Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Active discussions: fix double header
Line 9: Line 9:
<!-- PLEASE ADD your discussion BELOW this line, creating a new dated section where necessary. -->
<!-- PLEASE ADD your discussion BELOW this line, creating a new dated section where necessary. -->


===[[2010-08-06]]===
===August 6, 2010===

{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rejimissac/MAKUDAM}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rejimissac/MAKUDAM}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rejimissac/SKYNET (S-NET)}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rejimissac/SKYNET (S-NET)}}

===August 6, 2010===

{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hopiakuta/Racism}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hopiakuta/Racism}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Numulunj pilgae/Mokshan script}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Numulunj pilgae/Mokshan script}}

Revision as of 11:01, 6 August 2010


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

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

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

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

Before nominating a page for deletion

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

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

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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

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

I.
Edit PageName:

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

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

or

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

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

  • Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
  • Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
III.
Add a line to MfD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V Feb Mar Apr May Total
CfD 0 0 9 15 24
TfD 0 0 0 2 2
MfD 0 0 0 0 8
FfD 0 0 0 3 3
RfD 0 0 4 20 24
AfD 0 0 0 31 31

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

Archived discussions

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.


Active discussions

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

August 6, 2010

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rejimissac/MAKUDAM
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rejimissac/MAKUDAM

We are not a free webhost and this material will never make it into or survive in mainspace. User seems intent on using article and userspace to promote his 'theories'. Cameron Scott (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's also a long ongoing problem regarding two images he has uploaded here and placed on this and another two sub pages of his. Attempts at communication with this editor have so far failed. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Userspace is not mainspace - that it would not be found in mainspace is not, per se, a reason for deletion. Does it tell us anything about the editor? Yes. And that, after all, is a prime use of userspace. Does it bring disrepute on WP? No. Does it attack anyone no? Does anyone actually read all this stuff? Not too likely, but that is not a reason fr deletion. Collect (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some personal statements can be legitimately included in Userspace, but this is an idiosyncratic religious rant which tries to present itself as the objective truth, but does not seem to be accepted as the objective truth by anybody except the person who wrote it. We don't permit elaborate expositions of alternative physics theories -- accompanied by insults against Einstein -- in userspace, and this is similar... AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 16:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of note the author of this page is attempting to remove the MfD tag from this page [1]. I've warned him about this behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also of note This editor was previously blocked for remove speedy tags from this and other self created articles, which were ultimately deleted anyways. See deletion history of MAKUDAM. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is WEBHOST material. Nothing to do with Wikipedia. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 06:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and sarcasm. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rejimissac/SKYNET (S-NET)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rejimissac/SKYNET (S-NET)

We are not a free webhost and this material will never make it into or survive in mainspace. User seems to want to use both Article and user space to promote his 'theories'. Cameron Scott (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's also a long ongoing problem regarding two images he has uploaded here and placed on this and another two sub pages of his. Attempts at communication with this editor have so far failed. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, I'm tired of wearing a tin-foil hat. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Userspace is still not mainspace. Essay tells us a lot about the editor, which is a valid use of userspace. Does it bring disrepute on WP? No. Attack anyone no? No. Simply better ignored? Likely. Collect (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Not much else to say. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 16:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of note the author of this page is attempting to remove the MfD tag from this page [2]. I've warned him about this behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also of note This editor was previously blocked for remove speedy tags from this and other self created articles, which were ultimately deleted anyways. See deletion history of SKYNET (S-NET). --Hammersoft (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is WEBHOST material. Nothing to do with Wikipedia. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 06:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why do we have two nominations at once when we can just use {{mfd|GroupName}} for both of them? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because I know fuck all about that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hopiakuta/Racism
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hopiakuta/Racism

...What IS this?!? Looks like a copypaste from a LTA page and a couple other weird things. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wow... I thought the same thing you did. :) ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 01:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure that you are sitting down and wearing protective headgear. Then read User talk:Hopiakuta/ ¡¿ kutahopia 71.102.31.67 75.80.255.85 june 2006 august 2007 and this edit for the explanation. If your headgear is particularly strong, see User:Hopiakuta/ wikinude, created here when n:User:Hopiakuta was indefinitely blocked at Wikinews last year.

    See also User:hopiakuta/ DonFphrnqTaub Persina juneteenth 2006 ( Oy vey, D. F. T. P. 22 26, 18 June 2006 71.102.31.67 ) ~~ ~~ and User:hopiakuta/ ¡¿ doppelgänger : Please do not delete this evidence of wikipedia racism, wikiracism, wæklypædia. Thank You..

    Some of these are user talk page archives (although the move log entries for them require at least a safety helmet before reading). But I agree with the Wikinews administrators. We don't need the pages that are not user talk page archives, and we don't really need Special:Contributions/Hopiakuta to continue. Uncle G (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Does not violate any WP policy I find - being "weird" is not sufficient for deletion. Collect (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Following the MfD nomination, Hopiakuta has made some concerning edits such as this one which reads "This is a copy of an original policy page, evidence of your racism." Hopiakuta has made several other edits with the same edit summary.

