Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

Administrator instructions

Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas
  • An RfC concerning increasing the activity requirements for bureaucrats.
  • An RfC concerning increasing the activity requirements for administrators.
  • A proposal to gradually offer both wikitext and VisualEditor to new accounts
  • Discuss proposals for celebration of the upcoming 5 millionth article on English Wikipedia
  • An RfC for a banner alert campaign on the threat to Freedom of Panorama in Europe
  • An RfC to permit trusted non-admins to close TFD discussions with uncontroversial delete outcomes
  • A proposal to forbid IPs from participating in the RfA process.
  • A proposal to elevate WP:BRD to guideline status
  • An RfC on "edit in Wikidata" links, for templates using Wikidata

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

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:, Module:, Topic:, and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
  • Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

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

Before nominating a page for deletion[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.

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:

Administrator instructions[edit]

Administrator instructions for closing discussions can be found here.


Current discussions[edit]

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

Purge server cache

July 8, 2015[edit]

User:Cdogsimmons/Canada–Tonga relations[edit]

User:Cdogsimmons/Canada–Tonga relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

as per WP:STALEDRAFT, deleted article that user asked to be retained on his userspace but has not worked on it for over 4 years LibStar (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Nested (disambiguation)[edit]

Nested (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Red link. Article should be written first, and then the WP:Disambiguation page. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Cdogsimmons/Canada–Tonga relations[edit]

User:Cdogsimmons/Canada–Tonga relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

as per WP:STALEDRAFT, deleted article that user asked to be retained on his userspace but has not worked on it for over 4 years LibStar (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

July 7, 2015[edit]

Draft:Yung $quack[edit]

Draft:Yung $quack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

a joke. -M.Altenmann >t 14:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • True, but why come here pre-empting the WP:CSD#G13 deletion process? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Soviet dissident network[edit]

Draft:Soviet dissident network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

abandoned draft, a fork of Soviet dissidents. -M.Altenmann >t 14:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Draft space should not be used to fork content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Signpost/Single/2015-03-11 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:Signpost/Single/2015-03-11 is a duplicate of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-03-11 and the latter is the correct title of the page. I'm seeking for the article with the wrong title to be deleted. And, yes, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost is a redundant format for a page title but it's been the titling format for 10 years that the Signpost has been published. Liz Read! Talk! 10:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No content, presumably a mistake, assuming Killiondude has no objection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:British and Irish Quidditch Cup/doc[edit]

Talk:British and Irish Quidditch Cup/doc (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Talk:Hypertext Transfer Protocol/doc (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Talk:Rooting (Android OS)/doc (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

These are "/doc" pages of (talk pages of) articles (not templates), have no significant content and have no inlinks. They were probably created by mistake. DexDor (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Cdogsimmons/Romania – Sri Lanka relations[edit]

User:Cdogsimmons/Romania – Sri Lanka relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

as per WP:STALEDRAFT, deleted article that user asked to be retained on his userspace but has not worked on it for over 4 years. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Foreign_relations_of_Sri_Lanka#Romania. There is material here worth considering adding to mainspace. There is nothing inappropriate requiring deletion. True, it should remain live, but it is find in the history behind the redirect. Although the user is long inactive, there are no time limits, and it is rude to dispose of someones work while they are away With the redirect, the user may pick this up again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
read WP:STALEDRAFT. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I know it very well. It is not a reason for deletion. Further, or rather firstly, there are good reasons to not delete this. If you could point to a deletion discussion concerning this content, that would be more interesting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll let the community decide what's best to do with this. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

July 6, 2015[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject কুরআন[edit]

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

This was an abortive attempt to create a WikiProject Quran (which already exists). It never had any activity and was abandoned after the initial page edit in 2013. Kaldari (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. And right after creating this page, the same editor made numerous, large-scale changes to the WikiProject Quran page, so I think it is fair to assume that any worthwhile content here has already been captured there. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Module:Multiple issues[edit]

Module:Multiple issues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is no longer needed, as Template:Multiple issues no longer uses the old-style parameters that the module was supposed to simplify and speed up. Now that the template itself is much simpler, there's essentially no reason to use this module.

While I'm writing this, I'd also like to take the opportunity to apologise to Theopolisme, the module's author - he wrote it based on a suggestion that I left at Wikipedia:Lua/Requests, but as you can see from the discussion here I did a very bad job of anticipating how people would react to the switch to Lua. If I had actually asked at the talk page there first, I might have been able to avoid a lot of wasted effort on Theo's part. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Doctorpleiades/Dr Mike Bingham[edit]

User:Doctorpleiades/Dr Mike Bingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Userspace draft from 2011, the same user then created Mike Bingham. This draft is 100% not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose deletion. Author of borderline suitable content, and the edit history should be kept. Wikipedia needs easier accessibility for editing by more people, such as this person, and this sort of snub to unencultered editors is particularly unwelcoming. True, it is old, and so replace the contents with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The is some fuss, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Bingham. This draft contains probably useful material, but given that the subject is upset, leaning just delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The original draft has problems in that it reports accusations made by Mr Bingham against living persons as fact in wikipedia's voice. WCMemail 19:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

July 5, 2015[edit]

Template:UBX multilingualism[edit]

Template:UBX multilingualism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to {{User multilingual}}. Alakzi (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep There are like 20 different userboxes someone can use to denote if their gender is male or female, no harm in a little variety with multilingualism userboxes. Bosstopher (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Especially when the text is illegible and categorisation is broken, and nobody actually uses the userbox. You'll also note that those other userboxes don't reside in the Template namespace. Alakzi (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant, not needed in Template space. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

July 3, 2015[edit]

Talk:Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu Students' Center/GA1[edit]

Talk:Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu Students' Center/GA1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

This page should either be deleted under G8 or it should be tagged as G8-exempt. I'm asking my fellow Wikipedians to look at the content and incoming links and discuss it. I'm leaning towards a "weak delete" but would favor tagging it as "g8-exempt" rather than doing nothing. As it is, it is occupying space in Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk subpages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment/disclaimer: I recently added text to WP:CSD#G8. See WT:CSD#Bold G8 clarification regarding article talk page archives. The previous content of CSD:G8 is here (diff). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. A GA review archive should not be deleted, but recorded as part of the GA processes, but this was not a GA reveiw, instead the reviewer nominated the article for deletion, and it was deleted. So, there was no review, this page is a mere extension of an ordinary artilce talk page. i see nothing interesting in the incoming links.
Should anyone of good standing have any interest in the page for any reason, they should be able to have it userfied, or placed in some appropriate Wikipedia place. I see no reason why anyone would be interested in this non-review review page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Adrienne Armstrong/Comments[edit]

Talk:Adrienne Armstrong/Comments (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Complex request: Temporarily undelete all revisions of the parent page,Talk:Adrienne Armstrong, merge the pre-05:09, 8 April 2014 content with the current content (which is just an AFD notice), add a comment to the talk page's header linking to Talk:Adrienne Armstrong/Comments, revert to the 22:40, 9 June 2014‎ revision, and delete all other versions. The reason this is not being requested as a Speedy is that if the page Adrienne Armstrong is ever un-deleted, the old talk page contents, the current talk-page contents, and this talk sub-page will all be potentially useful to the project. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • No objection to someone doing as David asks, but this page should be deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrienne Armstrong, and the deletion should be considered permanent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    As a point of information, someone created a new stub/test article Adrienne Armstrong. Another editor tagged it for speedy-deletion but immediately changed his mind and turned the page into a redirect. A few minutes later a bot came along and created the talk page as it now exists. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    I don't see why this is is important. Given random re-creations, I support protection of the redirect, permanently until a consensus to recreate is demonstrated at the talk page of the redirect target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Punklara/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:Punklara/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT. This user's only contributions were to this subpage nearly four years ago. -- Tavix (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as promotion by a non-contributor. (this should be a speedy criterion, and "STALEDRAFT" is not particularly an applicable reason to delete here). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Belo Belo Boxing Club[edit]

Draft:Belo Belo Boxing Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is no notability demonstrated in this draft. Sometimes it is a kindness to propose a draft for a deletion discussion. This either catalyses improvement to the level of acceptance (where appropriate) or gives the contributing editor substantive reasons why this will not make the grade today.

The draft has been declined multiple times with the self same rationale and with comments that have been ignored by the contributor Fiddle Faddle 10:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment The concept of blocking an editor for failing to listen to comments during a submit>review>resubmit process is somewhat alien to our process. The editor may be unresponsive, but I see no disruption. Fiddle Faddle 08:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There is something very suspicious about this user and the page he contributes to (Simon Bass), and now he is repeatedly submitting an obviously inappropriate article, which is disruption, and refuses to engage. Blocking is a method for requiring a conversation before he continues. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I looked at the article you mentioned. What I think we are seeing is a naive WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT attempt to seek to establish the notability of the gentleman by surrounding him(!) with this one piece of work. Generally such things run out of steam. For those interested in Mr Bass, the article on him is now at AfD and all policy based opinions are welcome there too. Fiddle Faddle 18:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


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

WP:FAKEARTICLE Whpq (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Is an appropriate userpage for a contributor. Did he contribute? Several times he added himself to mainspace content. Self promotion doesn't count to content contributions. Delete as self promotion by a non-contributor (I think this should be a CSD criterion). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:The Arts of The Lovers[edit]

Draft:The Arts of The Lovers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yet another example of stuff that we need a CSD category for. It is a shame to waste our time with MfD, but here we are.   00:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Yes, we need more CSD criteria for Draftspace. Suggest a new lettering scheme D1, D2, D3.... --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Why not extend the article criteria to drafts? Keφr 12:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - It is not, and never will be an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2, 2015[edit]


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

WP:FAKEARTICLE Whpq (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as self promotion by a non-contributor (I think this should be a CSD criterion). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/List of airlines[edit]

User:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/List of airlines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft, not edited since 2009, laced with nonfree images that aren't allowed in userspace and wouldn't be allowed in a mainspace list article. No substantive edits since 2009, so the content is likely obsolete; user has not edited actively since late 2013 The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • AGF that this was seriously intended to assist improving mainspace, it's quite plausible. Just blank, so that the contributor has access to his own edit history. Page should not be left live, per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


User:Bete-Amhara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If the author had not already made a number of edits outside of userspace, this page would have been subject to speedy deletion as per WP:CSD#U5 (or maybe it still does - I don't know what the cutoff for "few" is). This may also fall under WP:COPYVIO as it also appears on Facebook (link). This text had also been copied to Independent Republic of Bete Amhara (edit talk links history) (which was speedily deleted) as well as Bete Amhara (edit talk links history). Gyrofrog (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Paria arabzadeh[edit]

User:Paria arabzadeh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Fake article Whpq (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as self promotion by a non-contributor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Vietnam teen's next top model (cycle 1)[edit]

User:Vietnam teen's next top model (cycle 1) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Start of a fake article, and likely hoax as I cab find no such show. Whpq (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as self promotion by a non-contributor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Boosoup12/Drew Maguire[edit]

User:Boosoup12/Drew Maguire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace drafts Ricky81682 (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete now that we are here, but please just blank these harmless useless things on discovery. There appears to be no such novel, the content appears to be made up. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dormant for five years and subject does not seem to exist. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Ariberk1/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:Ariberk1/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Self promotion by a non-contributor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are plenty of other social media options out there. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

User:CaliMorrison/Transparency by Design[edit]

User:CaliMorrison/Transparency by Design (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Anthzorz/World History II Honors Class[edit]

User:Anthzorz/World History II Honors Class (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Deadasadodo/A Dangerous Fortune[edit]

User:Deadasadodo/A Dangerous Fortune (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Content created at A Dangerous Fortune but no need for a history merge. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:AngieinMN/Maureen Hackett[edit]

User:AngieinMN/Maureen Hackett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


User:BDime89 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Seems to be a copy-and-paste move. There was an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginny Weasley (character) (kept?) and nevertheless made into a redirect. This was just copied. Following a number of moves, the history is finally at Ginny Weasley. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Module:Comma separated entries[edit]

Module:Comma separated entries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No longer in use; {{Comma separated entries}} now invokes Module:Separated entries. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:List of wars 1900-present[edit]

Draft:List of wars 1900-present (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft duplicating existing articles (see) that has been re-submitted to AfC (and declined six times). --Non-Dropframe talk 01:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

July 1, 2015[edit]


Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. This personal sandbox has been used by Hadji87 since 2013 as a notepad for guessing the tracklist of the next "Now That's What I Call Music" series of albums, starting with Now That's What I Call Music! 86 (UK series). Not just Hadji87 has been working this page but a bunch of IPs primarily from Telford in the UK, the general area around Stoke and Birmingham, with other locations involved to a lesser degree, such as London and Paris.

The first version of this sandbox was trying to predict the "86" version of the album series, as seen in this diff which hosts a userfied version of the upcoming album article under the header "Now 86 tracklist prediction". (The article had been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 86 (UK series), with the result of "userfy".) So this user page is for predicting an album's tracklist, but without a reliable source to back it up, something like the 1 November 2013 announcement of the official tracklist. Once the official announcement was out, Hadji87 moved on to use the sandbox to predict the next album, the NOW 87 version.[1][2] And so on, the cycle repeating as each new version of the series is released.

