Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion)
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

"WP:DFD" redirects here. For deletion of disambiguation pages, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

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:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, 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.
  • Note that we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Please only nominate pages that are problematic under our guidelines.
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

November 30, 2015[edit]

User:Tejuggler/Saggy & Co. Football Club[edit]

User:Tejuggler/Saggy & Co. Football Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non-notable soccer club, fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN JMHamo (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - clearly non-notable, but couldn't this be tagged/speedied as an abandoned draft? GiantSnowman 19:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Bioguy144/new article name here[edit]

User:Bioguy144/new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This BLP was created in 2009 by a SPA and violates WP:USERPAGE KeithbobTalk 17:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Zgodwin/Flushy The Toilet Monster[edit]

User:Zgodwin/Flushy The Toilet Monster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Three year old stale userspace draft for a fictional character, who's only notability is WP:INHERITED from its creator's murderous rampage. Ricky81682 (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:4tncav/4th Tennessee Cavalry Regiment[edit]

User:4tncav/4th Tennessee Cavalry Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Three year old stale userspace draft not based on particularly reliable sources and already covered by 4th Regiment Tennessee Volunteer Cavalry I believe. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Bharath.bj10/St.THOMAS school,Bangalore[edit]

User:Bharath.bj10/St.THOMAS school,Bangalore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Two year stale userspace draft on a school in India. Not clear if notable but the only links are internal and would require a total rewrite if someone wanted to start something. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


User:Δ/Example/Al-An'am (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - from Al-An'am
User:Δ/Example/Al-Ankabut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - from Al-Ankabut
User:Δ/Example/Al-Furqan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - from Al-Furqan
User:Δ/Example/Al-Hajj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - from Al-Hajj
User:Δ/Example/Al-Hijr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - from Al-Hijr (sura)
User:Δ/Example/Al-Isra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - from Al-Isra
User:Δ/Example/Al-Ma'ida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - from Al-Ma'ida
User:Δ/Example/Al-Qasas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - from Al-Qasas
User:Δ/Example/Albania–Canada relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - from Albania–Canada relations
User:Δ/Example/Albania–Israel relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - from Albania–Israel relations
User:Δ/Example/An-Naml (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - from An-Naml
User:Δ/Example/Angola – Cape Verde relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - from Angola–Cape Verde relations
User:Δ/Example/Angola–Japan relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - from Angola–Japan relations
User:Δ/Example/Ar-Ra'd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - from Ar-Ra'd
User:Δ/Example/Australia-Malaysia relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - from Australia–Malaysia relations
User:Δ/Example/Austria–Vietnam relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - from Austria–Vietnam relations
User:Δ/Example/Emilia Andersson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - from Emilia Andersson
User:Δ/Example/Albania – People's Republic of China relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - from Albania–China relations

Userspace WP:UP#COPIES from mainspace article. Hasn't been merged for quite a while and the editor was blocked in 2012. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

November 29, 2015[edit]


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

Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT JMHamo (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


User:Lenaaaz/Turkey(bird) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplicate of Turkey (bird) only edited by a now non-active user. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Abhipsa.panda88/Gosagaresvara Siva Temple[edit]

User:Abhipsa.panda88/Gosagaresvara Siva Temple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Four year old stale userspace draft. No sources here and the content is already described (albeit very poorly) at Gosagarsevara Mandapa. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Pacifistic Ibis/Yelle (band)[edit]

User:Pacifistic Ibis/Yelle (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE copy of the December 2011 version of Yelle. No editing here conducted. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


User:X1977/基于C语言的编程语言列表 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Two year old stale userspace draft for a largely unsourced table that is already at List of C-family programming languages. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

User:VanCofferdam/The Black Norse[edit]

User:VanCofferdam/The Black Norse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Four year old stale userspace draft. The same text was already made into an article and deleted in April 2011 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Black Norse. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Lee Bailey/sandbox[edit]

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

Stale WP:UP#COPIES from June 2006 for Stephen Colbert. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

User:GUTTERTAHAH/Lyle in Cube Sector[edit]

User:GUTTERTAHAH/Lyle in Cube Sector (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Close to nine year old stale draft. It's a 2006 userification following the deletion of Lyle in Cube Sector after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyle in Cube Sector with minimal changes (including possible vandalism from five and a half years ago). Ricky81682 (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


User:Moogy/crpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know if this should be kept but it's a couple of years old proposal (I guess) for a structure for articles on console RPG pages. The problem is, this may be not be current policy in line with the WP:MOS or in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines so I don't know if a template like this is worth keeping. I'll post a notice at WP Video games as well to see if they think it's useful to incorporate or not. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment - You should not be nominating stuff in other people's User space. SharkD  Talk  03:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Even if I think (and I didn't make it clear in the nomination) that it's a possible WP:WEBHOST issue? It could be considered under WP:UP#COPIES as a basis for deletion and Moogy hasn't been active since 2009. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Tithon/sub-page[edit]

User talk:Tithon/sub-page (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:UP#COPIES for a proposed draft to develop Edinburgh Academy from March 2006. No substantive changes to this draft after over nine years. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

November 28, 2015[edit]

Draft:Lola LC87[edit]

Draft:Lola LC87 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This unsourced draft has been resubmitted tendentiously without addressing the reasons why it was declined. Recommend deletion to avoid wasting further time. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Startup Consultant[edit]

Draft:Startup Consultant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft, which is not really an encyclopedic draft, is being tendentiously resubmitted and is unlikely to become a real article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Sarah Ospina is an American Actress born October 24, 1982 in Mineola, New York. Born to parents Reynaldo Ospina and Maria Sofia Ospina both Colombian immigrants whom migrated to the United States in the 1960's.[edit]

Draft:Sarah Ospina is an American Actress born October 24, 1982 in Mineola, New York. Born to parents Reynaldo Ospina and Maria Sofia Ospina both Colombian immigrants whom migrated to the United States in the 1960's. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Has not been edited for over a year, delete per WP:STALEDRAFT JMHamo (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


User:Johndhs/SETI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE of SETI with only this minor difference. Ricky81682 (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Sethie/say[edit]

User talk:Sethie/say (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

January 2009 WP:FAKEARTICLE copy of the deleted Say Hello for Me from 2008. Ricky81682 (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


Draft:Chos3n (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft creator has been indefinitely blocked on a username/spam block. Article exists at Chos3n (band) and is currently under PROD for notability concerns. No further need for this likely non notable draft. Safiel (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