    I have left a message on Xeno (talk · contribs)'s talk page about these edits.

    I recommend deleting this page as a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Cunard (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added other pages recommended by Uncle G. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find some words used quite worrisome (especially racism). It's also quite a mess, and I haven't a clue as to its purpose. Seeing the sigs of Blood Red Sandman and Tempodivalse is also a bit worrisome, especially after Tempo decided to semi-retire. Nor did the histories help much. I'm quite undecided on this. Kayau Voting IS evil 02:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These pages do not comply with WP:UP (they clearly fail "for communication and collaboration"). It looks as if there might be some explanation for their origin somewhere, but the community should simply take them at face value: they are either an attack page (comments from some old dispute?), or an attempt to look like an attack page. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - mostly harmless. Deletion will likely upset or irritate user and the page is not causing a disturbance. The user feels that Wikipedia is not accessible to certain users and these pages are used to organize their thoughts on the matter. Hopiakuta canbe difficult to understand at times, but he means well. I had started compiling a history of the user's attempts to enhance the accessibility of Wikipedia, see [3]. –xenotalk 03:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I didn't read every word in every page, but I didn't see anything I thought was a violation of policy.--SPhilbrickT 01:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No strong reason to delete to override a productive (at times) editor's leeway in userspace. RE: "copypaste from a LTA page", what is LTA? If there is a copypaste copyright violation, it can usually be fixed by adding the attribution. I don't quite get what Uncle G is saying. "we don't really need Special:Contributions/Hopiakuta to continue" Are we to ban this user due to random use of userspace? "We don't need the pages ..." Most userpages are not "needed". "Not needed" is not enough reason alone to delete. It's possible to argue that kook users need to be brought under control. Is that an argument here? I fear that enforcing norms on user behaviour does more damage than the aberrant user does if left alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Numulunj pilgae/Mokshan script
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Numulunj pilgae/Mokshan script

This was deleted as a hoax at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mokshan logographic script), there is no reason to keep this article in userspace indefinitely (see WP:FAKEARTICLE). Fences&Windows 00:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 5, 2010

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Billdorr/sub0
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was blanked by owner. Billdorr returned from a year of inactivity to blank this sandbox page as a result of this discussion. While blanking in the course of an MFD discussion may indeed be against the letter of the MfD guidelines, in this case I feel it is completely keeping with the spirit of those guidelines. As Billdorr said below, "go, get out, shoo." 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 23:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Billdorr/sub0

Abandoned userspace draft. Has not be edited by the user since 2007 and the user has been inactive since August 2009. —Farix (t | c) 01:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree. Abandoned draft made by an inactive user. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 01:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, without prejudice. The user should always be able to get this back if he asks. MER-C 03:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Kayau Voting IS evil 11:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I don't disagree that I haven't touched the page for a while, still a little surprising to see a user subpage be nominated for deletion. The database server running out of room or something? --Billdorr (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like it is used for testing, a legitimate use of subpages. Deleting doesn't save any space. Legitimate reasons for deleting are when material is harmful in some way, or encourages game-playing to the exclusion of encyclopedia building. Neither of those reasons apply, so until it is clear that the user isn't returning (a year isn't long enough to conclude), what's the harm?--SPhilbrickT 16:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Settlement I blanked it. I couldn't see any particular reason to keep any of the content there any longer. I know, I know, the infobox thing says not to blank the page, but I'm the owner of the page (hell, it has my name on it), so I feel like I at least have a right to clear it out if I want to. --Billdorr (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Put the page back and stop letting people intimidate you when you haven't violated any policies. State your reason for keeping the page is for "experimentation" as a "personal sandbox" which is explicitly allowed by WP:UPYES policy. You are not permitted to blank a page in an MfD. ;) EdEColbertLet me know 07:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, he is back and just made an edit. Second, it doesn't violate any policies and could just be used as a cheatsheet so that the user can recall how to create a table or properly format things. Testing is very important and definitely allowed. The user may wish to become much more active one day. Probably not anymore due to us hassling him unnecessarily. EdEColbertLet me know 07:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You guys are ridiculous. First you want to delete my pointless 5 year old test page, and after I look it over, decide for myself that it really doesn't have anything important worth saving and clear it out, I get told to put it back? You know there's a reason why people mock Wikipedia for it's edit wars, and while this certainly isn't as full blown or convoluted as one of those is, it's still pretty damned silly. I am the owner of that sub page/sandbox/experiment/whatever you want to call it. If I want to wipe it, that's my business. This discussion is over, and I implore all of you to go do something more important for 5 minutes. Seriously, go, get out, shoo. --Billdorr (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BruceSwanson/combining duesberg hypothesis Inventing
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Spartaz Humbug! 16:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:BruceSwanson/combining duesberg hypothesis Inventing

