Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no portals

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:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 6 disambiguation pages) and the various Talk: namespaces
• Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
• Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

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

Before nominating a page for deletion

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 it is a userpage, or {{db-author}} or {{db-g7}} if it is a draft. 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

• Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
• Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
• Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
• Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
• Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion

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. If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done. 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	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	0	0	6	6
TfD	0	0	0	7	7
MfD
FfD	0	0	1	6	7
RfD	0	0	24	23	47
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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.

2009-06-20

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 keep as a nomination by a banned user. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Paid editing

This page is a gross and wanton violation of policy, Jimmy Wales's own edicts on the matter, and most importantly gives the false impression that paid editing is acceptable when the current policy is that paid editing is banned on wikipedia. If paid editing becomes legalized on Wikipedia, this article then might be revived. Erich Mendacio (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Just a comment that Checkuser indicates Enrich Mendacio is banned user User:Wiki brah and also sockpuppets User:Bamoral and User:Rick22225. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

---

• Keep. Nonsense. The Church of Jimbo apparently didn't give everyone the kool-aid yet so no - the discussion is still in process. And from all appearances the RfC - which is still going - was a great call. People have questions and differing opinions. Like it or lump this is already happening in various forms so this is now the early stages of a guideline how to address the issues raised whether this becomes policy or whatever. Personally I'm reality-based and know that employees have been compelled by their bosses to fix errors on Wikipedia - quibbly or not they were compensated for editing here. That is certainly different in spirit from someone who sets up some sort of editing service which is also different from paid advocacy - advocacy of any kind being a no-no. These are nuances and the jury is still very much out on how to sort all this out. Meanwhile this page is to help guide those looking for a brief on the issues and guidance of what to do next. this should help those sorting out issues which are not quite as black/white as I think many editors are led to believe. -- Banjeboi 06:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a community proposed policy page work in progress. Jimbo's opinion, while noted, is not mandatory. It should be noted that in the RfC in which Jimbo made the comments refered to above, that statements and endorsements supporting the permitting of paid editing (and those opposing same) were made subsequently - indicating that Jimbo's comments did not conclude the discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - The idea that Jimmy Wales can pass an "edict" to vanquish any idea or essay from Wikipedia is not only unjust, it's also incorrect. Jimbo, admin though he may be as well as founder of the website, cannot trump any form of discussion from taking place on a hot-button issue. That sort of decision is made by the board lawyer. On that note, several legal forms of paid editing on Wikipedia (in the form of WP:BOUNTY, I believe) do exist. Finally, how on Earth do we legislate whether or not paid editing takes place if the transactions themselves are underhanded?--WaltCip (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep What policy is it violating, exactly? --Tango (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The nom says some strange things. If paid editing were banned, we'd need to revert anybody who ever set up an account and added some info to their user page, in the course of their job -- even if their only purpose was to maintain a watch list and make the occasional talk page comment. -Pete (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete There is an RfC in progress on this very subject, and it appears that no community consensus will be reached. If a consensus is reached, that would be the time to begin a project page. It appears that this page was created to circumvent the RfC process by starting to formulate policy when there in no consensus in favor of the proposed policy. Further, this whole business of paid editing and paid advocacy editing is really a sub-topic of WP:COI, and should be dealt with there. It is a serious blunder for Wikipedia to have a policy page with this title, because it could be construed by others—the press and Wikipedia editors who wish sell Wikipedia editing services—that Wikipedia condones creation and editing of Wikipedia content by individuals who are paid to promote commercial or other private interests. Finell (Talk) 18:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

  We don't delete policy pages that don't have consensus, we tag them as rejected. --Tango (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment (by nom). My sentiments exactly. I was surprised at how sneaky it was unilaterally describe paid editing as "neither forbidden . . . " where NO consensus existed to make this change from the diametrically oppposed original position, which was that paid editing is a conflict of interest and IS forbidden. Erich Mendacio (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