This page is all about guessing, a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. This version of the contents is just webhosting speculation. We're up to 91 now I think so the editor should be directed to create Draft:Now That's What I Call Music! 91 (UK series) once sources exist and work on it as an actual article there rather than complete speculation here. There's also some attribution problems being creating with this nonsense if the contents are being copied to the articles as they come into existence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The page is being used simply so Hadji87 and his IP friends can guess or hope what will be on the next Now album. Trying to make it to look more like a draft for the next album release still doesn't change the fact that it is pure speculation. Being that it is a sandbox, warnings may be required if it's resurrected for similar purposes after deletion. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board/underconstruction[edit]

Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board/underconstruction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board/underconstruction/dyk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board/underconstruction/rightpanel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board/underconstruction/members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board/underconstruction/newarticles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board/underconstruction/neededarticles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board/underconstruction/GAdrive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board/underconstruction/cleanuparticles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board/underconstruction/goodarticles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These "underconstruction" pages have not been significantly changed since 2008. The only inlink appears to be from a talk page - and that discussion didn't go anywhere. Purpose of this deletion is to remove unnecessary pages from categories, what-links-here lists etc. DexDor (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This was an attempt to revamp the WikiProject page which went nowhere. I have no objection to deletion of the pages. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Normally inclined to redirect all to the parent page (Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board) to preserve history, and solve the nominator's issues, but seeing as the only author has no objection to deletion, implying there is no desire to keep the history, then support the sole author's prerogative to have the pages deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (bilateral relations)[edit]

Wikipedia:Notability (bilateral relations) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

this "draft guideline" was created by a user to conveniently and not so coincidentally support his argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Eugenia Cárdenas Santa María (2nd nomination) the claim in this guideline that all bilateral relations, ambassadors and embassies are automatically notable carries no weight and does not reflect community consensus. There have been been several hundred in total of all of these deleted, so community consensus is clear there is no inherent notability. there was a lengthy discussion a few months ago to give ambassadors inherent notability at WP:BIO but this did not eventuate. creating draft guidelines not based on strong community consensus and to back your own argument in an AfD at the same time is not advisable. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:LibStar: (1) That AfD is over, so the use of this proposal in that AfD is irrelevant. (2) The purpose of this proposal is to seek consensus for a guideline. (3) I can't remember if I looked at that AfD before or after I created the guideline. The primary motivation was discussions on the talk page of BIO, the text of DIPLOMAT, discussions about the notability of bilateral treaties and non binding agreements, and the earlier "bilateral relationships" rejected proposal (which I felt was too much of a mess to expand) and my own views. Since I cited the draft in that AfD, I probably did not see the AfD until after the proposal was created. You'll have to forgive me if my memory has failed on this occasion, but I am not getting any younger, and I am coming under a lot of pressure here. I certainly did not create it for the purpose of that AfD. In fact, my argument in that AfD consisted entirely of certain words in the introduction to BIO ("significant, interesting or unusual enough to deserve attention"). I didn't cite the proposal as an argument at all. I have had this in mind for a many months, and would have created it anyway. I have repeatedly said that I think we should have SNGs for all fields, because GNG is subjective and vulnerable to systematic bias in our sources. (4) Draft proposals do not have to be based on strong community consensus. James500 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete There is some discussion going on at the project page and hopefully others will join in. I do not see a policy based reason to delete. At this time I am undecided on whether <Userfy or Keep is more appropriate so this should not be read as a Keep !vote. This page was created by a single user seemingly to support their !vote in a deletion discussion. There has been no editing of the page or discussion with other editors about these supposed, proposed guidelines and, as stated, they run counter to current consensus at AfD on the topics addressed. While a guideline on this topic may be of use it should be proposed on the Notability talk page where discussion among several editors can take place not by creating a guideline and trying to use it to bolster an AfD position. JbhTalk 03:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Updated !vote based on WP:PROPOSAL JbhTalk 21:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    Reinstated DELETE !vote above per WP:IAR if this is brought up for RfC now it will essentially poison the well for any near or intermediate term progress on the topic. No one seems to want to help actually write the proposal and James500's desire to call a 'snap RfC' on the proposal as it was initially written will not garner anything other than a rehash of the arguments on this page.

    Please note the version James500 wants a 'snap RfC' on [3] says only, all Ambassadors, Embassies and bilateral relations are notable. There are a few more words to the actual draft but not many. That proposal has zero chance of passing and really is not a proposal at all. JbhTalk 19:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - while I fully intend to support a well-written essay or guideline in the future about the notability of ambassadors or SOME bilateral relations, this draft is NOT appropriate to be mentioned in an AfD and most alarming it is NOT in draft space!!! As said above, a guideline should be proposed and discussed among multiple editors, not spontaneously created for one AfD. The editor created it purely to support his position (since he had nothing else to use to support it) and then claimed we WP:IAR about it just being a draft, and possibly fool less experienced AfD commentators, and I almost feel this should be brought up at WP:ANI. МандичкаYO 😜 14:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Wikimandia: That is untrue from start from finish. WP:PROPOSAL does not require that a draft proposal be created in the draftspace (which is for draft articles) nor that it be discussed by multiple editors. I did not create the proposal for that AfD. Also, my main argument in that AfD was WP:GNG, not IAR. I invoked it so prominently that I cannot believe you read my comments with anything remotely approaching the level of care required. And these kind of accusations are supposed to be supported by diffs. I hope you will apologise for misrepresenting what I said. James500 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The reason why I pointed out it belonged in draftspace was because I assumed it was far from finished. It is so short and so brief and consists of sections such as "Places" ("An embassy is notable.") and "Treaties" ("A bilateral treaty is notable.") Second, the issue here is not that you also claim this article meets GNG. The issue is your introduction of this draft into the AfD discussion. Here are your exact words how you introduced this proposal into the AfD: "The bilateral relations of two countries that have such relations are per se notable (WP:NBILATERAL, WP:IAR (mentioning this policy since someone will probably argue that the preceding page is a draft)" [4] I am not apologizing as I did not misrepresent anything. МандичкаYO 😜 15:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@User:Wikimandia: Your words "since he had nothing else to use to support it", refering to my "position", above necessarily implied that I had not invoked GNG (or anything else) as an argument, and that I had no sources. So it was misrepresentation. You are still quote mining, as my next words were "WP:N (lead section says a topic is notable if it "worthy of notice" in the ordinary meaning of those words), cf. "significant [or] interesting ... enough to deserve attention" in lead section of WP:BIO, which I suggest is intended as a principle of general application)" and I had previously said "satisfies GNG", invoking Nomian's news sources. And I didn't suggest we IAR about it being a draft, the rule that I was suggesting we ignore, with respect to possibility of inherent notability, but not with respect to the sources available, was GNG itself. Because there is no rule against invoking draft proposals for us to ignore. It is marked as draft not because it is far from finished, but because, having created something as narrow as I thought possible, I wanted see if there was any support for the notability of other diplomats, consulates, and non binding agreements. I have actually heard suggestions that "soft law" non binding agreements in force, and all heads of mission, whether they are ambassadors or not, should be notable. So there are editors even more inclusionist than me. James500 (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC) If you are really concerned about it being marked as a draft proposal, I can mark it as an actual proposal. I see nothing wrong with guidelines being short and simple. In fact, I consider that preferable. James500 (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You tend to claim everything meets GNG and Nomian's claim do not support GNG. If they did, there would no need to bring up this draft at all. You're picking apart my comment to claim you were misrepresented - the problem is you bringing this up at all in TWO AfDs. That was your own behavior and cannot be misrepresented. МандичкаYO 😜 16:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@User:Wikimandia: (1) I do claim everything meets GNG. I do not !vote against many AfDs, and I leave many PRODs untouched, because I agree with them. I have also tagged several hundred articles for speedy deletion. I could not be called an inclusionist. (2) Since Nomian's sources do support GNG, there was no need to bring up this proposal. But that is irrelevant. There is no rule against advancing redundant arguments, nor would one serve any purpose. Why shouldn't I advance redundant arguments? If, for example, a person satisfies both GNG and PROF, why shouldn't I mention both? (3) As for "the problem is you bringing this up at all in TWO AfDs", that isn't what you said above. There is no rule against citing proposals at AfD, and the number of contributors to them is irrelevant. (4) My behaviour is irrelevant to whether this proposal should be deleted. If you don't like my citation of this proposal in the AfD, the solution is to ask me to strike or redact it. To nominate it for deletion simply with the object of influencing the outcome of the AfD, instead of its merits (and I think it is a fantastic proposal), is certainly POINT. James500 (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, I just noticed what you said earlier. How is this not a lie? "And I didn't suggest we IAR about it being a draft, the rule that I was suggesting we ignore, with respect to possibility of inherent notability, but not with respect to the sources available, was GNG itself." You DID use IAR about it being a draft. That is exactly why you put in IAR. You words: "The bilateral relations of two countries that have such relations are per se notable (WP:NBILATERAL, WP:IAR (mentioning this policy since someone will probably argue that the preceding page is a draft)" If you are claiming you cited IAR about GNG that makes no sense, since you claimed this article met GNG, so why would you advise that there were any rules to ignore in the first place? МандичкаYO 😜 18:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I have already explained why this line of reasoning is erroneous at the AfD. James500 (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Snowball keep No valid rationale for deletion. The draft proposal was not created for the purpose of the Azerbijan-Bangladesh AfD, as I have explained there. It was created after a previous AfD, and various other discussions I've participated in on various talk pages, such as the talk pages of BIO, and another failed proposal, and the diplomatic notability essay. I should point out that attributing ulterior motives for which there is no evidence to other editors is not appropriate. The sole purpose of this draft proposal is to propose a new guideline. If this draft proposal does not reflect consensus, it should either be edited to reflect present or emerging consensus or marked as rejected. It does not get deleted. That is not allowed. IIRC, it is explicitly forbidden to use MfD for that purpose. In any event, proposals do not have to reflect existing consensus as they are supposed to be attempts to form a new consensus. That is why their template says that they have not reached the stage of gathering consensus. Draft proposals do not have to be discussed on the talk pages of any existing guideline before their creation. And they are not "draft guidelines" as described above. We do not delete draft proposals for the reasons that are being advanced here. I am also deeply concerned that the nominator did not notify me of this nomination. James500 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
inappropriate snowball keep. Snow ball is when there is unanimous consensus, in fact everyone above you opposes your view, you simply love twisting the rules. It's laughable that you think this is snow ball. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@User:LibStar: No, consensus is not a vote. "Snowball keep" is when there are no valid arguments for deletion, and no prospect of any being advanced. The bottom line is that we don't delete proposals we don't like. We mark them as rejected. That's what we do. So this nomination is out of process. James500 (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

do you take me as a fool? This is not a snow ball. Snowflakes chance in hell, this is a snow keep but reply with some convoluted response. LibStar (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he knows what WP:SNOW means. Honestly I'm beginning to feel this is a WP:CIR issue we're dealing with. МандичкаYO 😜 16:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@User:Wikimandia: "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." A nomination based entirely on, and supported only by, invalid arguments, with no prospect of any valid arguments for deletion being made, has no chance of being accepted, if the closing admin knows what he is doing. They are supposed to ignore !votes that contain no valid arguments. And I don't see any valid arguments for deletion. And I suspect that I may have a better understanding of NOTBURO than you. James500 (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
find me one admin that would be willing to close this as snow keep. But wait I hear a long winded excuse ridden deflecting response being written. LibStar (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
User:LibStar: I can't ask individual admins to come and close this. That would be canvassing. James500 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

yep, another excuse and denial that snow doesn't apply here. LibStar (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Are you saying that you want me to start canvassing possible closers? I cannot do that. If you want a precedent, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (sports) was unanimously closed as speedy keep. Every single participant !voted for that result. I can't find a single instance of a notability proposal being deleted at MfD, despite many attempts, so I think we can infer that there is no prospect of that ever happening. James500 (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
the fact you still can't realise this does not qualify for snow keep shows a real lack of competency. But you'll reply again with some long winded excuse ridden response. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - It should also be pointed out that James500 brought it up at another AfD and stated it should be followed as it's a "correct" interpretation of guideline: "We should, therefore, follow the draft notability criteria of WP:NBILATERAL, which are a correct exposition of that basic idea." [5]. МандичкаYO 😜 16:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@User:Wikimandia: There is nothing wrong with me saying 'I think the correct interpretation of BIO is X'. And how proposals and essays are cited at AfD has nothing to do with their merits and therefore has no relevance to whether they should be deleted. If it did, we would have to delete WP:MILL right now. James500 (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You didn't say "I think/feel it's the correct interpretation," did you? You said your draft SHOULD be followed because it IS the correct interpretation. МандичкаYO 😜 18:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any real difference. James500 (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
If you really don't understand the difference between stating "I think the correct interpretation of BIO is X" and "it must be followed because it is correct" then I think sadly you do not have the competence required to contribute to discussions on Wikipedia. (And I'm saying that's what I think, not that it is fact, because I understand the difference.) МандичкаYO 😜 03:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
(1) Your argument seems to be extreme hair splitting. Comments at AfD do not need to be written with the semantic precision of a mathematical formula. There is no meaningful difference in ordinary speech between "we should do X", "X is the correct thing to do", "I think we should do X" and "I think X is the correct thing to do" and so forth. The words "should" and "must" do not necessarily mean the same thing either. I don't think that anyone would fail to understand what I said unless they had a very weak grasp of the English language. (2) I am far more competent than you. James500 (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have edited the proposal to express my understanding of the current consensus notability of bilateral relations. And removed the ultra-contentious topic of Ambassadors. I also removed the section on Embassies and made it clear the proposal had no current consensus to be used in discussions of notability. JbhTalk 18:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@User:Jbhunley: Thank you for your edits to the proposal. They don't really reflect my opinions, but they may in some respects be an improvement on GNG. Would you now agree that the arguments above for the deletion of this proposal no longer apply to it in its current form? Would you now agree that the draft proposal should be kept and improved? James500 (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Based on my reading of WP:PROPOSAL it is not really a proposal until it is placed in RfC. As it stands I do think it should be worked on quite a bit in user space or draft space to bring it up to a quality level that has a chance of passing RfC. I posted a link at WikiProject: International Relations to try to get more editors to show up here and/or there. If more people start editing/commenting on it I will strike my delete !vote. Right now I admit that there seems to be no policy to delete but as it stands I do not think it should be kept because it pretty much rewords just rewords GNG.

My concern is in how you used it and how others might use it in deletion discussions to imply some form of consensus to readers who do not click through to the actual page where it says Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy" nor yet even as a proposal.(Emp. mine). I admit that is not a good basis for deletion so I am stating it so the closer can take it into account.