  • comment i have removed the PROD from the mainspace article - the Urban Music Award win seems like the subject merits a full AfD discussion at least. (and I move the article to Chos3n as the DAB is not necessary) . I think a history merge might be appropriate to maintain any copyright licensing issues that may have occurred when the COI spurned AfC process and jumped to another copy in mainspace. (And if anyone wants to take the mainspace article to AfD, I am all right with that as well.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/to do[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/to do (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page is designed for collaboration between project members but hasn't been used since 2011   Bfpage |leave a message  03:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep While it hasn't been used, it could later be used (it seems like Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Navigation is used instead). A lot of project incorporate a to do list into their WikiProject template. Deletion would lose the edit history which may be important. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment - The edit history is not important. There have been three edits to this page. One was my nomination to discuss deletion, another edit was the creation of the page. The intermediate edit was a link to a policy page. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

November 27, 2015[edit]

Draft:Outlaws (2004 TV series)[edit]

Draft:Outlaws (2004 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft was declined for having no sources, and still has no sources. Nominating for deletion because the submitter doesn't appear to be responding to the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Hold on: It does in fact cite a number of sources, including reviews; probably enough to establish notability, though probably not enough for all of the details in the article draft. The problem is that they're general references piled up at the bottom of the page as "External links" instead of being cited in a references section and preferably used per WP:CITE as inline citations. But WP:V doesn't strictly require that; information has to be verifable not verified, if it's not controversial. Thus, this seems salvageable. The weakness of the article appears to be due to new-editor unfamiliarity with exactly how to go about all this, not a desire to promote something trivial that should not have an article here. (Any TV series that ran a full broadcast season, on a major network like the BBC, in a major market like the UK, is pretty much presumptively notable).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    To the extent it might help, I did some general cleanup on it (wikification, style, formatting, lead tweaks). Needs categorization, infobox (optional), proper citations (two are just copy-pasted URLs), inline citations if possible, and review sources actually used, e.g. to provide a critical reception section. (I've mostly sworn off editing pop-culture articles, so I've done about as much as I'm willing.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


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

Userbox is a violation of UP#Polemic

Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising. From:" and "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive)" Sir Joseph (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