POV fork of the existing article Inventing the AIDS Virus that is being rewritten to replace the existing article on the Duesberg hypothesis. This rewrite aims to minimise criticism of this fringe theory - as the author says on the draft talkpage - "Criticism of the Duesberg Hypothesis would be reframed as criticism of the book, and kept restricted to one section of the article.". So in essence this is a POV fork of one article being prepared to function as a POV version of another article. Delete per WP:UP#COPIES. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trenchant and insightful. BruceSwanson (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the specific encouraged uses of userspace - the idea that proposed major articles or rewrites thereof are better done in userspace than in mainspace is valid. Will it get consensus if placed in the mainspace? That is for the editors there to decide, not for MfD to decide. Collect (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:UCS. The page will either sit indefinitely, or will get proposed and shot down. The book and hypothesis are outrageous pseudoscience and the editor in question is an admitted AIDS denialist who is unlikely to use the draft to improve the page (and notes that his next act will be to attack hepatitic C, another AIDS denailist target [4]. The purpose of the page fundamentally breaks numerous policies and guidelines on wikipedia (WP:FRINGE - AIDS denialism, WP:RS - the book is not one, WP:UNDUE - any credibility given to Duesberg's opinion is undue weight, WP:SOAP/WP:ADVOCACY/WP:CPUSH/WP:COAT - this is personal beliefs pushing editing). Fundamentally, any expansion of Duesberg's pseudoscience is flatly inappropriate. HIV causes AIDS, there is absolutely crystal clear scientific consensus on this, and no page on wikipedia should attempt to cast doubt on this fact. Fundamentally, the article, written by this editor, can not ever be placed in mainspace. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' Might you indicate which policy says what you assert to be "pseudoscience" can not be in userspace? You appear to use IDONTLIKEIT as the rationale for deletion - while many userspace pages contain references to religion, ESP, "flat earth" and so on -- ought they be excised from userspace? Note further that userspace != mainspace, else the argument that something would not be allowed in mainspace would be applicable to almost all userspace <g>. Collect (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page can never go into mainspace, not in its current form, and not in its "ultimate" form, since AIDS denialism is clear pseudoscience - I can provide you the references, but the assertion that HIV does not cause AIDS in general and Peter Duesberg's theories in particular are both considered unambiguous pseudoscience - AIDS denialism and Peter Duesberg go through this in detail, but I can port over some explicit references if you'd like. Of course, Seth Kalichman's Denying AIDS is a good place to start, where Duesberg has his own chapter. The current page for the Duesberg hypothesis and Inventing the AIDS virus are both pretty much "finished" - much as wikipedia is not done, these articles, not based on any data therefore never subject to change, and one is based on a 14-year-old book that was outdated and flat-out incorrect when published. Would we allow in userspace a subpage that clearly advocated for flat earthism being true? Or creationism? Or the moon landing hoax? Unlike religion and ESP where there is actual debate, data-based research and discussion, there is no debate about HIV causing AIDS and no page on wikipedia can be improved by attempting to foster the notion. I've tolerated pages where ambiguity is present, even for nonsense like satanic ritual abuse that has 99% agreement of being a moral panic. But this isn't the case, this is unambiguous. The fact that this will clearly result in a POV-fork page if implemented is also underscored by BS' comments on the talk version of the page - have a look.
At best the page would result in a "tell both sides" version that gives undue weight to Duesberg's illogical, unsubstantiated, irrational beliefs. At worst, it would become an apologetics page suggesting quite clearly that Duesberg is an as-yet unvindicated genius who is right about HIV being a harmless passenger virus. In no way is wikipedia improved by either outcome. The intent is to push a POV, flatly, unambiguously and from the mouth of the editor himself. The intent is clear, that this page will never result in a neutral form that is acceptable to the community. My comments are an elaboration of TimVickers nom rational, but I will add also "you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute" (using wikipedia to promote AIDS denialism is disreputable in my mind), second Tim's WP:UP#COPIES since this is nothing more than a preferred version being stored. It has existed since April, not been edited since May, and as I initially said and later elaborated on, it can ultimately never go into mainspace.
I admit it's a complicated rationale that relies as much on sources as on policies and guidelines - but UCS was my inital reason No-one else may accept it, but I firmly believe there are some things that lack all merit, and the Duesber hypothesis is one of them - and the scientific community agrees with me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WLU, who beat me by minutes in quoting the disrepute passage. Also, given that this has zero chance of lasting longer than a snowball deletion debate in mainspace, it seems more respectful to Bruce to nip it in the bud now rather than allow him to vainly spend more time on it. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would ask the above real-name editors Adrian J. Hunter and Tim Vickers to consider the text of my proposed page and then compare it with WLU's comments above. I would ask them to pay particular attention to WLU's comments that Duesberg's ideas have less credibility than charges of satanic ritual abuse. Question to you both: which set of ideas, in your opinion, tends to bring Wikipedia into greater disrepute? BruceSwanson (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Coverage of Duesberg's ideas does not bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Coverage of satanic ritual abuse does not bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Inappropriately sympathetic coverage of either topic would bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Look at the current leads to Satanic ritual abuse, Duesberg hypothesis, and Inventing the AIDS virus. All three make clear that the subject of the article has been discredited. User:BruceSwanson/combining duesberg hypothesis Inventing fails to do that. That failure is the source of the disrepute. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The leads to The Bible, The Koran, and Mein Kampf also say nothing about their respective truths being discredited. (The Kampf-article even lists the book's Table of Contents.) Do you therefore think those three articles are Inappropriately sympathetic? By contrast, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion lead does address its subject's lack of veracity -- but merely by stating factually that the book has been found to be a forgery. The book's discredit is therefore integral to any discussion of it, and this is reflected in the article. Both the Kampf and Protocols articles are free of propaganda, and simply recite the known facts without further comment. The current lead to Inventing the AIDS Virus contains a propagandistic interjection unworthy of Wikipedia (The scientific evidence is conclusive that this theory, known as the "Duesberg hypothesis", is incorrect and it is the unambiguous scientific consensus that HIV is in fact the cause of AIDS.). That is baldfaced POVing and a baldfaced lie -- the consensus is anything but "unambiguous" -- there are many Root-Bernstein's out there with many degrees of agreement and disagreement with the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Informed readers will spot that "unambiguous" instantly and with genuine contempt for whoever wrote it.
My version is a collection of statements derived only from the book. You can't expect a book to discredit itself. I should add that deleting the page in question won't make it go away. I think your real complaint is that my version is more detailed than the present version and promises to become more so (whether it's deleted for the moment or not). The extent of detail is a reflection of the seriousness and complexity of a subject that is also not going away. BruceSwanson (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So to summarise your position, you are unhappy with the current state of the Inventing the AIDS Virus article and would like to keep this version in your userspace, since you feel it is closer to the truth. I think we're done here. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, let's not forget that because other pages have problems does not mean we propagate those problems across other pages. And, of course, the Bible and Koran are not meant to represent factual, scientific arguments, while Duesberg's pseudoscientific hypothesis is supposed to. Mein Kampf is an ostensible autobiography. Not comparable. I realize I'm not a "named editor", but fortunately wikipedia doesn't require real names to be used and therefore my objections carry as much weight as anyone else's and ignoring them won't make them any less valid for the closing admin. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Duane543/Sandbox
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Spartaz Humbug! 16:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Duane543/Sandbox