    There is no "original position", that's why the RFC was needed. Up until know we've used exactly COI policy to deal with incidents on a case-by-case basis. --Tango (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. As I've been trying to emphasize: this is not a proposal for a change in policy. It is an attempt to clarify our position on paid editing as it exists today. Any disagreement regarding its interpretation comes down to a disagreement regarding what the status quo is. I'd like to work out something that both sides can at least grudgingly accept as representative of current practices. Dcoetzee 19:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. MfD is not for getting rid of things you disagree with. The RfC in still ongoing, but this looks like a decent summary of the discussion. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

comment: ...and for those who disagree, and don't think it captures enough of the RFC, the best option is probably to edit the text of this page, rather than to argue for its outright deletion. -Pete (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Deleting pages like this is nearly universally a bad idea. If anything, tag them as {{historical}} if appropriate. By erasing history, we doom ourselves to repeat it. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. We don't, and shouldn't delete pages directed at wikipedia policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Changing my tune from the talk page because, per MZMMcBride and SmokeyJoe, a historical record will be helpful—whether this policy page ever reaches consensus or not. Priyanath ^talk 22:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I think MZMcBride says it best, but "per all of the above". — Ched :  ?  02:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It's getting chilly here - perhaps it's beginning to WP:SNOW? Keep per all above. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 and replaced with {{welcome-anon}}. –xeno^talk 15:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:71.126.120.80

Violates Wikipedia user page guidelines on long-term archiving of a page (hasn't been edited since 2008). More specifically, here. ^blurred_peace ☮ 05:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Next time just be bold and blank or replace it with welcome-anon, which I've done. –xeno^talk 15:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

2009-06-19

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 withdrawn, nominator decided to instead revive the task force. –xeno^talk 21:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Species

Not used anymore. Hasnt been edited in over 2 years. -- Blake (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - no reason given for deletion. –xeno^talk 15:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is a project page that hasnt been used in over 2 years. It isnt linked from anywhere and was most likly forgotten. --Blake (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• It does indeed has a handful of incoming links: [1]. Since deletion doesn't save space, I don't see the need for deleting this. However, if other members of the WikiProject Pokemon agree it should be deleted, I will change my position. –xeno^talk 15:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

4 things related to its Deletion

3 Archives linking to the page (2 of which were advertizing the task force, while the other was talking about deleting it.)

2 drafts from the founder's userspace

2 pages relating to the userbox (The userbox of the taskforce and a person who used it.)

It was a failed Task Force that diddnt get but 1 or 2 members. Maybe slap a historical template on there. --Blake (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My point is, If there's a chance it might become active, we gain nothing by deleting it and actually set ourselves further back as someone will need to duplicate the original effort in creating the task force. –xeno^talk 15:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont think it would ever become active again unless all the Pokémon get split back into the 493 articles. Currently we only have 6 Pokémon species articles. These can easily be mannaged by Project Pokémon and dont need a taskforce. --Blake (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't explained what possible harm it's causing by remaining though. Remember deletion doesn't save space. –xeno^talk 16:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Little to gain through deletion, potentially a lot to gain by keeping. It's inactive, so it should have an inactive tag transcluded on it, but we should keep it around for archival purposes in case someone wants to restart it. It could be construed to do lots of things - manage what few Pokémon have their own articles, manage the massive lists of Pokémon (especially Pokédex information), whatever. It would also have been a useful place to discuss the whole Bulbasaur/Bulbasaur-Ivysaur-Venusaur Evolutionary Line thing before bringing it to the larger PCP or VG community. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - It seems to be totally archaic as its purpose was to merge the individual species into lists, which was completed quite some time ago. However, the whole issue that arose from each Pokémon having its own page is infamous on Wikipedia, so I say the Template:Historical idea is best. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 16:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

---

• Comment - Well, if the consensus is going to be Keep, I would be willing to revive the taskforce. --Blake (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/List of software companies

User:Jay/List of software companies

This was userfied after an undeletion request I made on 11 February 2006. I never wanted it to be userfied, I wanted it to be restored in the article space. I haven't worked on the subpage, although I see many others have. I request it to be deleted or moved to article space. Basically I don't want it in the user space. Jay (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll move it to a subpage of the relevant Wikiproject and leave them a note. –xeno^talk 15:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

2009-06-18

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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Indexing Scheme/A and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Indexing Scheme/B

The main page (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Indexing Scheme) has been keep for historical reference, but there is no need for this page and its subpages to be kept. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - linked from the main historical page and no reason given for deletion. –xeno^talk 18:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I know it's not a good argument but it is useless, only the main page could be neccesary. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I suppose we could subst the material for historical record, and then delete the subpage, but again: where's the net gain? I really am confused that people continue to seek out these project-space pages that are minding their own business and bring them to MFD. Rather than saving space, you cause more space to be used, 1602 bytes and counting so far. –xeno^talk 18:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep all. Is at least a record of past efforts, and might even want to be revised. Navigation remains a problem for readers of wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Xeno. Keeper | 76 20:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