We now have more than alphabet soup, still no argument for removal.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was first vetted at WT:UP#Rephrase suggestion to WP:UP#POLEMIC, by an editor permabanned from editing anywhere in the I/P area. His suggestions are not meeting any consensus. What was objected there was the use of one adjective 'violently' in 'violently resisting' in a user box, just one of 3 elements on the page. Even were that deemed, by a wiki consensus, unacceptable (I don't think so, since the use of military means to overthrow a designated occupation is what WW2 was all about, and is covered as having legitimacy in certain forms in international law), that is no grounds for deleting the user's page. A huge number of editors have user boxes (Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics/Issues) which read 'This user supports the rights of all people to resist colonisation and imperialism,' /This user supports the Zapatista Army of National Liberation and "terrorists" the world over or This user believes in the power of violence, some of which (others exist) are far more polemical than what we have on that page etc.etc.
  • To delete a whole page, with one innocuous quotation, one userbox because of one adjective, and a list of banned I/P users on the grounds of a violation of polemics shows lack of discrimination.The proposer himself edit wars in the topic area, has a clearly defined bias, and it smacks uncannily of trying to use an obscure point to target another editor in that same I/P zone. Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Saying I edit war because you don't like my edits is not AGF. Second, the only way to remove a userbox that violates the UP policy is via MFD. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I dislike incompetence, and sniping, two good reasons to query this request's validity.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Recommend alternative action Either keep the page if this discussion does not end with a consensus that there is a problem or, if there is a consensus that the page has problems, mark the page as "noindex" until or unless the problematic content is removed by the page "owner." From what I can see, there are two parts of the page that are arguably problematic and at least one large part transcluded from another page that is problem-free. Deleting the page when there is other content and where the option of "noindex" serves the similar purpose of protecting Wikipedia from being seen as a political platform seems awfully WP:POINTY, especially in light of the existing unresolved controversy about where exactly the boundaries lie between "problematic" and "non-problematic" content. Notes: 1) I am not taking a stand on whether the content of this page violates any policy, guideline or practice, I am merely offering a softer way to resolve the issue in this case if there is a consensus that the content is in fact problematic, and 2) I am only here due to the notice on Wikipedia talk:User pages. I am not going to take a stand on whether that notice was "canvassing" or not, as (by virtue of making this comment in an AFD that I would otherwise not have known about) I am now "involved" and because this AFD is not the appropriate venue to have that discussion in the first place. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentThey are not as Sir Joseph put it, a terrorist who endorses terror. (This is clearly polemic btw and still currently on your talk page.) I note [1] this was created in support of free speech and to speak out against policy being used in this manner, but not in support of Hezbollah. Though it's my assumption that the Sir Joseph is calling this polemic due to a presumed support for Hezbollah. I can only assume this as the Sir Joseph still doesn't make an actual case for why this is polemic.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hezbollah, Israel, and any other group or state, are not mentioned anywhere in that userbox. To argue that a userbox that expresses support for a basic tenet of international law "attacks or vilifies" anybody is asinine. nableezy - 22:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Again this is my presumed basis for this MfD. But don't actually know since there's no actually basis given. Just a statement simply that this is polemic. I notice that you both are in a content dispute and this followed that quickly. I wonder if there is some causal relation between that and this MfD? Basic tenet in international law? Perhaps you might consider being more direct? Do you mean the right of Revolution?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The user box proclaims an obviously valid opinion, namely that it is fine to violently resist military aggression and occupation. While Wikipedia might be a better place if all political opinions were removed (search for "George W. Bush" on user pages for some of the numerous other examples), I think the statement in question has to be accepted as a reasonable view, and it does not attack or vilify anyone. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ideally get rid of the userbox, but since that's not going to happen, delete. The primary purpose of a user page is for Wikipedia-related activities. They are not personal web sites or soapboxes. There is room for brief statements of political beliefs, but not for content which tries to persuade the reader of the validity of those beliefs (that's what "polemical" means). This userbox crosses that line, as it describes actions the user does not agree with as "military aggression" and "occupation". Also note that user pages are not allowed to have statements that "seem to advocate, encourage, or condone...acts of violence". By urging people to "violently resist" actions the userbox clearly crosses that line as well. I know the user has been forced to adopt a wording that does not mention any specific group, but it is nevertheless abundantly obvious what the userbox is intended to refer to. Hut 8.5 22:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
You go on to mention this box that the box promotes that the user disagrees with military occupation and military aggression but it actually takes no stance on these. You also go on to suggest that this promotes violence but it doesn't. This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to is not factored into your position. Protocol I acknowledging developments in modern international warfare since World War 2 added clarifications and new provisions to the Geneva convention. The French Resistance was a historic violent resistance movement. It's an acknowledgement of a right and not an encouragement to use that right. Considering the position of it's creator [2] it's a condemnation of the chilling effect that politically correctness has on free speech.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Like it or not "military aggression", "occupation" and "resistance" are very loaded terms and portray something in a strongly negative or positive light. As you've realised the examples that come to mind straightaway relate to the Nazis, and it is not unusual for people on one side of a territorial dispute to paint the other side's control as an "occupation". The idea that this userbox has got anything to do with the French Resistance is merely a polite fiction to prevent it from being removed, the link at the end makes it obvious that it really relates to the contemporary Middle East. It does certainly promote violence - it uses that exact word. Wikipedia is not a free speech zone, it is an encyclopedia, and anything which is not related to the encyclopedia is heavily restricted, including the use of political polemics. Hut 8.5 01:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Military occupation is not a loaded term. Nor is military aggression. Nor is resistance movement. They can be used as such. The question here would be if they actually are being used in a loaded manner and not if they can be. Your Reductio ad Hitlerum seems a little more loaded to me. It's a simpler matter to choose the French Resistance than say Falintil . There's also no polite fiction, you are referring to one, isn't that just a strawman? The point was not that it supports the French Resistance but that it doesn't target any resistance movement. It acknowledges a right that exists. It supports that right. The conversation behind the specific intent of the box is here. It's focus seems more on the right than the contemporary middle east.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:43, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
From the wording in the userbox and the linked discussion it was created because another userbox with the wording "This user supports Hezbollah" was thought to be unacceptable. This wording was adopted because it is felt to be sufficiently vague to dodge that consensus, although anyone who even clicks on the link will immediately see that it refers to a specific group and a specific conflict. I'm amazed that you don't think those terms are loaded. Fighting wars of aggression is a war crime under international law, and doing so was one of the charges made against the Nazis at Nuremberg. Labelling a group as a "resistance movement" portrays them in a positive light, just as labelling a group as "terrorists" would portray them in a negative light, and as I've mentioned the term is most commonly used to refer to anti-Nazi movements during the Second World War, which almost everyone has positive views of. To reiterate statements which condone, encourage or advocate violence are not allowed in userspace at all. Hut 8.5 15:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Supporting the right to resist the occupation of its land is all that is stated, and that is what WW2 was about. Hezbollah arose as a resistance movement to the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. Waging wars of aggression is a war crime that is more observed in the breach than in the observance, and, if the nation is a great power, goes unpunished, as in the Iraq war of 2003. I would no more fuss about this than fuss about some hundreds of pages listing American servicemen's wiki user:boxes stating they were veterens of wars of aggression. No doubt many are honourable men, unlike those who led them, and in doing so, violated the international law you mention. These points are only raised when there is a suspicion about a user:box implying support for any form of Arab resistance; never when the userboxes might be read to imply support for any other country's right to self-defence.Nishidani (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. It's got nothing to do with whether we like the ideology being expressed. I only brought up the status of wars of aggression in international law to support the point that the phrase "military aggression" has strongly negative connotations. The problems with this userbox are that (a) it's polemical, that is it tries to persuade the reader that some viewpoint is correct, and (b) it advocates violence. A userbox which says "This user is a veteran of the US Marine Corps" or "This user is a veteran of the Iraq War" does neither of those things. A userbox which says "This user is proud to defend American freedom against Afghan terrorist murderers" is polemical, and a userbox which says "This user supports airstrikes on Iran" would be advocating violence, but actual US military userboxes aren't like either of these. This userbox, on the other hand, combines both problems. Hut 8.5 19:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Second alternative solution If the consensus is that the custom userbox is a problem, there is a way to reduce the "problematic nature" of the userbox without deleting it completely: Create a redirect at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/discussion closed at 19:11 14 January 2008 (UTC) and point it to the ANI decision currently linked in the userbox. Then replace the wikilink in the userbox with this neutrally-worded redirect. This way, someone not already "in the know" won't even be able to tell what group this person supports or opposes even if they "mouse-over" the redirect or if they edit the page. This suggestion is independent of my earlier suggestion to "noindex" the page: Either or both may be used. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep As much as I don't like the editor's record as stated on the userpage, or the userbox, I do not think there is any violation in said userbox, and we should keep in mind that editors have significant freedom on their userpages. If the userbox were not hardcoded but a template, it should definitely be deleted, but this is not the case. Debresser (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
This specific userbox is a template.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This attempt at suppression of legitimate user-page content is not only unethical, it is also probably illegal. We should not even be having this discussion. It is an embarrassment to the Wikipedia community. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Illegal?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talkcontribs)
It would not be illegal.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
You are right, I am wrong. First amendment rights limiting censorship do not apply to sites like Wikipedia - these sites are free to self-censor their content any way they like. See, for example, here. So there is nothing illegal in Wikipedia's suppressing opinions which, if expressed in a newspaper or other publication, would be protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, is this really somewhere we want to be? --Ravpapa (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Not only that, but in certain countries this userbox might be illegal, or if slightly re-worded would certainly be illegal. (purely academic, since you mentioned legality) Sir Joseph (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Might be illegal?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Depending on the wording of the userbox and the country of the user, it might be illegal. Similar to how Google/Bing has to censor certain results in certain countries. It wouldn't (most likely) apply in the US though. Sir Joseph (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
one of the things that the English wikipedia is WP:NOT is censored. These countries where this might or might not be illegal are free to block us. They have before, see Censorship_of_Wikipedia. This is not a justification for removal.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep 1) The deletion rationale isn't really cogent, as the userbox doesn't actually appear to violate POLEMIC or other policies. 2) The userbox is wry WP meta-commentary, and we broadly tolerate that in userboxes and in userspace generally. 3) It doesn't say anything about "violence" that most people don't agree with (i.e. that if you're militarily invaded it's okay to fight back); the specific claims above that it's some kind of "terrorism" "recruitment" are farcical. No one even needs to make a "free speech" pro/con argument about this. I would support this userbox being userspaced, if it were located in the Template namespace, since it's unlikely to be reused. PS: No prejudice against either/both of the proposed alternative solutions.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh when I said it was a template, I just mean that it is marked up directly on this users talk page. I didn't mean it was in a template namespace.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep – I cannot see any evidence of the userbox violating WP:POLEMIC. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • wtf. Don't you have anything better to do? The statement is totally innocuous and in fact is a basic international principle and has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. See this UN resolution on terrorism, for instance. "nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence,... particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial domination, nor, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration, the right of these peoples to struggle to this end and to seek and receive support." Kingsindian  00:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
We're not the UN. The userbox in question is not up for a UN binding resolution, but whether it violates WP userbox policies and WP#Polemics. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Nobody stated that we're the UN - the text was quoted to show that this is a basic international principle and there is nothing divisive or otherwise illegitimate about this. Others have already given reasons as to why it does not violate WP:POLEMIC, I did not want to pile on regarding that issue. Kingsindian  02:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:HUBERT P HIGNETT/The Doghouse Boat Boys[edit]

