page is that I'm in fact part of the Wikipedia community.
Mathias Hollstein (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. A user page for an account that does not edit Wikipedia serves no purpose. Mathias Hollstein, since you never contribute to Wikipedia using the account "Mathias Hollstein", the account is not a part of the Wikipedia community whether or not you as a person are. So keeping a Wikipedia user page with your biography using that account is the same in my mind as using Wikipedia as a web host. (As an aside I assume this page showed up on some "recent changes" feed, which is why it's only being brought up now). Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. As Mathias Hollstein has now started editing articles using this account, my concerns are addressed. The page now serves a purpose. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Riceissa/Animal Charity Evaluators[edit]

User:Riceissa/Animal Charity Evaluators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It is hard for me to imagine a more blatant WP:FAKEARTICLE violation than this. Deleted from article space after discussion here.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason, WP:FAKEARTICLE:

And nominating the following as a likely fork ofduplicate of Slate Star Codex based on the attempted use of the INDEX magic word in user space.

The rest of this user's (and the rest of the ring's) user space needs to be reviewed. See Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Indexing_in_user_space and here for more background. VQuakr (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

User:VQuakr, Slate Star Codex was made 2 hours ago.
Collapsed digression
Please don't be a zealot when attacking user space. As for indexing, I'm not sure why Riceissa indexed his user pages, but as a member of this evil ring, who has been called a MEAT, a SOCK, among other things, and who has refrained from commenting on the ridiculous attacks on Riceissa and Vipul, I'm telling you that Riceissa had no malicious intent when indexing these user pages (or anything else this evil ring has done!!!). AFAIK, other members of the ring (including Vipul) didn't index their user pages. I did index User:Ethanbas, and I believe that is allowed by WP guidelines. Ethanbas (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, I was not paid to comment on here, before anyone suggests that. Ethanbas (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
User:VQuakr, what about Nonidentity problem? Ricessa created that as a user draft, and didn't move it to main space probably because he doesn't like creating mainspace stubs, but *you* moved it from Ricessa's userspace to mainspace! Clearly you thought it was fine. Again, I don't know why Ricessa indexed his userpages, but I swear (as an evil MEAT and SOCK controlled by Riceissa) that he had no malicious intent. Since the discussion is undoubtedly going to be tied to the paid editors, I will also say that the SEO accusations are completely false, and the technology timelines accusations are completely false, and in fact *all* the accusations about how bad and evil we are, all these accusations are false. If you want to be critical of this "ring's" work, you should look at it from an inclusionist perspective, not a paid advocacy or whatever perspective. Sorry for being a little emotional right now; I took a break from WP because of all the accusations, and it's just hard for me to stay silent any longer.
Ethanbas (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, what about Nonidentity problem? Ricessa created that as a user draft, and didn't move it to main space probably because he doesn't like creating mainspace stubs, but *you* moved it from Ricessa's userspace to mainspace! Clearly you thought it was fine. Ethanbas (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF. VQuakr (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Not really; the userspace article for that was created by the same editor (Riceissa), as well as indexed by him, just like the articles you're nominating here. Ethanbas (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
So what? It isn't being considered for deletion in this discussion. VQuakr (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I added links to the previous relevant AfD's and discussions to give a little more background. VQuakr (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete User:Riceissa/Animal Charity Evaluators and User:Riceissa/Laura and John Arnold Foundation grants tables. Not appropriate content for an article or a user page. If this is being used as the basis for making articles. it shouldn't be, because the net result of that would by a slew of promotional articles of the charities they sponsor. This is altogether regardless of the motives of the contributor(s), into which I am not going to inquire. DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete User:Riceissa/Triplebyte. No better than prev. deleted version. Move to draft space I'm not sure it should be an article, but it isn't an improper try at making one. I consider it too promotional at present, but it might be capable of improvement. It will have eventually to be judged on its merits at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete User:Riceissa/The GiveWell Blog and User:Riceissa/Slate Star Codex. No chance at all of an article no matter how much it might be developed.No point in moving to draft space. DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm saying [the above three !votes] without any judgment about the general question of how to deal with this group of editors. That needs to be discussed, but a good first step is to examine the individual articles and drafts on their own merits. DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@DGG: I see now I should have made what already had been AfD'd more clear. By any chance did you notice (recall, really, since you !voted there) the existence of WP:Articles for deletion/Triplebyte? VQuakr (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Right, so I guess it's delete on this also. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me like Riceissa is keeping an article like Triplebyte in user space for him to work on later; maybe when there are more verifiable sources about it, Ricessa would write up something and publish it. The company is pretty notable I think, and there are more verifiable sources than half a year ago when the AfD happened. Why not just tell Riceissa to remove the indexing from his user pages? Ethanbas (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all. The additions of the "INDEX" code [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] are clear indications that the intention is to host "articles" on userspace in violation of policy. Seriously, this is ban-worthy behavior. Softlavender (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. User:Riceissa/Animal Charity Evaluators and User:Riceissa/Laura and John Arnold Foundation grants tables - as stated above, this is inappropriate use of user page according to WP:UP User pages are administration pages in the User and User talk namespaces, and are useful for organizing and aiding the work users do on Wikipedia, and facilitating interaction and sharing between users. Furthermore I would propose that if the articles in question would be best suited in Wikipedia:Drafts where there is no paid editing unless disclosed as per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to influence an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation.[6] In addition, COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly, and to propose changes on talk pages instead. ActiveListener95|(˥ǝʇs Ɔɥɐʇ) 20:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • delete all am just gettiing started cleaning up this mess of paid advocacy editing. This stuff needs to go as already argued above. Jytdog (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all of these. Constant monitoring and removal of __INDEX__ shouldn't be necessary, especially when the user's reaction is this. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all and sanction the editor for a long history of undeclared, paid SEO-based editing. They very recently declared that they are being paid to edit articles but they've somehow forgotten to mention that they've been paid for this content too. Why are they still allowed to edit? Exemplo347 (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Note The creator of these User pages has been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. As a side note, the other editors who were taking part in this paid-editing Ponzi scheme should avoid commenting during deletion discussions that involve content created as a part of the scheme because there's a clear conflict of interest. Personally, if I'd been involved, I'd want to stay as far away from it as possible. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not cool[9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all There is absolutely no reason to index these article. An alarming display of bad faith here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Money+editing=trouble for wikipedia. L3X1 (distant write) 14:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all, not least because the amount of effort removing refspam and looking for POV is such that WP:TNT represents a better use of the community's resources. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm just going to leave this here. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