I would be willing to work on crafting a notability policy on bilateral relations either on the page, if it is kept, or in user space. Whichever there need to be a lot more editors commenting on it before I would be comfortable seeing it cited at AfD. JbhTalk 18:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:Jbhunley: It does add to GNG. You've removed "independent" (which is reasonable because it would be ludicrous to require all the sources to be independent of two whole countries) and "secondary" (which is ambiguous, confusing, open to extensive objections for certain types of sources at least, and has never been taken particularly seriously, being used a code word for "good source" by the vast majority of our editors who still have no idea what it means). "And only if" will have to be removed because an SNG that says GNG can't be used as an argument for keeping an article has little chance of achieving consensus. "It might be cited at AfD" is an argument that would require the deletion of all notability essays. There is no question of imposing restrictions on what can be cited at AfD. James500 (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@James500: How about copying this thread over to the article talk page? As to your comments I actually did not really consider those points when I did the changes, although I should have. If I had I would probably have used 'independent, third party reliable source'. By this I would mean to exclude 'press release' type announcements, from embassies, government press officers and the like. I would also consider trivial mentions of normal diplomatic functions to not contribute to notability. JbhTalk 21:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
"Independent, third party" could be problematic. Some people might argue that a bilateral treaty wasn't an independent source, yet even you agree that treaties contribute to notability, and excluding it would be undesirable. Some people might argue that a source is not independent unless it was foreign. And that would also be ludicrous. I would not approve of automatically excluding sources like command papers either. This also exposes one of the weak points of GNG. If what we want to do is ensure we can write an article of reasonable length, we do need a sufficient amount of information in reliable sources, but we don't need them to be independent. And if we want to ensure that our topic has been noticed by the wider world, we do need an independent source, but there does not seem to be any reason why its coverage should be lengthy, particularly as some 'general' sources aim to be concise. James500 (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Assuming Jbhunley (talk · contribs) and James500 (talk · contribs) are independent editors, this page is now a multi-authored draft headed towards being {{Proposed}}. We don't delete Wikipedia history. This draft's future is to be a policy/guideline page, or to be tagged {{failed}}. Even if it were just a foolish single author idea, it still should not be deleted, but userfied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. While possibly gamesmanship, it's still valid as a proposal (and an actual guideline seems like it could be useful to have eventually). If the results at AFD continue in the same line, it'll be tagged as failed but otherwise it's still a proposal. My suggestion is to start another proposal that you think actually reflects consensus and then see if that proposal can be elevated and this article should be userified then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment @Ricky81682 and SmokeyJoe: I pretty much re-wrote the page to say the opposite of what it said initially. There does not seem to be any interest from others in expanding it. I do not know what the process for proposals/draft proposals is, I got involved with it because it was a new, single author 'guideline' that did not reflect consensus as I, or the other editors at that AfD, understand it. If MfD is not the proper forum then should it be put up for RfC to get more input and pass/fail it? I posted a notice at Wikiproject: International Relations that discussion was going on here and at the project page since notice was not posted when the draft was created. I do not know where to go from here. JbhTalk 12:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Life_cycle. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I am interested in expanding it. James500 (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Jbh, as you have contributed usefully, and the idea is reasonable, unless you are very clear that you want this deleted or removed from Wikipedia space, I think that it has to stay as a valid proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
My first choice would be to delete it if there is some valid way to do so. I do not believe such a guideline can pass and GNG has worked pretty well in the topic area. I struck my delete !vote above only because I did not see a policy based way to delete it. At some point an NBILATERAL might be of use but without several more people working on it this proposed proposal has zero chance of passing. I would prefer to avoid taking a proposal I do not feel strongly about through RfC simply to mark it {{failed}} but just leaving it in limbo seems wrong too. If there is some proper way to delete it I say delete it. JbhTalk 13:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I think we can mark a proposal as failed without an RfC. We normally mark a proposal as failed to let editors know that the idea has been tried before. If this was deleted, someone else would create something very similar sooner or later. We would have an endless cycle of deletions and re-creations. Another possibility would be merger/redirection to Wikipedia:Notability (bilateral relationships), though we normally don't do that for proposals that differ significantly. I wouldn't worry about the number of people presently participating when considering deletion. If we leave this up, other people who are a more balanced and representative sample of the community will show up eventually, even if it takes a long time. James500 (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete- The previous version was contrary to policy and communty practice. It was extreme inclusionist "everything is notable" bilge, and was used deceptively at AfD. There's precedent for deleting miscellany if its purpose is to game the system. The current version is closer to rationality, but its author doesn't want it around. So I really don't see a compelling reason to keep it. Reyk YO! 13:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
excellent points Reyk . Watch as James500 comes back with a long winded excuse ridden response. LibStar (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Reyk: You know perfectly well that was not the purpose of the thing. I could just as easily accuse you of gaming the system by !voting to delete the page because you are frightened that, given time, it might achieve consensus and become a guideline, and because it conflicts with your own extreme deletionist personal opinions about deletion. The "extreme inclusionist everything is notable bilge" comment could be construed that way. But we are supposed to assume good faith. And I would be grateful if you would afford me the same courtesy. "Contrary to policy" is not a valid argument because the purpose of proposals is to change policy. Contrary to community practice is not a valid argument because the purpose of proposals is to propose new practices. The RfC of the proposal process can create consensus for both. It was not used deceptively (I clearly stated it was a draft in express words, therefore claiming it was used deceptively is itself deceptive) and, in any event, that argument would require the deletion of all essays and proposals. The proposal did not say that everything is notable. Nor was it even close to that. It excluded many diplomats, all consulates and other buildings that are not embassies, and all non binding agreements. There are editors (not myself) who support the notability of all these things. There probably is an emerging consensus for the notability of ambassadors and embassies. The proposal was framed in what I thought close to being the narrowest terms possible short of a rehash of GNG.
@The second sentence of your preceding comment does not appear to be constructive. James500 (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
as I predicted, a long winded response. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Comments like that ought to be redacted as unconstructive. James500 (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
and persistently pushing the idea this is a snow keep is unconstructive. some advice, less long winded responses would be seen less of WP:BLUDGEON which you've done in many discussions. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I did not mention the snowball clause in my answer to Reyk. There is a limit to the level of conciseness that can be achieved. James500 (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: Would anyone object if I was to initiate a snap RfC on the proposal as I originally had it (which I think would have a reasonable chance of passing)? (Bearing in mind that proposals are normally rejected rather than overwritten). James500 (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • One process should end before another is started. Let the MfD close first. If it is kept you are welcome to un-do my changes prior to opening an RfC assuming no one else has edited the page. I seriously doubt it will pass since it is trying to claim inherent notability for several things. All you said in the draft is everything listed is notable "unless it violates BLP" which seems to me to be a bunch of empty verbiage since I can not envision, and you have not stated, how creating an article that simply says "John Smith is the Ambassador to Foo from Bar", which is all an article needs to say according to your version of the draft, can possibly violate BLP. JbhTalk 11:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - We don't delete Wikipedia history in fact. This is valid as a proposal. Otherwise start another one that reflects what everyone wants. But this is not a deletion case.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
this argument provides no rationale for keep. "Don't delete Wikipedia history" is meaningless. As many have pointed this is not valid as a proposal as it did not even reflect long established consensus, for example stating all ambassadors are notable totally ignores a lengthy community discussion months ago on WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
""Don't delete Wikipedia history" is meaningless" is nonsense. MfD has always refused to engage in policy debate. It means that delete arguments have to establish that the page is not a real proposal. If this was previously covered at WP:BIO, then it should be redirected to WP:BIO with a link to the previous discussion in the edit summary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
As I have repeatedly pointed out, proposals don't have to reflect existing consensus, as one of their functions is to propose that we agree to a new consensus. The statement that ambassadors are notable did not ignore the discussion at WT:BIO, but was in fact actually based on that discussion. What I took away from that discussion, and the essay WP:DIPLOMAT and its talk page, is that there is a high degree of support, from many editors, that ambassadors are generally notable, partly based on analogy to SOLDIER, their obvious importance, and they level of coverage they normally receive. Even if that proposition has not quite achieved consensus yet (and I am not convinced it that hasn't), it is very near to doing so, and there is a very high degree of probability that it will achieve consensus in the future. In any event, those discussions did not include any RfC. Since normal discussion on any talk page tends to be dominated by a small clique of editors who regularly edit it, an RfC is always likely to produce a different result. We are overdue for an RfC on all of these things (bilateral relations, diplomats, their buildings, treaties and other agreements). If I can't bring one here, there will be four RfCs on different talk pages. A single RfC would be simpler and more convenient, as these issues are connected.
  • A redirect to BIO would be inappropriate, as bilateral relations, embassies and treaties are outside the scope of that page, and were not generally discussed there. As a distinct subject, this is entitled to its own SNG, instead of being confusingly broken up over several pages. James500 (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - A throwback to old Article Rescue Squad dogma, and needless guideline/rule creep to boot. The WP:GNG is sufficient to cover bilateral relations articles. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The notion that it is a throwback of any kind is an argument in favor of not deleting failed proposals or else we doom future editors to repeat this history. Better to keep and see it tagged {{failed}}, if you are right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
(1) I don't see how this is a throwback to ARS dogma, as I am not a member of the ARS and I don't recall seeing this on any of their project pages (perhaps Tarc, or someone else, could provide a link to a page that evidences the existence of this alleged dogma?). This proposal is largely based on discussions I have participated in or read, at AfD, and on the pages of various policies, guidelines, essays, proposals and projects. It is also obvious common sense. In any event, if the entire ARS have expressed support for this, that is a very good sign, because the likelihood of this becoming a guideline is proportional to the number of editors who support it, and the many members of ARS are no exception. (2) By definition, this page cannot be guideline or rule creep, because a proposal is neither a guideline nor a rule. In any event, the accepted means of dealing with rule creep is demotion (where the old policy or guideline is marked as historical), not deletion. This approach is mandated by our policy on policies and guidelines. (3) GNG is not sufficient to cover articles on any subject. We need SNG for all subjects. (a) GNG is highly subjective, and confers a level of editorial discretion that we cannot realistically assume a sufficient proportion of our editors will be fit to be trusted with. This encyclopedia can edited by anyone, including, at least in theory, persons of low intelligence or inadequate education or knowledge (who can't understand what they are !voting for) and all sorts of cranks, trolls, anti-intellectuals, snobs, bigots, POV warriors, and persons with a nihlistic lust for wanton destruction or some other irrational compulsion to delete as many articles as possible. Participation at AfD is so low that there might be an unacceptably high statistical probability that, every so often, such editors will converge on a particular AfD and produce the wrong outcome. Even amongst the rest of us, participation at AfD is so low that GNG is unlikely to produce thoroughly consistent and correct results, and it doesn't appear to. (b) Because GNG is entirely dependent on the level of coverage, it is, as a proxy for real notability, vulnerable to systematic bias in the sources available. We can expect it to underestimate the notability of topics about history, and especially the distant past (because most writing materials are biodegradable, the absence of printing and other technology, and for the following reasons, since the past was a poorer place) and poor countries (because the people there can't afford to buy as many books, higher rates of illiteracy, and, since there is less incentive to advertise to poor people, lower advertising revenues to support newspapers and other periodicals, news and other websites etc, which typically carry ads in addition to news etc factual content). (4) To summarise, the !vote above contains no valid rationale for deletion. James500 (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, what a breathless agitated rant! Please, read what you've written and try to understand how it sounds to other people. Reyk YO! 14:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
My comments were neither breathless, nor agitated, nor a rant. I was completely calm at the time at the time of writing that post. It would take a lot more than what Tarc wrote to upset me. In fact, compared to all the unpleasant personalised accusations above and below on this page, I thought his comments were essentially benign, though I did not agree with his arguments, and felt the new arguments advanced were sufficiently plausible that they required an answer containing a proper explanation. I suppose that if you were to read that post out loud in a comic shrill voice, it would sound silly, but so would your own posts. I'm afraid that if you think I am agitated or ranting, you are imagining things. Your perception of my emotional state is not reality. It really is all in your head. If you want to appreciate my comments in the vein they were intended, just imagine that I am an emotionless ice man or robot, acting only on logic, who speaks in a monotone voice, which he never raises and which betrays no emotion of any kind whatsoever. Just imagine that you are listening to a machine or a block of ice. That would be much closer to the truth than the notion I was throwing a temper tantrum, screaming and bursting into tears, which I was not. James500 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, yet another rant, this time ranting that the previous rant wasn't a rant. Methinks you doth protest too much. You'd like me to believe you're an emotionless automaton, but the tone and content of your repetitious tirades do not reflect that. What I see is not a robot or a block of ice but spittle flecks going everywhere. Hint: stuff like "cranks, trolls, anti-intellectuals, snobs, bigots, POV warriors, and persons with a nihlistic lust for wanton destruction or some other irrational compulsion to delete as many articles as possible" sounds completely unhinged. Reyk YO! 17:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I assure you that your perception is erroneous. James500 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That's nice, but I will back my perception and good judgment over your assurances every day of the week. BTW, learn how to indent properly. Reyk YO! 17:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLUDGEON if I ever saw it, watch as James500 does another long winded convoluted response to this again. LibStar (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That essay is nonsense. I've been meaning to write another essay debunking it for some time. James500 (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been on WP several years now and encountered 100s of editors and you meet WP:BLUDGEON , excessive long winded convoluted responses and constant refusal to accept others point of view, continuing arguing and arguing in the magic hope of getting snow keeps. Seriously, people are tiring of it and not reading your long winded text. LibStar (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The short version of what is wrong with BLUDGEON is, that since consensus is not a vote, and depends on the quality of arguments, we cannot put an arbitrary word limit on discussions, as opposed to forbidding mere repetition, because it would make it impossible to assess consensus, because there is a finite limit to the level of conciseness with which some arguments can be presented. Such a limit would altogether prevent some valid arguments from being moved by anyone, unless the number of participants was huge. BLUDGEON is only an essay and it happens to be incompatible with policy. None of your criticisms of me is accurate an I could throw some of them straight back at you. You, for example, engage in an excessive amount of mere repetition, saying things you have already said once over and over and over again, in a way that contributes nothing to this discussion, seemingly in a bid to shout the other side down. If that isn't BLUDGEON, nothing is. Your answer to this post is sure to repeat your "long winded" remark, for the millionth time, with no new meaningful arguments, something of which I am growing extremely tired and should not have to read. I've also been on Wikipedia several years now and encountered hundreds of editors. So what? How is that relevant? No one with a normal attention span would be tired of my comments, and they are no longer than is absolutely necessary. Even BLUDGEON, in all its extremism, doesn't argue that we have to agree with other people's opinions. I'm not trying to get snow keeps, merely to answer novel arguments/ideas that have not previously been discussed, having not appeared in earlier !votes, and need to be discussed. James500 (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
No worries, I didn't actually read his response; not at all interested in verbose inclusionist harangues anymore, I had my fill of that years ago. Tarc (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
agreed Tarc, if there was ever a case study of BLUDGEON, I've now found it after years on Wikipedia. Why would anyone waste their time on James's long winded convoluted excuse ridden off topic verbosity which has zero impact on the outcome? No closing admin would read it. But James always wants to be the last comment. So James can you show some restraint and not respond and not take all the oxygen? LibStar (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you show some restraint and stop making endless personal attacks, to the effect of James is this and James is that and James is the other? If this conversation is going off topic, it because you are the one taking it off topic by attacking me over and over and over again, in a way that has no relevance to the purpose of the MfD. Would you prefer it if, instead of answering your off topic attacks, I was to just collapse them in a box headed "off topic"? I, or someone else, could probably do that under the talk page guidelines. I really think that this entire thread should be collapsed from Reyk's "breathless agitated rant" comment above onwards. James500 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Do not worry James, Libstar can't help himself. The guy always goes on personal attacks. Just ignore the worst and try to stay on point, there is no point in trying to reason with the person behind the username. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not a personal attack , at least 3 editors have pointed out James's excessive long winded responses that add nothing to the discussion. It's a true case of WP:BLUDGEON. The tactic of James is to consistently use extremely long replies to grind down any opposing view. He'll respond again to this because simply he can't resist. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment This is why we will never see a topic specific notability standard in this area. 'Include everything' vs 'GNG is good enough' no one wants to get in the crossfire.