User:HUBERT P HIGNETT/The Doghouse Boat Boys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unlikely ever to become an article on the Main space. Fails WP:NBAND JMHamo (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

User:BCube/Works in progress/The Movies[edit]

User:BCube/Works in progress/The Movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

September 2006 WP:UP#COPIES of The Movies with no evidence that any edits were done. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


User:JustinBieber4ever (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft of Justin Bieber. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Seems to be a copy & paste of the Justin Bieber article. JMHamo (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


User:Danielsouza415 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

August 2014 stale userspace draft that is a untranslated version of Fight Night Round 3. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. User's files should be nominated for deletion on Commons too if decision is delete. Magog the Ogre (t c) 06:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

November 25, 2015[edit]

Draft:Abanindra Maitra[edit]

Draft:Abanindra Maitra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

7 prior declines at AfC, not much work put into fixing issues raised. No references provided; unfavourable article format, no evidence of notability. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - A clear delete, and would probably salt at this point. Article was deleted once, and now the editor just continues to resubmit it without working on it, although the links and tools have been provided to them. Onel5969 TT me 22:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Draft is a mess, and the submitter continues to resubmit it tendentiously. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Karan7338[edit]

User talk:Karan7338 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Promotional talk page The Avengers (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I just removed the offending material. The rest of the page is all the warning and standard talkpage stuff.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: neither advert nor prom in this page. 333-blue 23:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

User:TeccaNique/Pi Story[edit]

User:TeccaNique/Pi Story (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2008-era userspace draft for content already deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pi Story. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


User:Zer7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Userspace draft from July 2008 about a non-notable online RPG. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't bold your !votes[edit]