For future reference, there are a lot of pages in this editor's user space that fail WP:FAKEARTICLE - especially now the editor has been indefinitely blocked:

Pages with the prefix 'Riceissa' in the 'User' and 'User talk' namespaces:

User:
Riceissa

I have no idea what will happen to all of these fake articles. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: many of these are cut and paste page moves, not fake articles. VQuakr (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
about half the above list is drafts of material now in article space, the articles will have to be examined for possible deletion, & the drafts removed. There a few of them that might be important contributions. Some of these, like form 1099, are drafts of major additions to prior articles & I think some are usable. The other half are drafts intended for articles: again, a few maybe valuable, but most are not. This last group are the easiest to deal with, and I am going to list a number, separately: I see this as misguided paid editing, not the usual utterly exploitative deliberately TOU violating corrupt paid editing, and I think the articles need to be examined individually. This is a little different from my usual attitude that the deliberate tou violation should be removed in the same drastic way we remove copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
DGG I have been looking at a lot of Form X and related articles by Vipul and Riceissa. The expansions are largely sourced form a reltively small number of sources, including law firms and other companies selling services around the article subject, but a few fundamentalist free market economists and the think tanks they inhabit. This group have created or promoted Liberty Fund, the Library of Economics and Liberty, a Liberty Fund project, EconLib, a project of the Library of Economics and Liberty, and EconLog, a blog on that website, and inserted opinions of Bryan Caplan, a blogger at that site, into a large numebr of articles, often sourced to his blog. Anything other than rolling back to before the first edit by any of the paid editing ring is a massive task. I have been cleaning up some of this crap and it is not straighforward, unfortunately. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The content of the FormX articles however are non-promotional. they can usually be sourced completely to the IRS website, which is authoritative, and, like other official sources, an acceptable primary source for the information. A secondary source, of course, is any one of 100s of tax accounting books at various levels. Possibly removing some of the links would be enough. I do not think it makes any sense to remove any of the descriptive content, though I'm not prepared to work on this until I file my own tax return--I tend to be last-minute about such things. The material sourced to think tanks is of course another matter if it cannot be better sourced; the interpretations from them needs of course other interpretations also, and would best be removed. I consider this an essential series of articles. The previous attempts to smerge it was in my opinion an extremely poor idea, tho I haven't checked to see who proposed it. What I am much more concerned about is the articles on organizations.The articles on people will be easy to deal with, because most of them are borderline notable at best and should simply be deleted. I am reluctant to get into arguments on just how to deal with this particular instance of paid editors--I would much rather ferret out others. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

March 16, 2017[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Fun comment templates[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Fun comment templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bulk-creation of templates by a long-term disruptive user who's about to be formally topic-banned from creating pointless WP:space pages. This MFD also includes all the sub-templates listed on the page, none of which I can envisage any legitimate use for.  ‑ Iridescent 20:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as user is banned and other use is limited. This should also include {{Guidance}} which is on that page, and {{I don't give a}} created by the same user. Subst the 4 sub-templates with transclusions before deletion, as not to break the user's comments in discussions. — Train2104 (t • c) 20:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't checked all of them, but the transclusions of {{But}} are false positives, caused by there being a template of that name on French Wikipedia and the template thus appearing in text that's been copy-pasted from fr-wiki without removing the templates. ‑ Iridescent 20:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

    (adding) I've G3 deleted {{I don't give a}}, as there's genuinely no good-faith explanation I can possibly think of for creating it—anyone who attempted to use it would find themselves civility-blocked on the spot. ‑ Iridescent 20:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