    GNG is what all subject specific notability guidelines should be based on but the definition of 'significant' needs to be addressed for particular topics. We failed with, at least, NPOLITICIAN, NATHELETE and Populated Places and we now have thousands of articles that will never be anything other than stubs. The desire to keep this from happening in the realm of international relations is preventing any progress on providing guidance, even simply codifying the consensus from AfD, on long standing notability issues in the topic area. Someday sanity may reign but this is not the day.

    I have un-struck my delete above and cited WP:IAR. An RfC has no chance of passing now and a 'snap RFC' of the original draft, as proposed by James500 above will poison the well for any near or medium term attempt, should anyone be foolish enough to try, legitimate proposal. In particular it would head off the discussions on Ambassadorial notability that has been going on for months and smother any potential emerging consensus in a repeat of this charlie foxtrot. JbhTalk 19:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

June 30, 2015[edit]

User:Attorney Olufunmilade Adeyemi[edit]

User:Attorney Olufunmilade Adeyemi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE Whpq (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

June 29, 2015[edit]


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

Delete as per WP:UP#PROMO. Purely promotional page by a single-purpose account. P 1 9 9   16:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Molysym/MolySym, Inc.[edit]

User:Molysym/MolySym, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Also no claim to notability, fails WP:CORP. P 1 9 9   16:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Sophie DeBattista[edit]

User:Sophie DeBattista (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE. The only contribition of this editor has been to her own user page. Whpq (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Argentine, not Argentinian[edit]

Wikipedia:Argentine, not Argentinian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a prescriptivist encyclopaedia. This essay makes no cogent argument that "Argentine", contra "Argentinian", is the "correct" demonym. WP:ESSAY does not excuse the promulgation of ill-informed opinions or blind prejudice - unless, of course, the page is tagged as "humorous". Alakzi (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep certainly the essay could be improved, but when I read the reason above, I thought this MFD page was being proposed for deletion! Essays can prescribe things, and we can choose to ignore or accept it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see a cogent argument for deletion either – Wikipedia is obviously prescriptivist in its writing (as are all reference works), and users are free to be as prescriptivist as they wish in non-article space. If you don't like it, why don't you write Wikipedia:Argentinian, not Argentine, and maybe eradicate some of that "blind prejudice" you're talking about. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not prescriptivist in its writing; it borrows accepted writing standards. Whether those standards may arise from prescriptivism is a different matter altogether. This essay would've been acceptable if reputable sources asserted that "Argentinian" is non-standard; they do not. It is intellectually moral that unsubstantiated advice is removed from public light. I've no interest in writing a counter-essay - and nor have I ever claimed that either form is superior. Alakzi (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
      • All essays are "unsubstantiated advice". The catacombs of the free encyclopaedia are not "public light". God knows what you mean by "intellectually moral". I think your primary rationale for deletion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and after that you're just winging it. IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Please do make an effort to understand before hurling personal attacks at me. Alakzi (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I think you're misunderstanding linguistic prescriptivism. Having a manual of style is a far cry from saying that a particular word is "correct". -- Irn (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Except our MOS frequently distinguishes between "correct" and "incorrect" uses – of words, punctuation, grammar, vocabulary, etc. Arbitrary prescriptivism is only unwarranted in article space; in the Wikipedia namespace (and the user and category namespaces, too), prescriptivism is omnipresent. IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Maybe I'm misunderstanding it or just not familiar enough with all of the MOS, but I see the MOS as prescriptivist only insofar as use on Wikipedia is concerned (i.e. "this is what is correct on Wikipedia") whereas this essay doesn't limit itself to prescribing a consistent in-house style; it broadly dictates what is "the correct demonym" always and everywhere. -- Irn (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." That text should clarify the status of the page. It makes a point about the usage of a pair of terms, but it is a point that may be accepted or ignored, as this is not part of the manual of style. In fact, we do have essays that propose to do an action and other essays that propose to do the polar opposite action, such as Wikipedia:A navbox on every page and Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox, or Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade and Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade. By the way, there was a similar discussion some months ago at Wikipedia talk:Argentine, not Argentinian#Requested move (or, actually, a "move war" that I settled starting that discussion). Cambalachero (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • What an obtuse misreading of WP:ESSAY. Of course user essays should be minimally informed. The issue is not with the popularity of the viewpoint, but whether any effort has been made to validate that viewpoint. Alakzi (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
      • So, it all comes down to "Delete this essay because I don't agree with it". Cambalachero (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't agree with it, but that's besides the point. The author authoritatively states that "Argentine" is the only correct demonym and adjective. This is clearly not the case, as "Argentinian" enjoys widespread usage, both in literature and the media, and it is found in reputable dictionaries of the English language, such as the OED. If the essay were to be rewritten to state that "Argentine" is more common, and should therefore be preferred, that would be fine; but it flies in the face of our core mission to be spreading what is essentially a falsehood. Alakzi (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep – "Argentine" is the standard form. The opinion is not "ill-formed", but is supported by most major style guides and etymological history. 14:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RGloucester (talkcontribs)
    • There are literally thousands of English loans which have been altered to conform with English-language grammatical and phonological norms and could be said to be etymologically "incorrect". A cursory Google search for "style guide Argentine" has not returned any relevant results. Alakzi (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: I really don't like this essay, and I really don't like the way its essay status allows it to avoid scrutiny and insulates it from criticism for being poorly-sourced and poorly-argued. (Check the page history and the talk: page to see how attempts at improving it are dealt with.) While I recognize that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion, the other side is little more than WP:ILIKEIT. (I don't see any cogent argument in favor of keeping it.) I think part of the problem is that there basicaly are no guidelines for inclusion regarding essays. I would like to see this essay deleted, but I don't know that policy supports that position because I don't see any clear guidelines on what constitutes an appropriate essay. At the very least, I do think this essay should be moved to something along the lines of "Argentine, Argentinian, or Argentinean", which would better reflect its contentiousness and allow for arguments to made and challenged. -- Irn (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing to challenge. The purpose of the essay is to express the opinion that "Argentine" should be preferred, as it should, and as it is by style guides. RGloucester 17:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If that were true, I might concede. However, that's not the case. An opinion would be arguing that Argentine is more elegant or a better translation, not that it's the correct demonym. Calling it "correct" is not an opinion; it's a statement of fact, and it's wrong. (That's not how English works.) If it were correct, there would be no need to write an essay arguing in favor of it. -- Irn (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
What is a "correct" is a matter of opinion, not of truth. RGloucester 20:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It is a matter of collective opinion. The word is used by millions and is found in leading dictionaries; it cannot objectively be "incorrect". Alakzi (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no such thing as objectivity. Anyway, many words are used that should not be used. "Argentinian" is one of them. RGloucester 20:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If the definition of "correct" that you are using renders it an opinion, you need to improve your word choice. Perhaps "best" or "most accurate"? -- Irn (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep There are very few reasos to outright delete an essay. If it is an attack page, if it blatantly misrepresents policy, or if it is simply a ball of lies, then sure, delete it. If it is the creation of a sole user and clearly represents only that user, who gaurds it against any changes by others it is suitable to force userfication instead of having it in project space. None of thse seem to apply here. Essays are for exactly this, expressing opinions. They serve a purpose in that if the matter keeps coming up again and again one need not endlessly repeat their arguments, they can simply refer to the essay which explains them in detail already. Whether we agree with a particular essay or not is simply not relevant. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know that I would call it "a ball of lies", but it is rife with factual errors. For example, "Argentina" is, in fact, a noun in Spanish. (It's also an adjective. It depends on the use.) Referring to the country as "la Argentina" doesn't make "Argentina" an adjective. (That argument makes absolutely no sense because articles modify nouns.) Even if that were the case, Argentinians do refer to Argentina as a noun (see, for example, "No llores por mí, Argentina"). Further, even if that argument were valid, there's nothing redundant about "Argentinian" because English use is not determined by the Spanish. And "Argentinian" did not enter English at the end of the 20th century but rather the middle of the 19th century. -- Irn (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The word may have "existed" in the 19th century, but it was not common usage and was extremely rare until the late 20th century. "Argentina" is an adjective in Spanish, which existed before the country. Whilst the word "Argentina" can now be used as if it were a noun, this usage is merely a colloquial dropping of the nouns that are modified by the adjective "Argentina", i.e. tierra or república. RGloucester 20:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Your argument here does not reflect what is in the essay. If that's what the essay is supposed to convey, it needs to be written more clearly. (And with sources for any factual claims, especially ones regarding "common usage" and what is "extremely rare".) My above point was that the essay is full of factual errors. Those errors remain, and your refusal to acknowledge the fluidity of language (i.e. what was once an adjective meaning "silvery" has long since become a noun referring to a country) doesn't change that. -- Irn (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy. I wouldn't suggest outright deletion, as I don't think this is violating any policies; but judging by the comments here and on the talk page, the position promoted by this essay is sufficiently contentious that it shouldn't be presented as 'the voice of Wikipedia'. It should be presented as the opinion of one particular editor (RGloucester), which is what it is. Essays don't have to be universally agreed with, they can promote positions; but when they do they should make clear that they are expressing an opinion, whereas this one presents as fact what is plainly disputed. It belongs in userspace, not Wikipedia-space. If it's to stay where it is, it should be renamed and rewritten to present the full range of perspectives on this question. Robofish (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    (As an aside, on the actual subject of the essay: I'm too ignorant about Argentina to know who's correct here, but I somehow got the impression that 'Argentine' is considered faintly pejorative, or at least old-fashioned, and 'Argentinian' is the more 'politically correct' version preferred in modern English. But I could be entirely misinformed.) Robofish (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Totally misinformed and inherently idiotic. Don't comment if you've not done any research. RGloucester 03:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy An essay containing the user's own opinion can not be in the Project namespace. It should be moved into the userspace of the main contributor. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 01:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't want it, so don't put it in MY userspace. RGloucester 03:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You made the bed. Ogress smash! 04:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:ESSAY, opening line: "Essays, as used by Wikipedia editors, typically contain information, advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors". IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as weird prescriptivist attack essay. This reeks of the usual Olde-Fascionèd comments that RGloucester writes (such as this gem that asserts that freedom of panorama is inherently liberal because liberal means what I say it means) and doesn't need to be in WP space. Ogress smash! 04:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
That's what "liberal" means by any definition. Liberalism is about freedom, which is why it is derived from the word "liberty", which is the latinate equivalent of the Germanic word "freedom". If you don't know what liberalism is, I hardly think you are suited to be commenting here. The essay does nothing other than express a well-reasoned opinion, adhered to by most journalist style guides. RGloucester 13:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete because it is demonstrable false given the usage of "Argentinian" by reliable sources, to wit [6] for example. Essays based on one man's opinion may be acceptable, but not when they're innaccurate. Also of note is this essay's high rank on Google searches for "Argentinian"; we shouldn't let this stay in Wikipedia's voice. The reason why I say delete and not userfy is because it fails WP:NOTESSAY, which prohibits the publishing of original research such as the one in question. Calidum T|C 02:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - Highly prejudicial, ill-informed and terribly written. Both Argentine or Argentinian are fine and commonly used. Argentine is British English.[7] You might as well write an equivalent essay that "Aluminium, not aluminum" is correct with the shortcut WP:NOTALUMINUM. МандичкаYO 😜 07:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
"Argentine" is not "British English" ( 1] please don't cite unreliable blogs 2] see recent NY Times article). It isn't OR, either. The sources are cited. "Argentine" is the most common and most correct form, in both varieties of English. There is no OR here, merely correctness. I like that a little crew is following me about. How pleasant. Damn you to Hades, twice. RGloucester 01:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I have reported your personal attack to the ongoing ANI against you. "Damning someone to Hades" (twice, no less) is not acceptable. МандичкаYO 😜 03:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - the Wikipedia namespace should not be used for essays that give bad advice, as it gives it a false air of authority. That it falls into the common "Anglophones don't know how to speak English" prejudice that crops up commonly in proper names in The Americas is extremely bothersome. At best, this is somewhere between ill-informed and un-informed. At worse, it's outright bigotry. It shouldn't carry Wikipedia's name like a stamp of approval. WilyD 11:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? This is the traditional English form, that has been used since the inception of the country's existence. You're the only uninformed one here. RGloucester 16:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Note that major dictionaries disagree with RGloucester! Who is uninformed?
    • Oxford English Dictionary, the gold standard: American and British English definitions are identical: Argentinian: Of or relating to Argentina or its people; A native or inhabitant of Argentina. Same definitions are given for "Argentine"[8] [9]
    • [10] Merriam Webster: Argentine/Argentinian are both correct
    • Typing in "Argentine" at the Cambridge dictionary redirects to Argentinian (note this happens if you search under American English OR British English) [11] [12]: Argentinian = belonging to or relating to Argentina or its people; a person from Argentina (also Argentine)
    • [13] Collins dictionary: Argentine = a native or inhabitant of Argentina; of or relating to Argentina. Also Argentinian
So, should we believe the fine folks at Oxford and Cambridge that both are equally correct? By the way, when you do a Google search for "Argentinian" this incorrect essay is the first thing that pops up! It's simply an embarrassment. If RGloucester wants to put this essay up on blogspot somewhere then they have that right. Nobody will put up a fight. But I don't see why they should be given a soapbox on Wikipedia. There are standards that Wikipedia essays must meet and this fails. МандичкаYO 😜 03:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Dictionaries do not comment on correctness, they catalogue usage. One can find an extremely obscure word in the dictionary, but that doesn't mean that it should be used. No dictionaries disagree with me, because dictionaries do not deal with style. You need to look at style guides, which comment on usage. It is sad that you cannot admit to resorting to unreliable blogs. You've already demonsted your uninformed nature by positing that "Argentine" is British English, which was swiftly disproven. RGloucester 04:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Correctness of language is predicated on usage. It is not a very difficult concept to understand. And no, we're not going to debate epistemology. Alakzi (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep In my opinion, this essay is pedantic and dogmatic, but it just an essay. It is one editor's opinion. It is neither a policy nor a guideline, and no editor is obligated to comply with its conclusions. We provide wide leeway for any editor to write an essay related to improving the encyclopedia. There can be no doubt that RGloucester believes, quite firmly, that the "Argentine" usage is correct. He is entitled to both his opinion and his essay. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Userify in its current state. If it is retained in wikipedia-space, rename to Argentine or Argentinaian? and add a section explaining why the latter is acceptable and accepted (Essays in wikipedia space are open to such editing). Abecedare (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - People are entitled to their opinions, and may write essays as much as they like, but this one is factually incorrect, as the evidence from the dictionaries shows. Factually incorrect info may not be presented knowingly and wilfully to the readers of an encyclopedia. Kraxler (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy. Essays that present the personal opinion of a single editor, without clearly recognizable support in some wider circles of Wikipedians, of very limited scope, and little or no basis in widely recognized Wikpedia policies, should exist in user space, not project space. Fut.Perf. 22:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, as the user doesn't want it in his userspace. Userfy, as it's a personal opinion. We shouldn't delete it, as it hardly breaks any rules. Peter238 (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Userfy is more appropriate here, but since User:RGloucester doesn't want it on his userspace for some reason, Delete seems to be the only appropriate alternative. This extremely opinionated view may be acceptable as an essay, if it were only that; instead, its edit history and that of its Talk: page strongly suggest that RGloucester is erring on the side of stubbornness, straight-up ignoring and reverting any attempt at improvement of the essay. And while the author's argument starts off sound, it quickly crashes and burns in a mess of hasty justifications, leaps in logic, and insistent assertions in place of references. Many agree that dictionaries are not on his side here. Strong revisions—either in content or in word choice—are needed, but if RGloucester is unwilling to cede to these measures, I vote Delete. —87504325340295a (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 87504325340295a (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. User:87504325340295a sums it up right and I agree with his/her entire conclusion above. -- P 1 9 9   18:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see a single valid reason to delete or userfy this essay. WP:WPESSAY rightly states that "essays may range from personal or minority views", and that "disputes between editors writing an essay should be handled differently from writing an article, because there's no need to agree on a single right version". Moreover, WP:NOESSAY makes the point that essays tend to be deleted or transferred to user space if they have no relationship to Wikipedia whatsoever, violate one or more Wikipedia policies (such as spam, personal attacks, copyright violations, or what Wikipedia is not), or contradict or subvert policy; that isn't the case here, at all. --OneEuropeanHeart (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: the author has stated in this discussion they do not want it in their User space. Ogress smash! 21:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