Another abandoned userspace draft article. Editor last edited it on March 2009 and has not been active since May 2009. —Farix (t | c) 01:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Abandoned draft of an inactive user. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 01:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, without prejudice. The user should always be able to get this back if he asks. MER-C 03:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Farix's reasoning. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It isn't indexed, and isn't creating any harm. Far too soon to conclude that this user will never return.--SPhilbrickT 16:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and why not? There's always undeletion. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank - there appears to be significant history to this page unrelated to its current contents, which really isn't unusual for article sandboxes in userspace. I see no reason to delete that history for the sake of the page's current contents, and believe blanking will achieve the same, intended effect as deletion. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 04:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mentioned above, without prejudice. User was an established editor with apparently a good history, but he seems to have walked away from the project and user subpages are not supposed to be indefinite. If it does get deleted, I would suggest leaving a note on the user talk page specifically explaining that he's welcome to get it undeleted if/when he returns. Matt Deres (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elvrum/Test
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elvrum/Test

Abandoned userspace draft. Has not be edited by the user since 2006 and the user has been inactive since December 2007. —Farix (t | c) 01:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree. Abandoned draft, made by an inactive user. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 01:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, without prejudice. The user should always be able to get this back if he asks. MER-C 03:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, we seem to have an article already, so... delete. Kayau Voting IS evil 11:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article actually exists, so no need to save this; almost three years is long enough to conclude it has been abandoned.--SPhilbrickT 16:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and why not? There's always undeletion. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Joseph Robert Neil James
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joseph Robert Neil James

Page outside the scope of userpage guidelines, and user has no edits outside of the page. Wikipedia is not a webhost or a forum. I mentioned it to the user a couple days ago, and other editors have also mentioned it in the meantime. Syrthiss (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Kayau Voting IS evil 11:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Author blanked; I'm CSDing it. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 19:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopened by nominator request, page recreated. Train2104 (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. This content cannot be moved to the mainspace because it violates WP:NOT#OR, which is an additional reason that this page should be deleted.

    Although the page has been blanked, I request that the page is not kept as "keep blanked". The author, Joseph Robert Neil James (talk · contribs), has repeatedly blanked and unblanked the page, so a full discussion to consider whether this content should be deleted is warranted. Cunard (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kagegod/Testarotho
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. bibliomaniac15 02:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kagegod/Testarotho

I am not sure of the origin of this page, but this abandoned draft was created by User:Mallanox in User:Kagegod's userspace. The only edit attributed to Kagegod is to an AfD in 2008. Mallanox has been inactive since July 2009. —Farix (t | c) 01:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We have a superior article at Testarotho that doesn't appear to share any history with this, and neither editor is using it for anything. There's no need to keep this around. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE and it's in the wrong userspace. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 01:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this WP:FAKEARTICLE per nom. MER-C 03:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the other deletions proposed for inactivity are for editors missing well over a year, I suggest that the one year mark not be regarded as fatal disappearance from WP, as many major editors have taken breaks on that order. No harm is making this the limit to be used. Collect (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE, which states "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a free web host and private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion" (mine emphasized).