Wikipedia:Don't bold your !votes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bad advice, even for an "essay". Full of misinformation and crank opinions. If someone wants to have this in their own userspace as their own crackpot opinion, fine, but it does not belong on Wikipedia namespace. Delete or userfy. Softlavender (talk) 00:44, 25 November 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. - Essays are opinions, I don't agree with the advice in it either but it is just an opinion. HighInBC 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I am reconsidering this position after reading Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which says Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace. What remains to be determined is does it contradict a widespread consensus. As far as I know bolding has been done willy nilly and I don't know of any consensus that it should be done a certain way. HighInBC 00:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
There is indeed a widespread consensus to bold !votes in any venue on Wikipedia. I have rarely seen any !voting or polling anywhere, on any page, noticeboard, XfD, or committee venue, where all of the !votes were not bolded, except occasionally those attempted !votes by absolute newcomers. Especially when a !vote is expressed mid-sentence rather than as the first word of a user's opinion, the bolding is essential to differentiate between the simple use of a word and the expression of it as the user's actual !vote. Softlavender (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The fact that lots of people do something does not create consensus, because consensus is not a vote: it depends on the merit of arguments, not the number of people who advance them. Bolding is not needed to differentiate between the simple use of a word in the middle of a sentence and the expression of it as the user's actual !vote as the meaning of English word depends on their context, that is to say, the words around them, not the typeface that is used. Anyone who needs bold text to understand the meaning of a sentence is someone who can't speak English. A sentence like "Blah, blah, blah ... and therefore I think we should keep this article for that reason" is clearly a !vote to keep, and anyone who can't recognise that without bold text lacks the linguistic competence to contribute to this project and should leave. James500 (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I support essays that could potentially be a guideline or reflect a growing common practice in WP. This one really just expresses one user's opinion who has been very very resistent to bolding he's decided to create an essay and sneakily try to link into the AfD guideline here. With rather ludicrous reasons for not bolding like The burden of bolding !votes is not merely an additional burden on the time, finances[6] and physical and mental stamina of individual editors (some of whom may have much less to give, in all or any of these respects, than other editors). If many editors bold their !votes this represents a diversion of effort across the entire project, that could otherwise be directed towards a useful purpose, such as writing encyclopedia articles. At best this should be in userspace. LibStar (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
You know perfectly well that AFDFORMAT/DISCUSSAFD is not a guideline. Please replace that word with "essay" in your comment above. James500 (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep or at least, as an absolute last resort, userfy. This essay does not contradict any widespread consensus. There is no consensus that bolding !votes is compulsory. The fact that a lot of people do something does not create consensus, because consensus is not a vote: it depends on the quality of arguments. The only way to prove that this essay does not reflect consensus is to produce convincing (ie policy/guideline based) counter arguments to the arguments it advances. Quite frankly, there is nothing wrong with the arguments in the essay, and simply asserting that they are wrong (which is all that has been done so far) does not make them so. In any event, there a lots of unbolded !votes in AfDs. The first section of the essay headed "it's not compulsory" positively reflects positive consensus, as there is positive consensus that bolding is not compulsory for the reasons explained in the essay. There can be no possible justication for moving that out of mainspace, since it IS consensus. As the second section does not contradict any policy or guideline, that does not contradict consensus either and should stay where it is. I think I should point out that LibStar has been pestering me about this for a long time, and complete deletion of the essay, as opposed to userfication, would make it a lot easier for him to obfuscate about my motives, falsely accusing me of bad faith, and so forth. See for example the sneaky lie that he tells above, falsely claiming AFDFORMAT is a guideline when it has been explained to him plenty of times that it is not. Frankly his vote for deletion instead of userfication looks like gamesmanship. James500 (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
not gamemanship, you'll see many people share my concerns as reflected in this discussion. so here we have an opportunity to get consensus over this essay. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
(1) If you bother to actually read that discussion, you will see lots of people saying "just ignore this essay and leave it in the project space", so this MfD is flogging a dead horse. (2) I did not accuse the others of gamesmanship, as they have not persistently pestered me about this, accusing me of all sorts of absurd motives I don't possess, like you have. James500 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
you said looks like gamesmanship. if that's not an accusation directed at me, I don't know what is. I was wondering how many keystrokes you'll end up using in this MfD. remember more keystrokes means more financial, physical and mental burden... LibStar (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
No, I said "I did not accuse the others of gamesmanship" (emphasis added). You are not one of the said "others". James500 (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. (1) I think I should also point out that there was no consensus in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Don't bold your !votes that this essay should be deleted or userfied either. (2) I also think that the words "contradict widespread consensus" in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines mean "contradict a policy or guideline". Because if there is no policy or guideline, there can be no widespread consensus, or, at least, there is no evidence of it. James500 (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy I think being in the Wikipedia namespace may be problematic as it may be taken as advice. I think it fine in userspace. HighInBC 03:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think it would be better to re-insert the words "Consider these views with discretion" in Template:Essay, whose removal I have only just noticed and can't fathom, or perhaps insert even stronger words, if we really think that the warnings that the essay is not a policy or guideline, and may reflect a minority viewpoint are not enough. James500 (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. My goodness, was there nothing better to do with the time spent on this nomination? VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy- rambling, badly-written essays full of bizarre wrong-headed advice and ludicrous arguments should not be in the main wikipedia space, but editors should be free to be as wrong as they like as loudly as they like in their own user space. Reyk YO! 08:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
"I don't like it" is not a valid grounds for deleting anything, indeed, it is one of the arguments to avoid (WP:ATA) and that is what your !vote amounts to since you make no effort to explain why the essay is allegedly "bizarre", "wrong" or "ludicrous". The quality of writing is irrelevant as long as the essay is comprehensible, though you make no attempt to explain what is allegedly wrong with that either. James500 (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
You assert that "I don't like it" is not a valid grounds for deleting anything". As I have not, in fact, advocated deleting it, I fail to see the relevance. (You do understand the distinction between userfication and deletion, right?) Yet another factual error from a long-winded, perpetually offended, editor who seems to be inevitably wrong on every issue. Your essay is too long, repetitious, full of bizarre reasoning like "bolding votes is a mental, physical and financial strain" and "there's no evidence that most people bold their votes" when it's clear to anyone with eyes in their head that bolding is in fact the norm. You keep referring to "the author of this essay", proving that you consider it your property, instead of an essay that anyone can edit. That being the case, it belongs in your user space where you can treat it like your own personal property. Reyk YO! 09:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
totally agree with Reyk. LibStar (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Reyk, the reference to "deletion" instead of "userfication" was simply an accident. I'm sure that you must have made mistakes in the past. So, let me rephrase that: "I don't like it" is not a grounds for userfying anything either, for the same reasons. The length of an essay is not a grounds for userfication. The essay is not repetitious. Even if there was a problem in either of those respects, it could be fixed by very straightforward editing. The first passage from the essay you quote is quoted out of context. Simply calling it bizarre doesn't explain why you think it is bizarre. It is not clear to anyone with eyes in their head that bolding is in fact the norm, unless they have no idea what statistical significance is (ie the fact that human beings think they perceive a pattern (ie without doing something like a chi-squared hypothesis test) doesn't mean that their is one) and they have failed to consider that the vast majority of !votes may be cast by a small minority of !voters, etc etc etc. I have not asserted ownership of the essay and I am perfectly happy for anyone to edit. If you want to remove the small number of references to "the author of this essay" feel free to do so. It is only there because, when I wrote the essay, I had a limited knowledge of tools and robots in that I was not able to examine every single one that exists. If you can think of a better expression for that, please replace it. Or just provide positive confirmation that no other tools and robots exist. Your comments about my judgement are irrelevant rubbish, and I could throw them straight back at you because I have an equally low opinion of your abilities. James500 (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Reyk's comments are not irrelevant rubbish but quite accurate. In fact I can already hear a 1000 character plus response being typed up now. LibStar (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Question for the nominator, Softlavender Can you please identify the alleged misinformation mentioned in your nomination? I can't see anything in the essay that is factually false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James500 (talkcontribs) 09:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Point of order Softlavender, please stop violating the talk page guidelines by moving my comments around this page and tampering with them to make it look like they are addressed to someone other than you. James500 (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I merely moved your comment (singular) to its correct chronological placement in the discussion thread [3] (and again when you reverted [4]). See: Fixing layout errors. I did not tamper with it or make it look like it was addressed to someone other than me. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy as above (but with the caveat that, unlike a typical Userfy !vote, the intention is not temporary). I don't see anything wrong with taking an unusual position in an essay, but essays in the Wikipedia namespace, though categorized similarly, are understood differently than those in the userspace. People confuse essays and guidelines all the time. There can be no such confusion in the userspace where the advice in the essay clearly conflicts with typical recommendations. If kept in the Wikipedia namespace, especially given the detailed accounts of extra characters/time/money/whatnot, it should be tagged with Template:Humor. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
In view of the clear wording of Template:Essay, I don't think such confusion is likely. People do cite essays as if they were the last word on their subject matter, but that is because those people are trying to be as persuasive as possible. I know of very experienced administrators who cite their own userspace essays that way eg "this is notable because it satisfies my standards". In this case, there are no typical recommendations. The essay is not intended to be humorous and don't see anything funny about it. James500 (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • In view of Rhododendrites' comment above, I suspect that my !vote should technically read "keep or move to userspace" rather than "userfy". James500 (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Waiting to see the outcome of this MfD before acting on this, but there might be other essays that demand attention. It looks like James recently hijacked Wikipedia:Trivial mentions. Whereas the essay originally extracted meaning from policies/guidelines, it now says nearly the opposite via two page-dominating "alternative views". This seems to approach disruption. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
agreed. Now wait for the long winded excuse ridden response. LibStar (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree too. This user is hijacking numerous essays and flooding them with long-winded, badly-written, repetitive inclusionist cheerleading. See also [5]. Reyk YO! 15:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@User:Rhododendrites. The original text of WP:TRIVIAL did not extract the meaning from the guideline, it put a massive spin on the guideline, attributing to it a meaning that it does not obviously bear at all. Anyone who thinks that the guideline clearly bore a meaning that it did not state in anything resembling express words is someone who cannot speak English properly. All I did was to correct a piece of determined distortion. I think that trying to bully out all opinions one does not like by sheer brute force (note that I left alternative view 1 in the essay even though I personally strongly disagree with it, in a bid to be as neutral as possible) approaches disruption. I should point out that your post constitutes WP:CANVASSING as that essay has nothing to do with the one under discussion here, and the only purpose of posting here is to attract disproportionate attention from people hostile towards me personally. James500 (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Let me make this very clear: if in future you want to attract attention to something like this, use a neutral venue like 3O or RfC. Don't come down here and canvass people who are already involved a dispute with me. If !voters from this MfD go to the talk page of that essay, it will be impossible to have a neutral discussion there for a long time. James500 (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I should also point out that, since anyone is allowed to edit a project space essay, accusing someone of hijacking an essay amounts to an assertion of ownership. I could just as easily level the same accusation at the original author, as he is not in a privileged position, and it would be no more an appropriate accusation than the one you are levelling at me. James500 (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I should also point out that those changes were not made recently, they were made a very long time ago. And in all that time, no one has made the slightest objection to that version. James500 (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, you generally shouldn't be reaching pages through the contributions of another editor, because is incompatible with establishing what consensus is. It makes it look like their is strong opposition to what that editor, when really it is just one person, or a small group, following him around. If you want to look for unsatisfactory essays, use the template or category, and look over all of them. James500 (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