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

Spam page in the userspace of a paid advocacy sockfarm. MER-C 01:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I couldn't work out what was so wrong with the draft, and was inclined to recommend blanking, until I noted that the account is blocked. Assuming the blocking action was correct, the page should be deleted. It is, however, no prejudice against a future attempt to write an article on this subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. -- P 1 9 9   18:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


User:Rideo99/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Spam page in the userspace of a paid advocacy sockfarm. MER-C 01:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

June 28, 2015[edit]

Portal:Current events/Canada/Quote[edit]

Portal:Current events/Canada/Quote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Current events/Canada/Quotes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Current events/Canada/Quotes/Suggest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These 3 pages are part of a defunct portal. There are no substantial (i.e. apart from user sandboxes etc) inlinks to these pages from other pages. This MFD nomination is part of clearing out old redundant pages so they no longer appear in categories, WLH lists etc. I can see no reason to preserve these pages for "historical" reasons. DexDor (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete As the creator of these pages they clearly are no longer in use and should be deleted. They only served a purpose back when there was a Current Events Portal for Canada. Now that it redirects to Portal:Canada and there's no quote section, it should be deleted. Mkdwtalk 20:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there anything in Category:Current events Canada (apart possibly from the redirect which still has some inlinks) that you think should be kept? DexDor (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Nothing that I can see. Anything where I was the sole editor can arguably be deleted under WP:G7 with my endorsement. Anything that had at least one other contributor should follow the process of MFD to which I am in favour of deletion for all. Mkdwtalk 21:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as per foregoing. -- P 1 9 9   19:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


Talk:Creationism/Hinducreationism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an 8 years old article created in the talk section. Author showed no intention to move it to the main namespace. I think it should be deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

June 27, 2015[edit]


User:Uhbooh/Nazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nazi userbox BMK (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abuse response/NominateWhoisQuiz[edit]

Wikipedia:Abuse response/NominateWhoisQuiz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Abuse response/NominateWhoisQuiz/Doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These 2 pages from 2011 have no inlinks from any other pages. From searching[14] I've only found one page where this has been substituted. In other words, this appears to be an initiative that hasn't gone anywhere and is now unnecessary wp infrastructure. I can't see any reason for preserving this (in live pages) for "historical" reasons. DexDor (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dutch architecture, towns, or communes outside the Low Countries[edit]

Wikipedia:Dutch architecture, towns, or communes outside the Low Countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a very unusual (if not unique) page in en wp - a Wikipedia namespace page that's not part of wikipedia administration. There are no inlinks to this page from other wp pages. It might be possible to convert this to an article - if so, the wording (e.g. "This page is dedicated to...") would need to be changed. Alternatively, this page could be userfied. DexDor (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think there is a viable topic here but the current title and scope is really problematic. It makes no distinction between genuine Dutch colonial influence/heritage and modern recreations, and includes just about everything Dutch. It would be much better to expand the Architecture of the Netherlands article. -- P 1 9 9   14:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thinking about it some more, delete as per WP:TNT may be the best solution. -- P 1 9 9   14:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

June 26, 2015[edit]


User:Singgy123/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a web host for fantasy versions of X-factor. This sandbox is not a draft article for main space. It is a mashup of different X-Factor acts and judges, with acts from The X Factor (UK series 6), and The X Factor (U.S. season 3) with a judges list from The X Factor (U.S. season 2). The top two acts come from US Season 3; Alex and Sierra did win but Rion instead of finishing second as claimed in the sandbox, was actually eliminated in week 6. The remainder of the acts were copied from UK Series 6. The judges do not correspond to either of those seasons, and instead were drawn from US Season 2; the details of assistants is made up. There are no more seasons of X-factor US, and this is in no way a draft for The X Factor (UK series 12), the next UK series. A request for WP:U5 speedy deletion was declined by Keegan (talk · contribs). Whpq (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

June 24, 2015[edit]

User:Rick570/St Peter's College list[edit]

User:Rick570/St Peter's College list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Rick570/St Peter's old boys list (20 February 2009) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I closed WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rick570/St Peter's College list as keep, but it has emerged that the second keep !voter was a sockpuppet of the article author (see SPI). I am therefore relisting it, and will notify those who took part in the first MfD. Procedural nomination; I express no opinion. JohnCD (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete both, fails WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Also, I am pretty sure these are recreations or rehash of previous deleted pages (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rick570/New Zealand Christian Brother biographies). -- P 1 9 9   14:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete both. They appear to be copies of List of people educated at St Peter's College, Auckland with extra people thrown in of dubious notability. The claim that this is a launching point for new articles doesn't make sense given that people with articles are in the list, and those that are not linked include all sorts like "Timothy Elliott (born 1970) (Timothy George) Secondary school teacher". This appears to be more of an attempt to simply list all the alumni whether notable or not. -- Whpq (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The list was mostly completed some years ago. Only those names were added for which there was some reference available. The intention then and now was to gradually work through it to produce substantive articles of notable persons and delete the rest. About 110 articles have been produced. Others were produced but deleted by others. More research is needed to rehabilitate or restore them or finally delete them. The list is not an attmpt to just add every old boy. That is impossible. There must be at least 10,000 of them living. The list is very useful as a resource for other articles. Please keep it.Rick570 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep but blank during periods of inactivity, as a draft working towards notable alumni. Is almost suitable, possibly a list of notable alumni, but it contains far too many non-notable names, many living. Also consider Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. A complete list of alumni, worked towards, is a valuable thing, but out of scope for Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
List of people educated at St Peter's College, Auckland already exists. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Delete per Duffbeerforme. Email the contents to the author on request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is being maintained as a working fake article. It's not being used as a launching point. Editing history shows otherwise. Links to wikibin are being added for people who were found to be non notable, the most recent this month after the last mfd [15]. Non notable people are being added and contrary to the above claim, it's just not along time ago. More have been added this year [16]. Notable individual with existing articles are being added to this list showing that it's not for the creation of new articles. These notable people are being added to this fake article and the list in mainspace at the same time [17] [18]. All this shows it's meant as a working fake article, not as claimed above by Rick. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment The entries on this page have been very carefully selected and are supported by references. When I have the time I will do the research to produce the articles required. Why is there no wikipedia policy against sheer vindictiveness? Why not look at the facts: there are no breaches of copyright: all entries are referenced from some independent source; and just give me the opportunity to extend and complete the research.Rick570 (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you are crossing Wikipedia's conservative line for copyright and BLP. You are collecting and publishing too much on private individuals. I suggest that you do it offline, or at least elsewhere, and do not introduce any information on anyone until can can demonstrate their notability. Be very mindful of every letter of WP:BLP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 : CommentMuch of the substantive work was done on other wiki pages a long time ago (mostly in the period 2007-2010). I keep the page updated when some event comes to my attention (a death for example). The page can always be edited by others, including the subjects. But since most of the entries are referenced to publicly-available resources, most of the info is publicly available anyway. As far as I know there have been no complaints to wikipedia or in any other forum about the article. Page-view statistics seem to show a moderate interest in it. The page is not just some inchoate list of names. It has been carefully researched. Why can't it just be left?Rick570 (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
To address some of the claims made by Rick.
"The entries on this page have been very carefully selected and are supported by references." Francis Cameron, Ian Robert Carroll, Richard Ignatius Carroll and others have no references. Sean Black's supporting reference doesn't mention him. Others such as Gregory Jones have Old Friends, not a good source. Carefully selected? James Armour? What's his claim to notability? That he died in 2011? Greg Zambuca? That he died in 2011? Henryk Wolk, Boleslaw Wojtowicz? List gives no clue. The reference? They're Polish, is that what makes them notable?
"there are no breaches of copyright". Thankfully your predilection for copyright violations has not extended to here.
"all entries are referenced from some independent source". As mentioned above some have no sources. Others have Old Friends. Not an acceptable source. Then there's Bernard Coyle, referenced to his MSc Thesis, not an independent source. Same with Patrick Cooney. David Dowd to his thesis. None with any sign of notability
"Much of the substantive work was done on other wiki pages a long time ago (mostly in the period 2007-2010)." 2007-2010, before this page was started in 2011 [19]. That may be true but non notable people have been added since then. Henryk Wolk, Boleslaw Wojtowicz and others in Dec 2014 [20] [21]. Not a long time ago.
Claims not supported by the facts. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

June 23, 2015[edit]

User:\wowzeryest\/Trigonometric Functions Usage[edit]

User:\wowzeryest\/Trigonometric Functions Usage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Userspace being used to promote the user's mathematical theory. Appears to be improper use of userspace and policy violation. No indication that this would or could be turned into a Wikipedia article that would pass WP:GNG. User has been busy using Wikipedia to promote their personal mathematical theories through article creation. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octuple-precision floating-point format and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:\wowzeryest\/possible slope formula. -- WV 01:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User:\wowzeryest\/Functions Library[edit]