    Because WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE are applicable, and because Kagegod (talk · contribs) did not create or edit User:Kagegod/Testarotho, this page can be deleted.

    I further note that Testarotho exists and is sourced whereas User:Kagegod/Testarotho is not. Cunard (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Strange location and isn't ever going to improve our project. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Comment KageGod (talk · contribs) originally created Testarotho, which was deleted by Mallanox (talk · contribs) for "no context". The userspace draft is a copy of the deleted article, minus some cleanup tags and with some other cleanup and tweaks made, created about three minutes before the article was deleted. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 04:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Willbowker
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Willbowker

Created three years ago by a user whose only other contribution was an article with the same name that was immediately speedily deleted. Also delete the corresponding talk page. meshach (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are correct. I have struck out that part of the comment. meshach (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Glossary
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. History merge performed several days ago to address the issue. Maedin\talk 12:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Glossary

I created this page last week, but according to User:Papa Lima Whiskey it's a violation of the GFDL. If so, probably should be deleted. jjron (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • WTF. This is a non-sense POINTy MfD. Please retract or speedy close. Unecessary drama. --Dschwen 16:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see a history merge has been performed. Well, everybody can see by themselves how "similar" the two glossaries were. --Dschwen 21:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Permitted use in userspace. Find something which needs deletion <g>. Collect (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:Copyrights violation is not a good reason for deletion unless it is impossible to insert the required attribution now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 4, 2010

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Electric vehicles
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Courcelles 03:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Electric vehicles

Poorly developed portal which is not maintained. The only two editors of this portal a banned user:Mac and his suspected sock, not active almost three years. There is no sign that anybody would like to take a care of this portal and develop and update it. Could be recreated if there will be real interest for this. Beagel (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sonic GC
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. bibliomaniac15 02:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sonic GC

Per WP:NOTWEBSPACE. Editor's only edits have been to this page and another related userpage. also up for MfD. The editor has been inactive since November 2009. May also be be related to User:Sonic GirlZ (Series). —Farix (t | c) 18:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sonic GirlZ (Series)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. bibliomaniac15 02:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sonic GirlZ (Series)

Per WP:NOTWEBSPACE. Editor has only made edits to this page and has been inactive since November 2009. May also be be related to User:Sonic GC. —Farix (t | c) 18:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TickleMeister/Aspartame sources
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. BLP issues would be incorrect in this case; WP:POVFORK is the pertinent policy here. The information belongs better at SourceWatch regardless. bibliomaniac15 02:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:TickleMeister/Aspartame sources

Mirror of another site; BLP issues.Novangelis (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 20:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Top of the page says that he wrote the content that the page was copied from. SourceWatch.Org also uses a MediaWiki, and the Aspartame article was all written by one user. The talk page of that user mentions how he doesn't like Wikipedia, and the user's WP account had been blocked for 55 hours due to sockpuppetry. Therefore, there probably isn't a copyvio case here. Also, user involvement in this report. Train2104 (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I do not think the purpose of the page is to improve Wikipedia, and if it isn't I can't see any point to giving the editor webspace for this. Dougweller (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Where are the "BLP issues" in this? The page is a compendium of cited material that I am trying to insert onto the Aspartame and Aspartame controversy pages. The material was excluded mostly on (bogus) grounds of undue weight. I managed to create a similar page on SourceWatch. Since when do we nominate individual work pages in user space for deletion? I think the BLP problems need to be carefully explored before such pages can be nominated for deletion. TickleMeister (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see which way this is going, so I've removed the content from the page. TickleMeister (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:POVFORK. The create admits that it was created by cause they couldn't insert the material into the main space articles. —Farix (t | c) 20:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is inappropriate to maintain a separate version of an article in your own userspace because you don't like the consensus version. I see the owner has replaced the text with a link to an identical copy of his preferred version of the article on another website. This, at the very least, violates the spirit of Wikipedia policy (WP:UP#COPIES/WP:POVFORK) and should therefore still be deleted. Peacock (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a USER WORK PAGE for god's sake. TickleMeister (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Plus, there is no need to give a user webspace, that is not what we do here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UP, however I am baffled by the nomination rationale comment about "BLP issues". Unless BLP can also stand for something other than "biography of a living person", I don't see how that is applicable here. SnottyWong confer 22:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 3, 2010

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Madonna of Laroque
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. bibliomaniac15 02:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Madonna of Laroque