"All I did was to correct a piece of determined distortion. - Wow. So we have before and after, and it's the before you're characterizing as "a piece of determined distortion" and "a massive spin"? No. Your edits to the Trivial mentions essay, like you saying you could accuse the original author of that essay of [either "hijacking" or "ownership", I can't tell] simply by virtue of being the original author, like the subject of the present MfD, and like this business about WP:CANVASSING, amounts to an exercise in wikilawyer gymnastics. You might have a point about canvassing if the cases were unrelated, but they're not. The two are examples of precisely the same problem. Perhaps ANI is a better venue than MfD for such a problem, indeed, but let's not pretend we're talking about unrelated things here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@User:Rhododendrites: Manifest nonsense from start to finish. Since the bolding of votes clearly has nothing to do with notability, it is canvassing. Systematically targeting the work another editor is against policy as well. It seems that if I want to have peace, and not be subjected to vexatious ANI complaints, I must now retire from editing essays. Fine. I quit. I retire. I will never edit another project space essay again. If you want to rip essays to bits, I will not revert your edits, no matter how plainly erroneous or absurd they appear. You have won. You have got your own way. Now please stop violating the policy against threats. Thank you. James500 (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
clear to me that James500 loves wikilawyering. even if all the extra keystrokes are a financial, mental and physical burden. LibStar (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this comment? Are you simply trying to provoke me? James500 (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I was agreeing with the comment on wiki lawyering. LibStar (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy unless the user that created it does not want it in his user-space at all and no other volunteer steps forward to have it put in his user-space. In that case, delete as a "user essay whose creator doesn't want it and which doesn't have anyone willing to 'host' it in their user-space." Userfication is strongly preferable to deletion, but deletion is preferable to having it in Wikipedia: space. When the practice becomes much more accepted then it can be moved into Wikipedia: space, but as long as the current widespread practice of bolding !votes exists, this should be a user-essay, not a "Wikipedia:" essay. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy - the advice goes against what is a generally held as a good practice by the community. That aside, I strongly oppose the application of Template:Humor as is conditionally suggested above, unless the author confirms it was intended as humorous.Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or Userfy, same thing, get it out of main space. I agree with HighInBC's points. Dream Focus 02:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. bad acvice, which will lead to confusion if anyone should follow it. Contradict a guideline can also mean contradict an established pratice. It might be possible to keep in user space, with an altered title. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy as bad advice unless clearly marked as humor by the creator. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. (1) As far as I am aware, an 'established practice' in the sense of 'lots of people do it' is not a guideline. As far as I am aware the only way to get a guideline is to go through the proposal process which involves an RfC. The alternative line of reasoning opens us up to essentially unverifiable claims about the existence of consensus, and more importantly, it seems to me, to the use of MfD as a means of forum shopping, whereby editors seek to obtain acceptance of a new rule equivalent to a new guideline at MfD, a venue that bears little relation to the subject matter of most essays and is not particularly well frequented. The more I think about the interpretation of the rules regarding essays being urged at this AfD, the more uneasy I become. (2) It would be helpful if editors calling the advice bad would explain why it is bad. Why is bolding !votes a good thing? (3) I am aware that there are a lot of userfy !votes above. Is there any way for me to concede the move to userspace? That is not an offer yet. (4) Would it be acceptable to turn this essay into a 'do not badger/pester the non-bolders' proposal for a guideline? That would be even better than an essay as it would solve a really serious problem. James500 (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    @James500: Some practices are so common that they don't need to be written down. Look at it this way: If this page did not exist and two editors each created a user essay, one titled "Don't bold your !votes" and one titled "Bold your !votes" and both were well-written essays that used non-controversial facts and sound logic to argue that people should do what the title said, and both editors started an RFC at the same time asking that their user-essay be promoted to full essay (or, for that matter, guideline) status, and an third editor linked both RFCs to WP:CENT, which do you think would get the most support? I don't have a crystal ball, but it doesn't take a crystal ball to say that the one that says "Do bold your !votes" would get large support and the other one would fail, probably going down in flames, if only because the former is already the established practice. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The only answer that I can give is that no sound logic or non-controversial facts have been presented in favour of the alternative proposition being a good idea, and I am fairly certain that none exist. The only substantial argument there seems to be is 'lots of people do it' which is based on a severe misconception that consensus is a majority vote. If I was closing this MfD (which I am not), I would not accord any weight to that type of argument. I cannot predict what would happen if an essay promoting the bolding of votes was created. I don't think there is much point in continuing to discuss the essay, as I think it is clear that this essay will be userfied when this MfD is closed, as a result of the number of votes for that result. Frankly, I would simply like this MfD to end as soon as possible, as I am finding it very difficult to do anything, including article improvement and maintenance, because of it. I don't really want to reply here again. James500 (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
but you keep replying. Isn't there a mental, physical and financial strain on all those keystrokes spent responding? LibStar (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Please stop trying to provoke me. James500 (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
It's your choice whether or not you reply but you keep arguing against obvious consensus. LibStar (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
No, I didn't argue against anything, I asked you to stop trying to belittle me. James500 (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Let's all be WP:CIVIL, but while I agree with fighting the good fight, it may be time to wave the white flag. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a test. Interested to see if you stop responding. LibStar (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Userfy: Misleading essay; only a very tiny minority (I'm talking 0.1-0.5%) would chide bolding of votes. It rightly belongs in userspace, not Wikipedia space. Esquivalience t 05:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - until the nominator can articulate why he/she believes that the essay is Full of misinformation and crank opinions. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
    • That's self-evident from just skimming it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    • (1) Those advancing such arguments without further explanation possibly cannot articulate that because they are possibly just mud slinging. (2) The word "skimming" normally means not reading something properly. James500 (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy per WP:POLICY's "Essays that ... are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." Note that the rationale that runs along the lines "It's not contradicting an actual guideline so it's not contradicting consensus" is basically nonsense, since consensus is not determined by guidelines, but by actual practice, which is then (when we bother) annotated in guidelines. And the instructional material at core process page like WP:AFD has at least as much consensus buy-in as any guideline anyway.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
(1) No, my argument is that consensus is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments advanced by both sides, and that looking at "actual practice" amounts to taking a majority !vote, which is not correct. Please don't put words into my mouth. If we looked at "actual practice", there would be consensus for the creation of massive numbers of spectacularly non-notable articles, including lots of advertising. That is an instance of the majority being wrong in creating those things. (2) The material at WP:AFD includes a failed proposal, and the rest of it has no more consensus than a high profile essay. Frankly, its content looks a mess. And nothing in the DONTBOLD essay contradicts that page anyway. James500 (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy (or delete) per comments above. Having !votes in bold is very helpful when skimming deletion discussions (e.g. when looking for XFDs that might be NACable). The Wp namespace redirects should also be deleted or changed to point to somewhere in Wp namespace. DexDor (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
In view of how plainly invalid the previous anti-keep arguments have generally been, I am tempted to thank you for advancing one that is not. However, I doubt that bolding makes much difference to skimming for many people (it certainly makes none at all for me); skimming is normally A Very Bad Thing, especially when closers count !votes instead of reading them; forcing people to read more carefully in all cases is arguably a good thing; and I think that any advantages gained for and by skimming in a few instances are clearly outweighed by all the disadvantages identified in the essay and the previous talk page thread; at least they are not important enough to take the essay out of the project space. I don't understand why you want to remove the project space redirect. Other user space essays have them, and I don't recall a policy or guideline against such redirects. That said, I don't care about them. James500 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Please indent; your comments are hard to follow. If I was the closer and wanted to see all your responses to make sure you did not actually make a valid point, I would likely miss some of them unless I searched your signature and read backward. The point you miss in this comment is that if the closer finds the delete nomination reason to be valid on its face, then he is only going to closely read the keep opinions. If not highlighted, then he will likely miss some as he skims for Keep !votes. He only needs to read the deletes closely if the keeps make valid points. So advocating not bolding is in fact A Very Bad Thing. Anyone who follows your advice may miss out on having their opinion taken into account. Dreaming that closers are going to read every single word closely in nominations which can go on for many pages (some novella length) is foolhardy at best. Essays should only offer good advice which helps people make their points in debates and helps them make better article edits. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I can hear Wikipedia:Don't indent your replies being typed up right now. Reyk YO! 06:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
and imagine all those extra keystrokes expended indenting. It would cause financial, mental and physical burden over a lifetime. LibStar (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
And on that note, I wonder if we aren't all falling for an April Fools style hoax? VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. If the closer finds the delete nomination reason to be valid on its face, he is also required to closely read the replies to delete !votes, as entirely new arguments for some outcome other than deletion are often advanced in such replies. He will also be obliged to read all "comments" that are not expressed to be delete !votes for the same reason (one sees lots of comments that begin with the word "comment"). In other words he is obliged to read closely any comment that is indented or that starts with a non-indented bullet point and is not followed by the word "delete". If he fails to do this, he has not closed the AfD properly and is a good candidate for desysopping. He is very unlikely to miss a non-indented bullet point. Frankly, he would have to be totally blind to miss it. So he is not likely to miss a keep !vote just because it isn't bolded. The non-indented bullet point prevents that. Furthermore, as the closer knows perfectly well that there is no guarantee whatsoever that !votes will be bolded regardless of what advice is given (especially by editors with relatively low edit counts), he should not be skimming for that purpose (unlike the purpose that DexDor suggested above, which is just scanning sorting lists for potential snowballs). If he does skim for that purpose, he has failed to close the AfD properly and is a good candidate for desysopping. QED. If you know of any admins who pull that kind of stunt, please take steps to have them desysopped at once. That is the solution to that problem. I hope there are very few such admins. Those admins who discussed this at the previous thread at WT:AFD insisted that they did not skim for that purpose. James500 (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment while we're on the point of essays. Anyone see WP:BLUDGEON occurring here? LibStar (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Translation into English: LibStar thinks that his side are losing the argument, because the other side's arguments are better, so he has decided to try to derail the discussion by making irrelevant off topic comments in a bid to change the subject of the discussion to something that has nothing to do with what this MfD is supposed to be about (the merits of the essay), and thereby hopefully distract everyone's attention from the fact that his side are losing the argument, because the other side's arguments are better. James500 (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
How many more days until it becomes WP:DROPTHESTICK? VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it's pretty obvious which side is losing the argument (hint: not Libstar's). You seem to have mistaken pointed criticism of the essay's content for derailment. Reyk YO! 11:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Can we please indent. I am getting really confused. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Reyk: I don't see how the content of the essay WP:DONTBOLD can be WP:BLUDGEON, if that really is what LibStar was trying to say. Otherwise his comment is just off topic. James500 (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
No, he hit the bullseye. WP:BLUDGEON refers strictly to editors. The editor in question here should be self-obvious. It might help if you step away for a bit and WP:DOGGY. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I could only answer this by repeating what I said to LibStar. That essay is a cynical guideline infringing debating tactic that should have been MfD'd some time ago. I'm not going to respond further on that subject on this page. I don't wish to respond here again for any reason. James500 (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON would easily survive a MfD. And what's better is it so accurately describes other editors. LibStar (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Request for closure - There is clear consensus that the perspective put forward in this essay is not in line with consensus procedure per Wikipedia policies and guidelines and that it needs to leave the Wikipedia namespace. Meanwhile, we're going off on tangents and stuck in a cycle of provocation and response with nothing to show for it but a fascinating case study for first-year wikilawyer students. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree that there is now clear consensus but I do wonder if some editors will accept the outcome. LibStar (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I have no plans to go to WP:DRV at this time, regardless of the merits of the closer's rationale, even if, for example, he counts the majority vote. The last thing I want is for this discussion to continue in any form. James500 (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