User:\wowzeryest\/Functions Library (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Userspace being used to promote the user's mathematical theory. Appears to be improper use of userspace and policy violation. No indication that this would or could be turned into a Wikipedia article that would pass WP:GNG. User has been busy using Wikipedia to promote their personal mathematical theories through article creation. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octuple-precision floating-point format and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:\wowzeryest\/possible slope formula. -- WV 01:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Please let the AfD play out first. With related content in userspace, this sandboxing is more than appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User:\wowzeryest\/possible slope formula[edit]

User:\wowzeryest\/possible slope formula (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Userspace being used to promote the user's mathematical theory. Appears to be improper use of userspace and policy violation. No indication that this would or could be turned into a Wikipedia article that would pass WP:GNG. User has been busy using Wikipedia to promote their personal mathematical theories through article creation. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octuple-precision floating-point format. -- WV 01:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

June 19, 2015[edit]

User:Kennyisblackerthanyou/Kenny montalvan[edit]

User:Kennyisblackerthanyou/Kenny montalvan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Creating this WP:FAKEARTICLE archive (since 2010) of mainspace page Method Man was user's only edit ever. Worldbruce (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. There should be no copies of existing articles. -- P 1 9 9   14:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Savannah Stevenson[edit]

Draft:Savannah Stevenson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft got plunked down in its entirety to draft space on December 25, 2014, even though Savannah Stevenson already existed on mainspace. This complete draft is the only edit that user (BoosHaus) made, and it was never submitted to AfC. I have no idea why it was even created. That said, it's about 25% longer than the existing Savannah Stevenson article, and has more complete info, so, unless it's a copyvio of something off-wiki, I think it should be MERGED into Savannah Stevenson. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Go ahead and merge it. Merging is not controversial and can be done anytime. -- P 1 9 9   14:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

June 17, 2015[edit]

User:Gekritzl/Deletion gestapo[edit]

User:Gekritzl/Deletion gestapo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:POLEMIC by a now indef'ed account. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep although you may disagree with this and it may be inflammatory, it is a valid point of view expressed in an essay. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:NOTWEBHOST. This is not WP policy, so no need to forever host this stale personal editorial. -- P 1 9 9   00:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Zacherystaylor/The Fatima UFO Hypothesis[edit]

User:Zacherystaylor/The Fatima UFO Hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT of an article that will never be suitable for mainspace due to its reliance on WP:FRINGE sources not considered reliable. Also there is indication the userspace is being promoted/linked to [22] from internet forums, per WP:NOTWEBHOST. LuckyLouie (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Anders Feder/ImproveIslamArticles[edit]

User:Anders Feder/ImproveIslamArticles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page contains polemic materials and hence should be deleted. نان (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Page doesn't fall under WP:POLEMIC as it doesn't try to name and shame any specific editors. The polemical statements within are directly related to improving Wikipedia. Bosstopher (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@Bosstopher: So there are some polemical statements! In what way are they "directly related to improving Wikipedia". How about those which attack some editors and/or entities such as "the Muslim", "The Iranian"? نان (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Polemical statements are allowed so long as they directly relate to wikipedia and improving it. I would agree with you if Anders was attacking all Muslims or all Iranians as bad editors, but that's not what he's doing at all. He's not naming any specific editors. Though I must admit the thing about them putting fingers in their ears and doing an ululation is a very tasteless ethnic stereotype jokeand something Anders should remove. (@Anders Feder: Pinging to make you aware of the request) Bosstopher (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. What is tasteless is the skewed editing, not in some obscure user page, but in dozens of mainspace articles due to User:نان/Mhhossein and his close collaborator User:Srahmadi[23]/User:AliAkar[24]/User:M.Sakhaie[25]/etc.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Bosstopher: Another personal attack by Anders Feder which I would not say and is not related to our discussion subject. Any way, thanks, although the page needs more attention. Mhhossein (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Could the closing admin please take this conversation about the content of the page into account. Bosstopher (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - This should be kept. It is clearly aimed at Wikipedia and it is for the purposes of improving articles. Mbcap (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Mbcap: Could you please say how these attacks may 'clearly' help to improve Wikipedia? نان (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
نان Sure, I can elaborate. Paid stooges of the Iranian theocracy are certainly very disruptive to Wikipedia. They are the sort of editors who are fanatical and aim to disrupt the content, tone and balance of articles so that there is a pro-Iranian slant on articles relating to politics and religion. These are the very editors who aim to inject polemic material into Wikipedia. Therefore I am at a loss as to why you have put this up for deletion because the paragraph in question tries to raise awareness about a category of editors who disrupt the Wiki with polemic material. Mbcap (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear @Mbcap:! Awareness about who? how can one understand that an editor is a member of that category? Even if we suppose there are some such editors, we should also consider that there are many many fanatical editor out there, so do we have to shout that with polemical statements and tag them with inappropriate qualities and attack them? I think raising the awareness is not a suitable justification because one may do that in a more polite manner. Mhhossein (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
If there is a "more polite" way to raise awareness about the tendentious editing due to you and other Khamenei supporters, you should go ahead and do it. I look forward to your efforts in that area.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Mhhossein to answer your question, it is raising awareness about stooges of the Iranian theocracy who seek to disrupt Wikipedia by pushing a point of view. They are an immense waste of time. As an example here is a conversation which wasted several hours of life which one simply cannot reclaim. You may still ask "awareness about who" so I shall attempt to enlighten. This is how a basic Khamenei zombie works. He either dedicates his time to politics and religion, or even both. For politics he likes to use PressTV and Fars news, sources which are a laughable at the very least. For religious articles, the Khamenei zombie likes to use which no doubt is run and funded by the Iranian state. In this way the Khamenei zombie can cause disruption to politics related articles and most definitely has destroyed numerous Islam related articles. I would also like to state that this deletion proposal is an absolute waste of time. Work should be focused on the mainspace and not on some users subpage. Mbcap (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap: Read the page more carefully. He said that they were not 'paid stooge' in his opinion! However, I meant to indicate that using inappropriate language is not a suitable way to raise that mentioned 'awareness'. Now, you are acting in a same manner as Feder. Of course, you don't have to waste your time on this thread. Mhhossein (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Mhhossein I agree I do not have to waste my time but neither do all the other editors who spend time cleaning up the mess caused by those in question. What is not an appropriate way to behave is polluting Wikipedia articles with bogus sources rather than using sources from Brill publishers or encyclopaedia Iranica. The proposed text for deletion is an entirely appropriate way to raise awareness. May I suggest that you help in rectifying the problem with these polluted mainspace articles. Mbcap (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap Raising awareness is an issue, while how to raise the awareness is another! Mainspace articles are not the subject of our discussion here and I may pay to it in it's place. Mhhossein (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Based on WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL (Removal of personal attacks) some part of it which contains uncivil attributes against a group of the other editors should be deleted. Particularly, "The Happy Iranian" is a promote biased approach against a group of the editors.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Should we also delete WP:RS and WP:NPOV because they promote a "biased approach" against "a group of editors", namely POV-pushers who use unreliable sources? Or is it only "groups of editors" covered in my subpage that you are interested in covering for?--Anders Feder (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Those policies and guidelines do not accuse any particular group by using phrases such as "The Happy Iranian". Please, read WP:IMPARTIAL carefully.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Sa.vakilian: "Those policies and guidelines do not accuse any particular group" Nor does my user subpage. It describes a source of an immense amount of propagandistic, POV editing in article mainspace. (And WP:IMPARTIAL does not mean that POV editing is acceptable, as I've already explained to you here.)--Anders Feder (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, of course. I agree with you that there are some users who do not obey wiki policies and want to promote their own beliefs, however this does not let anyone make Stereotype. For example, there may be some Zionists who want to promote their ideologies, but it is not a good excuse for anyone to write "The Happy Israelis", etc.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Sa.vakilian: The page is not "making stereotype". It is describing a class of editors who are causing astronomical amounts of editing time going to waste in cleaning up their disruption on Wikipedia, such as in the incident Mbcap referred to. As for Zionists, they have been dealt with a long time ago, presumably because someone dared and bothered to speak out against them: they are now under general sanctions. Would you support something like that being imposed on Iran-related articles too, in place of the small note on the user subpage you are referring to?--Anders Feder (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my example. As I know you and we spoke about the issue in the other occasions, you tend to generalize a specific problem and make a general category! You can use a more neutral language in the page.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
This is really the crux of the hypocrisy. You want to leave those who agree with you free hands to continue wasting everybody's time and screwing up Wikipedia, while playing the victim at the same time. It does not work like that.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC) (back later)
All else aside the line about editors shutting their ears and doing ululations is pretty much the epitome of "making a stereotype." I'd have no issues with a page describing the "Happy Israeli" as long as it didn't talk about shutting their ears and drowning out the noise by singing Hava Nagilah. Bosstopher (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I would have to completely agree with Bosstopher. The ulutation part could go - but it is absurd to suggest the page as a whole is polemical. Other than that one statement, I don't see a single issue with it. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I propose @Anders Feder: to rewrite some parts of the page based on WP:IMPARTIAL.--Seyyed(t-c) 23:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The comparison with Zionists is nonsensical. I have worked with editors on the Israel page who may be Zionists and I have found that those with whom I have interacted are very professional and abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is no problem in anyone holding any view, no matter how objectionable it is as long as you leave such views at the door and edit the Wiki within the spirit of building an encyclopaedia. Causing mass disruption to mainspace articles with bogus sources published by propaganda outlets leads to very poor quality articles. There are many such articles and this problem needs to be addressed at a far higher level than the subpage of Anders Feder. Therefore we should be having a discussion on how to address this problem rather than getting Anders Feder to delete a reference that is displeasing to a group of editors. If it is the ululation reference that is the issue here, thought I do not think that is the crux of the problem for the objecting parties, then I would request that said parties attempt to reach a resolution that would be acceptable to all. As for the other parts of the page then I disagree with the suggestion by Seyyed. It should not be altered in anyway unless Anders Feder decides otherwise. Mbcap (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mbcap: Excuse me, but you are not aware of the role of an "example" in an argument. Example is just for simplification of the issue neither the reason nor the proof! So discussion about the example looks funny!!! There are many policies and guidelines which cover what you are concerned about. However, We are ready to discuss and improve the policies against the promoting of the propaganda by anyone not just Iranians or Muslims. Finally, the problem of the Andres Feder's page is stereotyping. --Seyyed(t-c) 03:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Seyyed So for the sake of raising awareness about those promoting propaganda we should in no way delete this subpage. Mbcap (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I will change my vote if Andres changes its tone. --Seyyed(t-c) 07:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for conclusion @Anders Feder, Mhhossein, Mbcap, Bosstopher, and Elspamo4: I think most of us agree to keep the page but improve its tone so that it does not violate WP:IMPARTIAL.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

June 16, 2015[edit]


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

Original editor already created the article in mainspace. I moved the infobox over. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. There should be no copies of existing articles. -- P 1 9 9   18:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

June 15, 2015[edit]

User: Ambrie[edit]

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

Stale userspace draft. No RS source and can't tell without an interpretation if its salvageable. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as per WP:STALEDRAFT. Untranslated foreign language. -- P 1 9 9   00:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, move to Draft space and list at WP:PNT. Language is Indonesian, and I think the subject is possibly notable, see for instance here and here. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

June 14, 2015[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Afghanistan[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Do not think there is enough material on here, only two since creation. RES2773 (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - this is a process page: it may not get much use, but when it does it is useful, and nothing would be gained by deleting it. JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep A useful page for the watchlist's of people who edit Afghanistan related articles.Bosstopher (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

June 10, 2015[edit]


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

This is the sort of polemical use of user space to attack multiple Wikipedia editors that is not permitted in user pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Meh/keep By itself this isn't really something that would qualify for deletion. I see that there's an ongoing dispute that this is part of, but even considering that, I still don't really think this falls under something we'd delete. As a comparison, if he said the same thing in an unrelated conversation, I don't think outright removal of his comment would be justified, so I don't think we should delete this either. Gigs (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I feel the same way as Gigs. While it's hardly conducive to cooperation between editors it doesn't name any particular editor and while I disagree with their opinion, I don't see any need to suppress it. SmartSE (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The comments violates our various talk page guidelines in that it's assuming other editors are out there to support industry, etc. simply because those editors don't agree with SageRad's edits. It's lashing out that they have been warned about quite a few times. That being said, it's probably best to let them just delete the content themselves or just leave it as evidence for for ANI if it comes to that. They've been given multiple opportunities to correct their behavior, so I'd say just make this another opportunity for them to right themselves or else just let it pile up for an eventual blowback if they keep going down this route. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Note The problematic content has been removed. SmartSE (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

June 7, 2015[edit]

User:Papillonderecherche/The Hancock Amendment[edit]

User:Papillonderecherche/The Hancock Amendment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. User's last Wikipedia edit was on June 12, 2013. Safiel (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. Trivial user space page with absolutely no need for any other user to fiddle. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleting occasional contributors edit histories is unwelcoming to them, adding barriers to them returning. This user took the trouble to register and made substantial contributions. It should be assumed that he used AfC to make this page for some reason, as some note or memory aid or whatever, no explanation is required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
(1) Why is there a desire to empty these categories?
(2) The page is removed from the category by replacing it with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as test edit. This could have been tagged with {{Db-g2}}. -- P 1 9 9   18:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
"This criterion does not apply to pages in the user namespace". Careless deletions in others userspace is damaging to the community. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

June 6, 2015[edit]


User:Phoenix79/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Outdated work page. Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

  • The user has not been active for three years—why not just blank the sandbox? It's not suitable for an article, but it's not inappropriate to the level of needing a delete. Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Just blank. Deleting others workspace without good reason is wasteful of resources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. And here are the good reasons for deletion: WP:STALEDRAFT and WP:WEBHOST. -- P 1 9 9   13:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:STALEDRAFT is not per se a reason for deletion in userspace. WP:WEBHOST here would be entirely satisfied by blanking, and while yes this page is not acceptable, the bringing of every such page to MfD is not a positive contribution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Blank There are thousands of stale user sandboxes of inactives users. There's no point in deleting them. Blanking is enough. (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2, 2015[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox2[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox2 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an old test sandbox. It's not an actual article for creation so it wouldn't likely qualify under G13 and I don't see the need to keep another sandbox that probably isn't being watched. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess if Theopolisme has no objections it could go. Don't see how we gain much by deleting it though. Gigs (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/template:green party users[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/template:green party users (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