WP:FAKEARTICLE Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Agreed, although this could just be a description of the user name... ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 05:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - probably not, because the user has no other edits. Kayau Voting IS evil 07:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Links to an article that itself is in AfD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The AFD ended in keep. The contents of the page do not mislead the reader in any way: "might be a painting" is just that, might be or not. That a user has an interest in a narrow topic (even if it's a SPA run by someone else) is not a crime in itself. P.S. I removed the category, which was only appropriate for articles. [5]. East of Borschov 07:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article has been kept at AfD, the username is acceptable, I might encourage the user to make it look less like an article, but I see no reason for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creating their user page was this user's sole edit 10 months ago, and they show no sign of returning. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete If the material is in project it has no purpose on userpage. Blank is fine too. Note: I add 'userpage' template. Miami33139 (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sofiane Merouani
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete - unsourced, BLP problems, user has not edited for over a year. JohnCD (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sofiane Merouani

Unsourced article masquerading as user page. As an unsourced bio of a person that includes full name and place of residence + purported info on their children, divorce, mental state, etc. it may be eligible for speedy per WP:BLPNAME. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And given all the ruckus in the attic, maybe Barry should have enlisted the aid of this guy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try ZDNet [6] and the NYT [7], AFP [8] among other major places missssspelling words. Collect (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE, which states "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a free web host and private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion" (mine emphasized).

    Because this is an unsourced article in the userspace that contains sensitive information that may violate WP:BLP, and because WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE apply, this page should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 2, 2010

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aliasd/Jaksjslk212ij3
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aliasd/Jaksjslk212ij3

User is barely active, no one really cares about this page much anymore. Secret page, this is, to be clear. —fetch·comms 19:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:UP#GAMES. MER-C 03:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#GAMES.

    WP:UP#GAMES states that examples of unrelated content to writing an encyclopedia are "[g]ames, roleplaying sessions, secret pages and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia". Such activities are generally frowned upon by the community, and where the games involve people who are not active participants in the project such pages are routinely deleted at MfD." (mine emphasized)

    WP:NOTMYSPACE says, "The focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." Cunard (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Construction Lots
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Construction Lots

not user page Olli (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JonathanOdenJR
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:JonathanOdenJR

Article in userspace. Oddly tagged for third-party references, neutrality and notability by the author. Only sources are the creator's YouTube, no third party sources found. Wouldn't survive a day in article space. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 1, 2010

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:EESWARA CHEKAVA EZHAVAR
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. harej 08:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:EESWARA CHEKAVA EZHAVAR

Mostly incomprehensible, but note the last bit: "Today onwards we are starting a discussion regarding how to eliminate the inferiority in their mind of "Nairs" and how to let them co-operate with us and how to stop them from Vandalizing our articles regarding "Ezhavar" & "Chekavar". One more thing I would like to tell that , Our family members traditionally using our surname as "Chekava Ezhavar" which you can't see used by any other castes.In the ancient times all the "Ezhava", "Thiyya" families used this as surname which later shortened to "Chokan/Chon" . But by this letter I proclaim all the "Ezhava", "Chekava", "Thiyya" families to start using the word "Chekava Ezhavar" as their surnames as we do and ask every "Ezhava families to study our traditional martial art of "Kalarippayattu" and also other martial arts like "Karate", "Kung fu" ..etc to follow our family culture. You can use these surnames in the Wikipedia also ( eg:- Balachandra Chekava Ezhavar, Surya Narayana Chekava Ezhavar, Shaktiprasad Chekava Ezhavar, Veera Chandra Chekava Ezhavar...etc)". I think this is half ethnic essay, half article ownership plans. —fetch·comms 22:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed they can, and for several reasons (Soapboxing, any of the G# or U# criteria, excessively polemic). Userspace pages are not immune to deletion. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 21:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Williamsbourgeoisie/Williamsburg, Brooklyn
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Williamsbourgeoisie/Williamsburg, Brooklyn

This page appears to be a copy from Williamsburg, Brooklyn from 2007. Per WP:UP#COPIES, this is not appropriate for userspace. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Williamsburg/Williamsburg
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. harej 08:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Williamsburg/Williamsburg

Like my previous nomination, This page also appears to be a copy from Williamsburg, Brooklyn from 2007. Per WP:UP#COPIES, this is not appropriate for userspace. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this page and User:Williamsburg. User has not made any edits outside of userspace, and the user page has nothing but slashes. The 2 accounts also appear to be sockpuppets of each other, the user and talk pages redirect to the Williamsbourgeoisie one. Train2104 (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per [[WP:UP#COPIES|]]. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 05:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this WP:FAKEARTICLE. User has not edited since 2007 and has made no other edits. MER-C 13:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

July 30, 2010

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dat Dere Cell-tech Vandal
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was speedy deletion by User:Athaenara (G7). Peacock (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dat Dere Cell-tech Vandal