November 24, 2015[edit]

User:Dodafiskar/Penn Jilette[edit]

User:Dodafiskar/Penn Jilette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

January 2014 WP:FAKEARTICLE of Penn Jilette. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Retroactive (Stereo MCs album)[edit]

Draft:Retroactive (Stereo MCs album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I nominate this as a WP:STALEDRAFT, which wouldn't pass WP:NALBUM JMHamo (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Gilbert Satori Moniaga[edit]

Draft:Gilbert Satori Moniaga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I nominate this for deletion per WP:STALEDRAFT JMHamo (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Single Freshmen at UHS Birthday November 12th 1997 Graduate 2018 Instagram Nikkibaby1997 youtube Nikki Hiltzer[edit]

Draft:Single Freshmen at UHS Birthday November 12th 1997 Graduate 2018 Instagram Nikkibaby1997 youtube Nikki Hiltzer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft from April 2015. No AFC banner so never going to be G13 eligible. No chance for a high school freshman's page to become an article . Ricky81682 (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete No benefit to the encyclopaedia. JMHamo (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Eggishorn/sandbox/Cheshire Correctional Institution[edit]

User:Eggishorn/sandbox/Cheshire Correctional Institution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Cheshire Correctional Institution
User:Eggishorn/sandbox/Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center
User:Eggishorn/sandbox/MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution
User:Eggishorn/sandbox/Robinson Correctional Institution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Robinson Correctional Institution

Stale userspace drafts later separately created. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Egberts/Deaf (disambiguation)[edit]

User:Egberts/Deaf (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft that was already at Deaf (disambiguation). The additional listings here seem unnecessary to merge there. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Robertinventor/Life on Mars - Other surface habitats with liquid water, suitable for life[edit]