  • UserfyDelete page in its current form - it's clearly not a Wikiproject. I have no particular issue with the page being a user subpage, and while I have no qualms with deleting the templates themselves I think usefication would also be acceptable. Primefac (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    Updated !vote. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete more useless project-space garbage created by this user. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge into Template:Done/See also. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia:Fun comment templates [or Userfy to User:Wiki-Pharaoh/Fun comment templates]. Let's not put the cart before the horse: if the templates listed on this page are deleted, then it no longer serves a purpose, and deletion is due. Until then, it serves as pseudo-documentation for the templates (which lack any themselves).— Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    Godsy, would it not be better to userfy (i.e. move to User:Wiki-Pharaoh/Fun comment templates)? Given that all of their other WP-space pages have been userfied, I don't see why this one wouldn't be moved there as well. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: That would be fine with me. I was originally going to suggest that, but Wiki-Pharaoh has been banned; anecdotally I've generally seen a refrain from userfying things to the userspace of banned users, however, the AN/I thread closure did recommended it. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I would love to, but:lol This needs to go to User page, or Wikipedia:Department of Fun. ProDuct0339sayworkproj 08:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

March 10, 2017[edit]

Pages in ThinkLord's user space[edit]

User:ThinkLordUK/Titles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:ThinkLordUK/List of English monarchs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:ThinkLordUK/List of English monarchs (2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:ThinkLordUK/List of Italian monarchs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:ThinkLord/List of Roman emperors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:ThinkLordUK/List of Spanish monarchs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:ThinkLordUK/Squads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:ThinkLordUK/tennis career (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:ThinkLordUK/basketball career (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:ThinkLordUK/badminton career statistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:ThinkLordUK/Progression of Belgian football transfer fee record (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:ThinkLordUK/association football career (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:ThinkLordUK/2015 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:ThinkLordUK/Belgium national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:ThinkLord (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned lists/template drafts of fantasy monarchs, emperors, etc. that are not actually the true lists. DrKay (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep. A spot check reveals the nomination statement is false. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • David I, Margaret and John Balliol are not English monarchs; neither are Robert I, Arthur I or Eleanor I, etc. Vittorio Emanuele was not king of Italy. Germanicus and Drusus were not Roman emperors. Louis XV, XVI and XVII were not kings of Spain, etc, etc. Your spot check is obviously flawed. DrKay (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I found multiple correct monarchs. It is therefore incorrect, wrong, to call them lists of fantasy monarchs. "They are not true lists"? Because they are tables?? Why are you choosing to interfere with this user's userpage drafts/notes? I fail to guess, it looks completely random, and randomly interfering with another;s userspace is unproductive. Presumably there is a problem to you with these pages, but it is not obvious, you haven't said what the problem is, and the onus is on you to say. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I find Arthur I, Duke of Brittany completely plausible to include on a list of monarchs. Never crowned, presumably killed by John, theoretically, he was rightful king, if alive. Spot check: most of the data is incontestably true. At best, by "fantasy monarchs" you mean "includes some monarchs not widely accepted as monarchs"? At best, a clumsy exaggeration. At worth, clumsy and reckless misstatements disrupting another's userspace. Here at MfD, we get plenty of "fantasy lists nominated, so much so they are quickly approved for deletion on minimal review, your nomination is in the same style, but these pages are definitely not "fantasy". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Please don't be disingenuous. The lists include people who are not monarchs. My meaning was perfectly plain and pretending it is not clear is disruptive. Randomly creating multiple accounts and then using multiple areas of userspace to host original research or roleplaying fantasies is not only unproductive, it is outside project scope and against the content guidelines. In future, as this deletion discussion is not going my way, I shall simply block the abandoned alternative accounts, for which the master account has provided no explanation, and blank the pages per Wikipedia:User pages#On others' user pages.
You compound your rudeness in calling me a liar by now calling me clumsy and reckless. Incivility will not win people 'round to your viewpoint. DrKay (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I do not see either "original research" or "roleplaying fantasies". If your concern is merely that the pages are of unclear purpose and in a state that might mislead, the solution is to blank them all using {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. Bringing them to MfD implies a violation of WP:UPNOT or WP:NOT, and I don't see the violation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't notice alternative accounts at play, but now you mention them, do you allege WP:SOCK violations? If the pages are the product of a disruptive editor, that changes the picture (and you should have said so earlier). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
It is not possible for me to answer the question of whether there are SOCK violations without a response from at least one of the four known accounts. DrKay (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I still see no reason to think these should be deleted. No objection to someone replacing them with {{Inactive userpage blanked}} as an editorial action, as that is both harmless and hides possible alleged problem content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete all. These pages are misleading nonsense: I just checked the lists of English and Spanish monarchs. They are a mix of people who were monarchs and people who weren't, and some of this is just preposterous: for example User:ThinkLordUK/List_of_English_monarchs includes Scots who had no semblance of a claim on the English throne, and User:ThinkLordUK/List_of_Spanish_monarchs contains lots of pretenders to the throne. This is some sort of fantasy game. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
    • You think it is a mix or reality/truth and fantasy, with no scholarly purpose? I did a cursory review, that wasnt obvious to me, but I am no expert. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.