Long-term abuse reports are generally not deleted if they contain useful information, but this report is old and does not contain the information that is standard in all new long-term abuse cases. It's not worth the time and effort to recompile this report with all the new templates, since this vandal is no longer active. That being said, this report is quite useless and does not contain any useful information. Netalarmtalk 19:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Although nom's rationale about completeness has much merit, I feel we should keep this anyway as historical information should the user ever become active again. Deleting it doesn't clear up any storage anyway, it just makes it invisible to non-admins. — Becksguy (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Basically per Becksguy. Not much more to say. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 04:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the old criteria (hasn't been copied over to the new system due to other more important things) states that "Any entry may be removed by anyone if it is clearly an old entry of an inactive vandal; subpages may be nominated for deletion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion." We're still developing the new criteria for the new system, but I thought I'd just drop this by. Also, there really isn't any useful information in that report, so it also falls under the second deletion criteria of "Completely improper, incorrect or malicious (False report), incomplete or totally incoherent. Vandals "reporting themselves" should almost always be reverted.". Link to old criteria. Netalarmtalk 05:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Netalarm, if I understand you, you are saying that there is a technical reason to delete this. In that case, why bring this to MfD where people (like me) really don't understand all the issues? — Becksguy (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the directions state to bring to MfD, so I'm inclined to follow them as is. Also, I'd like some input on deleting this report, as it is one off the oddballs (incomplete old inactive ones). Just in case you're curious, all future reports will be archived, instead of deleted. Netalarmtalk 06:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per {{db-author}} so tagged. Because Netalarm created this page him/herself, and because no one else has edited the page, this page can be speedy deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is amoral
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. bibliomaniac15 17:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is amoral

Ostensibly an "essay" but blantant POV/agenda pushing, this page advances the cause of the project not, and should be thus deleted. Furthermore, taken on its merits, the essay contains several mis-statements of not only wikipedia practice, but also its reality. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. 'This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints.' Cybercobra's viewpoints can be minority viewpoints. However, there is no problem with an essay pushing a Wikipedia POV. Pushing a real-life POV is not the same as pushing a WP POV. Whether or not it is poppycock is one's own opinion. You cannot say something's bosh, even though you are supported by a majority. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is amoral in the sense explicated in the essay, for reasons that are well explained in the essay. That is not a derogatory statement. It's quite possible that this could use a better title, but as an essay it's perfectly fine. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Where does this conflict with policy? It seems to be completely correct. --Yair rand (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator of the essay. Complete failure to WP:AGF on the part of the nom, what with jumping to a conspiracy theory and not trying to work out on the talkpage and fix whatever the problems are which he perceives prior to this MfD. Essays (and even Policies) inherently have some POV, but I fail to see where I've unduly pushed one. Nom has also failed to point out any specific instances of supposed blatant misrepresentations of policy/practice. Additionally: Suggestions as to a better title are welcomed. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per all above. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 06:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Within guidelines. Essay which appears to be properly done. Absent a reason to delete, dfault to keep. Collect (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not believe that this essay violates any policies or guidelines. Cunard (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Without expressing any opinion on the content, it should be kept as an essay within guidelines per WP:ESSAYS. Title could be better, however. — Becksguy (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why do you find the title of the essay more unpleasant than the essay itself? Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing at all unpleasant in the essay. On the other hand, if the title of the essay leads to deletion nominations, that implies that the title could be better (how about "Wikipedia is not a moral force"?). For clarity, I don't find the title "unpleasant", however. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Are you confusing "amoral" with "immoral"? Nippoo (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks fine to me--SPhilbrickT 01:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Old business


July 29, 2010

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ironwater/Holder of the end
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. This seems to be being used as a working page for drafts for the "communal crowdsourced creative writing work" at http://theholders.org/. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a web host for this kind of thing. I will supply a copy on request of any of the stories here, by moving it into a sandbox for 24 hours so that it can be copied out. JohnCD (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ironwater/Holder of the end

DELETE - this is nonsense. Long, rambling nonsense. Wikipedia is not a personal hosting service/blog farm. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • LOL and delete, possibly bjadon excerpts. :D 06:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The holder series was a communal crowdsourced creative writing work before Wikipedia even existed. This is exactly the sort of thing wikis are created to preserve, document, and organize. If anything, the page should be categorized and not deleted. Individual poems in the public domain have their own wikipedia entries, I don't see why a perfectly organized collection of the holder series shouldn't. -Scott 06:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Scott, every wiki has a different purpose. If you want to document a PD work, Wikinfo is the place you're looking for. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Brought to the attention of [9]. Besides the obvious WP:NOT rhis reads like a full fledged prophecy series. Hasteur (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: User appears to not have done anything in 1.5 years and has for the most part been playing with the sandbox and creating items of questionable encyclopedic content.Hasteur (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notwithstanding the lack of notability, this page is entirely unnecessary, the series is catalogued on a number of sites already, example [10] RubberTyres (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if sources were found to justify an article about the series, we wouldn't want a verbatim copy of it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow... WP:NOT is sufficient, I should think. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 18:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The page is expanding by the hour!!! Since this notice was put on the page, it has grew 4694 bytes in 12 hours. Train2104 (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's not all serious. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but it was featured on the reddit front page this morning so the page is going to be the target of many drive by vandals.

Don't Delete. This is art & interesting to read. Many people on stumbleupon.com & found this page and love it. It's terrifying and nonsensical and creative.