This is not an article for creation. It's a template, a userspace template, and can be created in the user's userspace without AFC. The editor seems to have moved onto other matters. This will never be put into article space and there is no policy reason to keep this around for another six months other than as a bureaucratic matter. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9   13:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Rana Tarakji[edit]

Draft:Rana Tarakji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft which started as an article in talk space exactly duplicates the article Rana Tarakji‎ and has been constructed by the same editor, possibly as insurance in case the article is deleted.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Ironically, if Velella had left the page where it was created, as a talk page, I would have deleted it as the talk page of a deleted article. However, Velella has moved it to draft space, and it is far less clear that it should be deleted, since creating a draft so that it can be worked on if the article is deleted seems to me to be perfectly legitimate. However, it is not at all clear to me that the editor who created the page intends it as a draft article to be worked on, so deletion may be reasonable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have now looked further at the history. I find that the editor has created at least seven copies of this self-promotional content, as a articles, user pages, an article talk page, and a user talk page, using at least two accounts to do so. It is clear that it is an attempt to spam, and all copies should be deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Whatever its origins, it is now a legitimate article draft. It is unlikely to be improved, at which point it can be deleted through WP:CSD#G13 when it becomes stale. But it does no harm as a draft article until that time. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment Up to a point I agree with WikiDan61, which is why I didn't say "delete" in my first comment. However, I don't agree that it is "a legitimate article draft". It is spam, and as such is not legitimate, and qualifies for speedy deletion. We normally allow leeway in draft articles, and don't immediately delete good faith drafts which would be deleted as articles, to allow a chance for their authors to improve them, but there is no good reason for making an exception when there is no evidence at all that the author has any intention of doing anything of the sort: she appears to have only the intention of using Wikipedia for promotion. The editor who moved it to draft space wants it deleted, so it is difficult really to justify keeping what would otherwise be speedily-deleted on the grounds that it is in draft space. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have given this some more thought. If the creator of the article shows any sign of interest in improving the page, either by editing it or by commenting in this discussion, then it will be reasonable to give him or her more of a chance, so my "delete" comment above may be regarded as void, and replaced by a "keep". However, if this discussion remains open for a week and the editor has still shown no sign of interest in working to bring the page into line with Wikipedia standards, then my comment above stands. It is not 100% true to say that such a page "does no harm", because experience over the years has taught me that a significant proportion of editors whose only purpose is to use Wikipedia to host a self-promotional page are happy as long as the page stays, no matter whether it has "Draft" at the beginning of the title or not, and allowing such an inappropriate page to remain encourages them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

June 1, 2015[edit]

User:Gabriel Kent/archive:Philosophical Perspective on the Spirit of Christmas[edit]

User:Gabriel Kent/archive:Philosophical Perspective on the Spirit of Christmas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. User's creative writing which was previously added to the Christmas article as a copy/paste from Gabriel Kent's personal website.[26] The user created an article for it, but the article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophical Perspective on the Spirit of Christmas. The user assumed responsibility for developing the material in userspace, but there is no hope for it as an article. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. Reasonable leeway for a Wikipedian. Page view stats provide no indication of any NOTWEBHOST issue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per WP:G4. Clearly this page only exists to circumvent the deletion discussion. -- P 1 9 9   16:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It was the user's mistake in ignorance to put it in mainspace. It was never meant to be an article, and it is not being hosted as an article, but as original work by the user in whose userspace it is located. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC). As the AfD considered only the appropriateness in mainspace, and as it is so obviously not an article but a Wikipedian's personal expression, G4 doesn't apply. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • As the user made accepted contributions, he is entitled leeway in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Pageview stats indicate that there is no NOTWEBHOST violation in play. The MfD nomination, however, caused it to be read by many people, demonstrating the counterproductivity of these nominations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a place to host material which "was never meant to be an article, and it is not being hosted as an article, but as original work", see WP:UP#COPIES: "Userspace is not a free web host... Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion", also WP:NOTESSAY. JohnCD (talk)

User:Gabriel Kent/archive:Biography of Nikola Tesla[edit]

User:Gabriel Kent/archive:Biography of Nikola Tesla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The text on the page says "This article contains additional biographical information about Nikola Tesla that is not on the main page." Its intent is clearly to serve as a WP:FAKEARTICLE. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Nikola Tesla. No need to delete this Wikipedian's userspace edits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Yes, we need to delete this to discourage user from creating copies of existing articles. -- P 1 9 9   16:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Deleting random edits from a user's edit history makes it harder for the community to detect and discourage real problems. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

May 29, 2015[edit]

User:YourBrandRocks/Ryan Arnold[edit]

User:YourBrandRocks/Ryan Arnold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

But it's not the editor's userpage. It's a WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:WEBHOST issue. Plus, if this is purely promotional (and the name implies something), we have to keep watch to make sure it isn't restored. That's not a needed nuisance. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
It is a userspace draft. It even has an attempt at sourcing. It is no more a FAKEARTICLE or a WEBHOST problem than a million other userspace drafts. If you think there is any FAKEARTICLE issue (I disagree), then you can fix it with {{userpage}}, or, given the long period of inactivity, {{inactive userpage blanked}}. Page view statistics indicate that you are wrong about an active WEBHOST abuse. And in either case, you can fix the problem without deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
What fix do you have in mind? Blanking the article now and if the user comes back to restore it to spam it again (a one-line 'social media strategist' biography article is good likely to be just that), blank it again and again? Have you dealt with those kind of people? There's been characters that require as many as five, six different articles and userpages deleted over years. Why should we have to spend our time with their gamesmanship? Would you rather I just move it to articlespace and list it for AFD or CSD and have it deleted then? It wouldn't survive there so why should it stay around in the editor's userspace? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Blanking with a message is sufficient fix. If the user returns, he can read the message and engage in conversation. If the material is kneejerk deleted, you are instead teaching the user that you don't care and that he may as well learn to hide better. Blatant promoters respond better to conversation and quiet slow reversion. There is no need to create these MfD discussions. I would rather you liberally tag it {{db-g11}} than draw community attention to it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • STALEDRAFT is not a deletion reason per se. WP:GNG doesn't apply to userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

User:YawnDaGuitarholic/new article name here[edit]

User:YawnDaGuitarholic/new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Userspace draft. Article currently at Periphery (band). Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Yomesh shah/Jharola[edit]

User:Yomesh shah/Jharola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Not stale. No reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
It's been over four years. WP:G13 for Articles for Creation pages counts six months as stale. This is four times as long. Besides, if the user comes back, it can always be restored. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
If it can always be restored, that is an excellent reason to use {{Inactive userpage blanked}} instead of deletion. Expecting an old short term Wikipedian to return and navigate to requests for undeletion is a very big ask. The only message he's every been left is your MfD template, which will link to a closed MfD discussion, which will advise no further edits should be made. It's great that you want to clean up these old pages, but you can do it by replacing them with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. There is no need to invoke an MfD page and a community discussion for innocuous old pages, and as a rule you should have a very good reason to delete pages in another's userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:STALEDRAFT. If there is ever a need to (re)create an article on this place, this stub shouldn't serve as a starting point: WP:TNT. -- P 1 9 9   16:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Astroiseur/Asia Source 3[edit]

User:Astroiseur/Asia Source 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale usespace draft. There's not much worth adding that isn't already at Asia_Source#Asia_Source_3. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Ashraf Elibrachy/Ibrachy Law Firm[edit]

User:Ashraf Elibrachy/Ibrachy Law Firm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Article was created at Ibrachy Law Firm by someone else so I don't know if a history merge is needed. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as per WP:STALEDRAFT. And redundant to mainspace article. -- P 1 9 9   16:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:HISTMERGE everything before 15:25, 5 November 2009‎ into Ibrachy Law Firm for legal/copyright reasons and delete the remaining edits (This is what would be lost - nothing of value). In any case, I think policy prevents deletion of the pre-5 November 2009 edits as long as the main article stands. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

May 27, 2015[edit]

Talk:Indigo children/For Indigos[edit]

Talk:Indigo children/For Indigos (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I found this page linked from the article talk page. It is specifically directed at a particular class of believer and attempts to dissuade the reader from the belief. Clearly this is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. Skyerise (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Page is meant to deal with the regular POV-pushers we get on the talk page on this WP:FRINGE topic. It is about as appropriate as having something on Talk:Vaccination explaining why we don't give credence to anti-vaccers. This isn't article content, it's effectively a talk page post. Do you have a policy-based reason for deleting this talk page post that you did not write?
If I were to copy the contents to my computer and post that boilerplate response every time someone came along arguing that we should give equal validity between the works of shysters and scientists, it would be perfectly fine. I could make a template out of it. This was just the most efficient option. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Ian.Thompson. We don't delete talk page discussions unless there is a clear BLP violation. Sundayclose (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
This isn't discussion. All that takes is a link into the talk archives. This is a small number of Wikipedia editors taking a position, intentionally created in the talk space even though it is not discussion. Skyerise (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Once again, Skyerise, you're creating your own policies. This is a subpage of the article's talk page. It could easily be moved to the main talk page, but is separate for organization and clarity. Any editor can express any opinion on a talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
No, that's what WP:ESSAYS are for. We'll see: I doubt editors not in the "crush pseudoscience" clique will buy that argument. Skyerise (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we'll see. I don't recall ever seeing an essay about one article. Sundayclose (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
By 'the "crush pseudoscience" clique', you mean any editor who follows and understands WP:NPOV and actual science? Wikipedia does not give equal validity to WP:FRINGE topics. That is policy as written and as intended. Wikipedia is almost required to dismiss pseudoscience by not giving it article space unless it is adequately covered by mainstream science. If mainstream science is dismissive of the topic, so are we. It is a perfectly legitimate use of a talk page to discourage editors from trying to promote the works of WP:Lunatic charlatans. It is not appropriate to try and censor the talk page posts of others because they discourage delusional advocates from filling the article with their superstitious fantasies. It is not appropriate to 'creatively interpret' existing guidelines or even cite non-existent guidelines to try and accomplish that either. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - article talk pages are to be used as an aid in the development of the article. For a topic on fringe topic such as Indigo children, a sub-page to head off article objections from true believers seems to be a perfectly reasonable approach. If you have specific objections to the way it is worded, then that should be worked out through discussion, but the purpose of the subpage is in line with policy for article talk pages. -- Whpq (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, or reformulate I'm about as skeptical as they come, and don't believe this indigo crap at all, but come on. This is a page that basically says "we own this page, go take your POV and shove it". Not acceptable, even if I agree with nearly everything you are saying. Gigs (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
If I saved the original post to a text file and copy-pasted it every single time someone came to the talk page complaining "Indigo Children are real, you can't scientifically test spiritual phenomena like psychic powers"... would that be a problem? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
That would be disruptive to conversation. That aside, the attitude expressed in the page in question is not appropriate to Wikipedia. This isn't something like the appropriate little FAQ on Talk:Creationism, this is an outright assault on these Indigo believers, labeling them delusional among other things. Gigs (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete/archive -- I was thinking "Keep but move and rewrite" but that basically amounts to delete. I can see the value in such notices or FAQ pages, but I have several problems with this one. It sounds like an essay or blog post and it's too long and too patronizing; its main purpose seems to be something other than giving people advice or answers about how to edit the article or why the article is how it is. It's not possible to rewrite that text into something appropriate. And it has to be something appropriate. Letting it stay there in its elevated status above other comments, is like we're endorsing it. I'm not. I think the content of that page can be moved to the talk page's archive. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • keep. not garbage, useful/usable advice. -M.Altenmann >t 14:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it Wikipedia-related advice, though? What do you think about my above^ comment? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

May 26, 2015[edit]

Draft:Electronic cigarette[edit]

Draft:Electronic cigarette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete. This draft is no longer being used to update the article. The protection was lifted a long time ago. User:MSGJ was helping out with the edit protected requests for the mainspace page. QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Were edits in this draft added to the article? In that case it should be kept for history attribution purposes. Bosstopher (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • History merge if easy, or do whatever is required to retain a complete author list for the mainspace article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The author list of the draft is a subset of the author list of the mainspace article. Redirect to Electronic cigarette. No further action for attribution required. No reason for deletion, reference to the draft is as reasonable as reference to any previous version of the mainspace article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

A history merge is better than a redirect IMO. I don't see a benefit for a redirect. After an editor is done with a sandbox it is usually deleted rather than requesting for a history merge. QuackGuru (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