User talk:Robertinventor/Life on Mars - Other surface habitats with liquid water, suitable for life (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Two year old deleted content. Userspace copies of deleted content is not an appropriate user of userspace. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Now deleted - was unaware of this rule Robert Walker (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Robertinventor/Four Noble Truths[edit]

User:Robertinventor/Four Noble Truths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE of Four Noble Truths created in November 2014 prior to another editor's editing. Hasn't been edited since November 2014, userspace isn't for hosting the preferred version of content. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Now deleted - was unaware of this rule Robert Walker (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Robertinventor/deleted sections from Manned mission to Mars[edit]

User:Robertinventor/deleted sections from Manned mission to Mars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This content by title is literally a userspace copy of deleted, preferred content from Human mission to Mars. We shouldn't have old copies of deleted, disputed content. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is that? I'm not aware of any ruling on this, but from previous experience I know how easy it is to violate policies one is unaware of. It is not preserved with any idea of putting it back into the article. It is just included in case some of the material in it is of use to anyone later. The dispute was long ago and nobody has objected before.
If it needs to be deleted, it is no big deal, I can save it to my own computer instead. It is just more convenient in my user space that's all. I assume it is excluded from searches? If there is some reason it has to be deleted, please explain in a bit more detail so I can understand better both now and in the future. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, forget that, I have now found the guidelines Wikipedia:User_pages#Copies_of_other_pages. I wasn't aware of this guideline. Please give me a day or two to organize my user space. There probably is more material like this also. Don't bother marking them all, I'll deal with it myself, back them up and mark them for deletion. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Got caught up with other things. Is there a deadline at all? Easy enough to remove this one, but I have lots to do. I'll see if I can find time to do it tomorrow. Robert Walker (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I've deleted all the ones you marked. Actually the main reason I keep them is for the citations. I might put them back up just as a list of citations - i.e. remove everything except the ref tags and a few words about each one, for use in other articles where relevant. Presumably that would be okay as it wouldn't look like an article. I can deal with the others similarly. But will take a while. Robert Walker (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Robert Walker, you can always link to the prior version that had the citations in a sandbox or sorts. I have no particular objection, if there's a page that you need some more time to find the old version, I can withdraw it but thanks for having these deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

User:UNSC Trooper/UNEF[edit]

User:UNSC Trooper/UNEF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft copied to United Nations Exploratory Force in November 2008 and deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nations Exploratory Force. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:UNSC Trooper/List of fascist ideologies[edit]

User:UNSC Trooper/List of fascist ideologies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale unsourced userspace draft that's probably better as a category or somewhere around Fascism. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:UNSC Trooper/New man (politics)[edit]

User:UNSC Trooper/New man (politics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale unsourced userspace draft from May 2010 that is somewhat covered by New Man (utopian concept). Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:UNSC Trooper/Userboxes/Ustase[edit]

User:UNSC Trooper/Userboxes/Ustase (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused quite WP:POLEMIC userbox. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:The Sinister Six (film)[edit]

Draft:The Sinister Six (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Drew Goddard confirmed the film was cancelled. Richiekim (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

November 23, 2015[edit]

User:Willmacauley/The Tesco Song[edit]

User:Willmacauley/The Tesco Song (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Staledraft - No sources and to be fair there's tons of spoof songs so this wouldn't have a chance in mainspace anyway. –Davey2010Talk 22:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


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

Fails Staledraft - The entire sandbox article is in Japanese/Chinese/Korean (Sorry I don't have a clue!) so it may of been copied from the JP/Chinese/Korean Wiki (Conveniently my laptop is unable to translate it so I have no idea what the article's about or even if there's an English version here!), Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 21:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


User:Limbsaw/sandbox/4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT - Basically a 2014 copy of WHSmith, The only ever edit to this sandbox is the copypasting and that's it (Although if you wanna be technical 2 edits have now been made thanks to the MFD template Face-grin.svg), Thanks –Davey2010Talk 21:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Also nominating:

Thanks –Davey2010Talk 21:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Hemp Oil Kills Cancer[edit]

Template:Hemp Oil Kills Cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not sure if needed, and may be a bit controversial considering it's an userbox. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Is controversy a legitimate reason for removing a userbox? This is not an article, it's simply a template for my profile. In any case, would editing the wording to write "may kill some cancer cells" be more appropriate? I'd like to keep this template on my page so let me know if there are ways to make it more appropriate.

Psychonaut25 3:38 PM EST, 23 November 2015

Draft:Jean Martapoura[edit]

Draft:Jean Martapoura (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Has not been edited for 5 years, nominating per WP:STALEDRAFT JMHamo (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I think five years untouched = very stale. JMHamo (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


User:Djj83/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A stale draft of Henry Lorne Masta. Copied to mainspace by the same editor, and consensus says not to history merge in that case. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Irtrav/007 Racing[edit]

User:Irtrav/007 Racing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace WP:FAKEARTICLE of 007 Racing. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Has not been improved since 2011 (discounting minor template adjustments and removing of fair-use images). jni (delete)...just not interested 17:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Ferddog/Biotechnology in Maryland sandbox[edit]

User:Ferddog/Biotechnology in Maryland sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. This version was created first and then copied and pasted to Biotechnology in Maryland which was deleted based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biotechnology in Maryland. Actually it could be history merged and deleted together I guess. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


User:LanCaiMadowki/Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft last really edited in January 2011. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. Nom failed to follow WP:BEFORE
  • Delete as WP:STALEDRAFT that also looks within the realm of WP:SPEEDY A7/G11 if it were to move to mainsapce. Only claim of notability fails WP:V (cited ref says this person is not listed, even if one accepts that being affiliated with some speaker's bureau is a source of notability). If nobody's fixed it in this long, it seems unlikely to happen (but I'd be happy to be proven wrong). DMacks (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Zhatim/Michel Fattouche[edit]

User:Zhatim/Michel Fattouche (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

March 2011 userification (without proper attribution) of Michel Fattouche following a recreation following the February 2011 deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel Fattouche. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

User:BurnleyBen/Nick Coyle[edit]

User:BurnleyBen/Nick Coyle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dormant stale userspace draft. Was userified to this user in May 2011 but no editing was been done by them. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

November 22, 2015[edit]

Draft:Libii(Game Company)[edit]

Draft:Libii(Game Company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hasn't been edited on for over a year. Could not be suitable in articlespace in its current state. GamerPro64 23:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:FIFA 16 Royal Rumble[edit]

Draft:FIFA 16 Royal Rumble (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft appears to document a play session of a video game. If in mainspace, it is likely to fit criterion A7 as non-notable web content. a CLoG? | unCLoG 21:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

November 21, 2015[edit]

November 18, 2015[edit]

Closed discussions[edit]

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.