How exactly is this conducive to building an encyclopedia? MER-C 09:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. User appears to not here to build the encyclopedia. MER-C 09:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a copy vio "holders.org" does not state that the work is free of copyright - so it is de jure copyright material. User does not appear to have a personal claim to authorship. Collect (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. (I read above that this stuff is "terrifying and nonsensical and creative"; the second of these three seems accurate enough.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that this piece doesn't add to the encyclopedia, and am generally inclined to advocate deleting unnecessary pages and information, this particular page doesn't seem to be harming anyone and is certainly entertaining. Wikipedia may be srs bzns but perhaps we should all loosen up a bit this time. 15:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to "not harm anyone", but to build an encyclopedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the only contributions by User:Gustcarl are the vote above and a suspiciously similarly written addition to the subpage on Ironwater under consideration. At least an SPA and almost certainly the same user under another account (not technically socking, I guess, since User:Ironwater appears to be abandoned). Matt Deres (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should leave this page because I want to read it.

More straw men, more red herrings. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Noobsoccer
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Noobsoccer

Also included in this MfD are all of the user's subpages. This User has never edited anything other than in their User space, where they are running some sort of game. None of these pages has anything to do with writing an encyclopedia. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

July 28, 2010

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:MNM
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book:MNM

Only four articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:The Legacy
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book:The Legacy

Only four articles —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:The World's Greatest Tag Team
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book:The World's Greatest Tag Team

Only four articles —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response I know of no policy regarding a minimum number of articles for a book; I was just using my better judgement. It seems like four articles would hardly constitute what I would call a "book", especially one that is actually prepared for (print) publication. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:The land before time
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was moot, redirected to the correctly capitalised version. BencherliteTalk 08:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book:The land before time

No content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum See also Book:The Land Before Time. Is it policy to create redirects in Book: namespace? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no knowledge about books but it appears not. Kayau Voting IS evil 11:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bboehlin
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bboehlin

The only reference in this entire article that doesn't stem from this unsigned band themselves is this website, which has blatantly been set up in order to provide a reference for a Wikipedia article. I believe this should be deleted along with the Trainlight(band) article. roleplayer 23:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Raktoner/The Word Alive
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. harej 08:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raktoner/The Word Alive

Delete The article The Word Alive has been deleted eight times, and has had three AfDs, all of which closed as "delete". (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Word Alive, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Word Alive (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Word Alive (3rd nomination).) A copy was then made at User:Raktoner/The Word Alive, which could have been speedily deleted under CSD G4 (repost of page deleted after a deletion discussion). However, the page has since then been edited sufficiently that it is no longer substantially the same, so I thought it better to discuss it here. Userfication of a deleted article is acceptable for a limited period to allow work on it before reposting it as an article. However, the user page guidelines are quite clear that this is not acceptable as a long-term way of avoiding deletion of an article. It is three and a half months since this userspace copy of the article was made, and I see no sign of intention to return it to article space. The page has a long list of "references". However, looking at them I see that some are links to Wikipedia articles, others are press releases or links to promotional web sites, others are links to pages where The Word Alive receives only brief mention, and so on. Despite the length of the list, most come nowhere near being suitable as sources, and the few that might be considered do not show substantial coverage. The conclusion of all this is that, although the page has been significantly rewritten since its last deletion, it has not addressed the issues which led to its deletion after the three AfDs (nor, if it comes to that, the rest of the eight times it was deleted). Whether or not the intention was to use this as a temporary holding place while the article was brought up to scratch, the effect has been to keep an article after it had been quite unambiguously decided that it should not be kept. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It occurs to me that it is worth mentioning that wikilinks to this page have been inserted into at least two articles (both now deleted), indicating that the user page is in effect being used as a substitute for an article. WP:FAKEARTICLE is quite clear: "pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles". JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and JamesBWatson. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 17:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Effectively userfied material (assuming the same content as the AfD articles) has no reason to be deleted at the 3 month mark - the norm has been to allow 6 months (or more) before getting antsy to remove material not in mainspace. Editor is still around, and has edited this within recent weeks. Moreover, userspace does not require "notability" which means that unless a really solid reason for deletion is given, the default is Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 09:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article was first deleted in 2 June 2008. 3 months is the time since deletion of the latest re-creation, but it does not make much sense to say (in effect) that as long as you keep recreating an article so that it is never more than 6 months since the last time it was deleted, you can keep it indefinitely. In addition I am not aware that "the norm has been to allow 6 months". In my experience it varies a good deal depending on circumstances. Certainly sometimes 6 months or more are left, but in some situations I have known userfied copies to be deleted within a few weeks. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE, which states "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a free web host and private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion" (mine emphasized).

    Because this article has been deleted multiple times and there is no indication that it will be ready for mainspace, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE apply and this page should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete For an article that has been deleted that many times, there is no plausible argument to be made that a copy of it serves any benefit to Wikipedia. It is only serving the interest of someone whose goals are different than those of Wikipedia. Peacock (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't going to help Wikipedia now or in the future. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=377459737"