  • A benefit of redirecting is that it makes a very simple statement that everything is now located and ongoing atthe target, and it avoids the silly busywork of creating a useless page to delete a once useful page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
    • A redirect is used for mainspace articles. There are no useful links to the draft for a redirect. QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
      • A redirect happens by default when a Draft article is moved to mainspace. That is all that is called for here. Redirects are cheap and have many small benefits. There is no reason for deletion here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
        • It is easier for an admin to just delete it and I don't see any benefits for a redirect or keeping an old draft. QuackGuru (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
          • You're just wasting peoples time, creating an MfD nomination, asking for a community discussion, expecting an admin to act, all for an innocuous page that should have been redirected previously. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
            • I got reverted after I blanked/tagged the page by an admin. QuackGuru (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
              • You didn't blank it, you applied an inappropriate CSD template. WP:CSD is one of the most firmly worded policies there is, abuse of it is taken very seriously. You should not delete things "because they are no longer needed". You delete things that should never have been created. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
                • I created Draft:Ayurveda. Now I'm done with it. What tag should I use instead? I should of created a sandbox not a draft. A draft is for potential new articles. QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
                  • If it were completely your creation, you could have tagged it {{db-g7}}. I see there are other authors, did any contribute creatively? If you had copied it to your userspace, you could tag it {{db-u1}}. You should not have forked it to Draft space. If edits were needed, request edit while protected, or request unprotection. Forking of content is a menace to WP:Copyrights compliance, it complicates attribution. In future, I recommend that you only sandbox in your own userspace, and then {{db-u1}} when done. In this case, if it was not used at all, you can request its deletion, otherwise, just redirect, checking that all its substantive authors are authors of the mainspace article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
                    • I made the edit request a while ago and now Draft:Ayurveda is no longer needed. A redirect will be a revert. A MFD will get more community input. QuackGuru (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
                      • User:Noteswork is an author of the draft, and not an author of the mainspace article. That makes it complicated. Deletion is not an option becuase it will violate Noteswork's rights. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
                  • Ask User:MSGJ to sort out the mess. He seems to know what is going on. I am definitely not a supportive of creating forks to sidestep article protection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
                    • I think a history merge is necessary for Draft:Ayurveda to not violate ediotrs' rights. QuackGuru (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • What is the benefit of a redirect when the redirect is not used for anything? QuackGuru (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I dispute your suffixed premise. It is very hard for you to know that no one will ever have any use for it or the version information stored behind it.
It (1) neatly covers the no longer needed versions, (2) points anyone interested in what was there previously to the current versions, (3) maintains functionality of any incoming links including an editor's bookmarks, and (4) maintains edit histories and authorship information.
Also note Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. Far cheaper than an MfD discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @SmokeyJoe and QuackGuru: It is not possible to do a history merge here because the page histories run parallel to each other. WP:Parallel histories. The situation here is not what history-merging is intended for. The only thing that can be done here is to redirect, so that the edit history here is not destroyed. Deleting this page would destroy the attribution, which makes the article a CC-BY-SA or GFDL violation. (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Suggest WP:TROUTing the draft creator for misusing draftspace to evade the intent of page protection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I did not create this particularly draft. QuackGuru (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed you did not. It was all User:MSGJ. He should be advised that doing this can make things very complicated for authorship attribution, and that during page protection, editors are either supposed to take a break or use the talk page. Again I note that the only substantial authors, him and you, and both authors of the mainspace page, and so there is no absolute copyright issue, and the redirection is the best way to deal with it now, with a note that the page should preferably have never been created. If someone must sandbox, sandbox in their own userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
What should be done about the other draft? QuackGuru (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


User:Akingwel/mezzomarketing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • This does not sound like much of a reason, we do not have any article on this topic Mezzo Marketing, is there any significant reason to delete? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a violation of WP:WEBHOST. If this was an article for submission draft, after six months, it would be permitted under WP:G13. Is there any evidence that an article would stay? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
If you check the page view statistics you'll see there is no basis to your NOTWEBHOST allegation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:WEBHOST is a policy reason. I don't think anyone really looks at each page's views to determine whether or not it's a webhosting issue. Either way, why is there is so much interest in saving some potential article on a marketing company? If someone thinks it could be a real article, userify it yourself, take it to draftspace or just take it live. What is gained by keeping it sitting there within some inactive user's space? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Why? If someone thinks it's a viable draft, they can adopt it themselves or move it to draftspace or whatever. It's been two years since that editor was last here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The "why delete" is a much bigger question. Why not blank, when blanking is a complete solution to any concerns about the content being live, and doesn't involved creating an MfD nomination and wasting valuable forum time on it. Or, even better than blanking, redirect to Mezzo Marketing. We really need a "Options to consider before MfDing" list don't we? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
A cross-space redirect to a red link? Why? Because it's a draft that's been around for years and no one is working on it? Because we should delete it and focus on the ones that could actually be created? Any particular reason that this one should be saved rather than any of the other 900 or so at Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard from March 2010? I'm constantly clearing out older ones to make them either (a) published; (b) sent to draftspace for later publication or (c) deleted. There's 47k out there so that would just be a giant backlog that goes nowhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Whoops. I composed that comment in edit mode, misread Graeme's comment, and didn't realise it was red-linked. Absolutely nothing wrong with a userspace -> mainspace redirect, but no point redirecting to a redlink, that would be silly.
Do I read that you are on a path to listing up to 47k pages at MfD? Why can't you blank everything that you don't think has a future, instead of listing at MfD? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I do not support auto-deletion of any userpages, and was not alone at WT:CSD when this was excluded from CSG#G13. Better to shut done the article creation wizard if it creating so much junk. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
If even 1% of those pages are useful that's over 450 new articles for here, work that's probably pretty obscure stuff. A lot of it is people just not correcting merging histories as they copy and paste versions so that's fairly quick. I'd rather list them at MFD and get more eyes on them. A few have had someone else volunteer to take it on (or to take it live) which is much better than me just unilaterally blanking someone else's work based on my personal views. I used to list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts#Articles but those went no where either. And again I've personally restored drafts when editors have returned (more than once, it's someone who's created a draft here that's here rather on their personal website or blog and they've poppped back when/just after being listed at MFD) which I think is fairly normal. Again, why is there such interest in saving an potential article in an inactive user's userspace? No one else will find it, it won't become an article and it's just sitting there for no reason. If someone sees potential, move it to draftspace. It'll at least come up to someone else every few months rather than just lie dormant there. What is gained by having a potential article that never moves forward to either fruition or to deletion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
"I'd rather list them at MFD and get more eyes on them" That's great, but please put more effort into the nomination. Why are more eyes desirable when the obvious remedy of blanking, administratively lite, easily done and undone if there is disagreement. Do you not see that MfD is woefully backlogged and you are adding more busywork to it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2/FuelWagonTalkPageSnapshot[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2/FuelWagonTalkPageSnapshot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This isn't an appropriate namespace for talk space contents. This should either be deleted, or moved somewhere in the user's namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

May 20, 2015[edit]

Draft:Jody Kriss[edit]

Draft:Jody Kriss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Severely violates WP:BLP: based exclusively on dirt-digging blogs. -M.Altenmann >t 15:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Username suggests it's an autobiography, but the lack of good sources makes this a violation of WP:BLP. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Autobio? r u serious? -M.Altenmann >t 22:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not an autobiography. I was asked to make wiki pages for some employees of a company. I've been trying to get this published for almost a year. What do I need to do? I've edited this down almost daily since then as well. All of the highest copyright violations are pages that are owned and operated by my client and were written by me. Please, tell me what I need to do. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krissjody (talkcontribs) 17:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

you can go away and read WP:COI policy. obviously you cannot critically evaluate the encyclopedic notability of your client. -M.Altenmann >t 14:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Felix Sater[edit]

Draft:Felix Sater (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Original research on an alleged mobster. Big violation of WP:BLP.-M.Altenmann >t 15:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

May 16, 2015[edit]

Book:NATO phonetic alphabet[edit]

Book:NATO phonetic alphabet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It doesn't really make sense to have a book for a topic about which wp has only one article. DexDor (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete/Redesign? This one is useless in its currents form, but there's a topic hidden in there somewhere. The individual letters need to go, but you could add things like Voice procedure and things like LAPD phonetic alphabet and end up with sensible book on phonetic alphabets in general. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominated. User:Headbomb's idea is a nice one, but this is not it, nor will help it - Nabla (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Book:Amphibious Aircrafts[edit]

Book:Amphibious Aircrafts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A very poor book (e.g. the first non-epon article listed is Marine propeller which is hardly relevant), title needs correcting. DexDor (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK the book was mainly created to demonstrate (PDF) rendering capabilities. It contains various visually interesting elements (images, technical diagrams, math formulas etc.) that look good in print. Despite this superficial argument, I still think it could be a valuable resource. Therefore I would recommend to expand/modify the book rather than delete it. Ckepper (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Don't see why this needs to be deleted. Deletion is not cleanup, and I can conceive of a book dealing with Amphibious Aircrafts. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Cleanup would mean renaming, removing irrelevant articles, adding more relevant articles and (possibly) deleting the redirects left at the incorrect title - i.e. it'd be easier to delete and start afresh. Ckepper's comment above suggests that it was intended more as a test/demonstration than an actual encyclopedic book so maybe a move to userspace would be appropriate. DexDor (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

May 13, 2015[edit]

Portal:Royal Air Force/Did you know/Archive[edit]

Portal:Royal Air Force/Did you know/Archive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Royal Air Force/Selected picture/Archive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Royal Air Force/Monthly Aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Royal Air Force/Nominate/Selected pict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Royal Air Force/Nominate/Selected ship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Royal Air Force/Weekly Article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

None of these pages have any inlinks. They are all in a category that says "Pages that were archived following the Dec 2008 redesign...". These pages just clutter up category space, what-links-here lists etc. Afaics these pages are not significant in the history of Wikipedia so do not need to be kept for historical reasons. DexDor (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

May 12, 2015[edit]

User:Brake1ra/Lindsay Lou & the Flatbellys[edit]

User:Brake1ra/Lindsay Lou & the Flatbellys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as per WP:STALEDRAFT: not worked on since 2012. P 1 9 9   18:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Not stale. Clearly intended to be an article, and pretty good. Move to mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Not stale??? Do you even know what stale means? I hasn't been edited since November 2012. That is very stale!!! -- P 1 9 9   12:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
      • wikt:stale means that there is now something incorrect about the information, due to the information being woefully out of date. User:Gigs made a big mistake introducing "stale" into the WP:UP vernacular, it really is not useful, and it never was a reason for deletion per se. Why people think it is is really weird. If "stale" means "old", then how do you cope with long unedited mainspace articles? If "stale" we're to mean "built on a brief burst of news reports" it might be useful, but redundant to something at WP:NOT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
        • In Wikipedia parlance, a stale draft is a draft article that, had it been in Draft: space or submitted as an article under Wikipedia:Articles for creation, had not been edited in 6 months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
          • No. Routine deletion of drafts outside draft space was explicitly and strongly excluded. Wikipedia should not be redefining simple word. STALEDRAFT was coined at WP:UP without reference to Draftspace --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
            • I think the confusion might be less over the word stale than it is over the word draft. When I created that shortcut, there was no draft namespace, and I don't recall the timing, but AfC might not even have been a big deal back then either. In any case the guideline itself outlines what cases merit removal. Gigs (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Soft delete so that any user in good standing can request un-deletion and move it to his own user space or Draft: space. If this were in article space today I would be tagging it as promotional in tone and I'd be looking into the band's notability. If the editor were active then I would say "keep." How about a compromise: Move it to Draft: and submit it through AFC. That will start the 6-month WP:CSD#G13 countdown clock. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Although many of the references are non-independent, the ones that are, and simple google searching, reveals that this is a notable band. why do you think it doesn't belong in mainspace? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Module:Br separated entries[edit]

Module:Br separated entries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Module:Separated entries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merging Module:Br separated entries with Module:Separated entries.
These two modules mostly do the same thing, with the exception that Module:Br separated entries can only use <br /> as a separator and Module:Separated entries trims spaces and newlines at the beginning and end of parameters. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge I wrote Module:Br separated entries to have the exact same behaviour as the old Template:Br separated entries, including the amount of whitespace added, but abstracted to any number of entries, rather than just three. However, there probably isn't any actual need to keep the same whitespace as the old template, so I would have no problem with this being merged. (In fact, I think it should ultimately be merged with {{unbulleted list}} for accessibility reasons, although that's a different discussion, and I think that there was a TfD discussion about that already if anyone can dredge up the link.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't we also merge Module:Comma separated entries with these two? Alakzi (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Alakzi: I'm not really sure about that, since it uses the function 'comma-separator' ):plain() and not just a plain character string like ,&#32;. If you feel that it should be added to the nomination then do so. Jc86035 (talkcontribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Hmmm. Presumably, that was done to ease migration to Wikipedias of languages written in the Sino-Japanese and Arabic alphabets. I don't know enough about the localization library to imagine a solution. Mr. Stradivarius? Alakzi (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
        • We don't really need to worry about other-language wikis too much - if they do copy our modules, they can always alter them locally to make them work with the correct punctuation. I don't remember exactly why I chose to use the MediaWiki message now, but it was probably just because it's nice to keep it in sync with the official MediaWiki:Comma-separator. (Not that I can imagine that ever changing.) Still, it's not too hard to merge the modules and still use the MediaWiki message. You can just do something with separate functions like this. By the way, it isn't necessary to use &#32; instead of a normal space - these are used in template code because parser functions like #if trim whitespace, but this isn't a problem in Lua modules. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
          • The separator is a named parameter, so whitespace is stripped before it is passed on to the module.
            {{#invoke:Separated entries|main|1|2|separator= }}
            12. Alakzi (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
            • Yep, so you should do it in the module itself if you can. If you use {{#invoke:Separated entries|main|1|2|separator= }}, then the space will get trimmed to an empty string before being passed to Lua, and then if you html-encode it inside Lua it would still be an empty string. So html-encoding wouldn't make any difference in that scenario. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
              • I'm not sure what the relevance of HTML decoding to unescaped whitespace is; encoded whitespace, newlines, and other specials need to be decoded to be registered by the MediaWiki parser farther down the pipe, e.g. in constructing a list. If I were to remove mw.text.decode, * {{#invoke:Separated entries|main|1|2|3|4|5|separator=&#10;*}} would not produce a list. I suppose we could assign the first and second unnamed parameters to the separator and conjunction, but that would come at the expense of an intuitive interface. Alakzi (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
                • Ah, decoding, not encoding. Sorry, I misread the module. It's an interesting idea, but still probably not necessary. If you're making a template for other users to use, it would be better to put the separator inside the module itself, as that's faster than going through an intermediate template that does the same thing (and would only be able to make a limited number of items available). And for end users typing the separator in themselves, it would be easier to just type the whole list in as wikitext rather than have to figure out how HTML entities work. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • We merged these about a month ago, so if anybody would like to put a coversheet on it, by all means. Alakzi (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy close, no rationale for deletion offered. Merge away by all means. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Module:Br separated entries is now unused, so it can probably be deleted. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.