2009-06-17

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 closed per below. ÷seresin 19:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Hinduism/Selected_quote/4

There is no evidence in reliable sources (WP:RS) that Einstein said this. -- Priyanath ^talk 19:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that MFD is the right venue for this...Why not boldly replace it with another quote? –xeno^talk 19:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What a great idea. I'll do that. Can we close this, in that case? Priyanath ^talk 19:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've followed Zeno's advice and put in a different quote on the Gita, since the page itself is just titled "Selected Quote". This MfD can be closed. Priyanath ^talk 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 Keep. This is not the proper venue for changing a guideline, and its participants seem more than willing to discuss changes. Laser brain (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Plagiarism

This "guideline" is a quite pernicious little piece of work. It starts off all sugar plum and apple pie, by saying that that we should attribute all text which is taken from other sources: fair enough, no argument with that. It then descends into a long academic discussion of what is "plagiarism" (a topic which is not devoid of dispute in itself), and what should and should not be acceptible on Wikipedia (equally disputed). It was the subject of a Wikipedia Signpost article on 13 April (which resulted in an exceptionally long talk page discussion), and then an RFC from 24 April to 6 May. It was repromoted to "guideline" – earlier attempts to place the {{guideline}} tag on it had failed – after a simple vote count on this RFC, without any consideration for the many opposing opinions.
The "guideline" attempts to provide moral guidance for Wikipedia contributors, which appear to be based on the prevailing guidelines at U.S. universities for the submission of coursework. Nowhere does it imagine that Wikipedia is not a university, does not give marks for the submissions it receives, nor give immediate credit to author of a given article. Nor does the "guideline" consider whether the supposed problem of plagiarism in Wikipedia articles could be resolved using existing policies, guidelines and processes, such as WP:COPYVIO, WP:MOS, WP:BETTER, WP:CITE, WP:DE etc.
The "guideline" is fundamentally flawed. Either it is attempting to impose the ethical requirements of a U.S. university coursework sumbission onto every single Wikipedia edit, which would be as ludicrous as it is unacceptible, or it is only repeating what is said elsewhere. I would let the discussion on the talkpage take its course, except that there is now serious discussion about blocking editors who are in "contravention". The circus has to stop, and the only way that I can see is through deletion of this page under the WP:ESPERANZA precident. -- Physchim62 (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Extremely useful and informative page, and unfortunately a guideline not adhered to often enough on this project, despite its serious level of importance if we are to maintain any semblance of respectability. Cirt (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. The page was recently promoted to guideline with over 80% support at RfC. Promoted after an RfA demonstrated empirically that a guideline was needed. Durova^Charge! 14:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The RFC is linked above, if anyone wishes to look at it, along with the various other criticisms. It would have been nice if the promotors of this guideline would have taken them into account, but no, this is yet another Charge!. For that reason, I am forced to invoke WP:ESPERANZA, which is a topic well known to several of the promotors. Physchim62 (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The nomination misses the sequence of events. An RfA passed narrowly, substantial plagiarism concerns came to light shortly after its closure, and the matter went to RFAR where it was moving toward acceptance until editors retired. A well-publicized RfC with clear consensus is normally enough to promote, but in light of the problems that were arising it became clear to the community that a guideline was absolutely necessary. At any rate, one doesn't MfD an active guideline. Durova^Charge! 14:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The "guideline" is sufficiently disputed, by multiple editors other than myself, for an MfD to be appropriate. You know this well, but you choose to ignore it in your Charge!. Physchim62 (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • If you dislike a signature that much you could have raised the matter at user talk. Much simpler than MfD. ;) The speedy keep stays; disruptive nomination. Durova^Charge! 15:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This guideline underwent an RFC in April (see Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism/Archive_3#RfC)), properly publicized, and the majority of responders supported its promotion to guideline. For that reason, deletion is blatantly inappropriate. Blocking editors who plagiarise has been part of the text at WP:CP (see specific subsection on plagiarism) for years now, since 2006, if I'm remembering correctly; "Editors engaged in ongoing plagiarism who do not respond to polite requests may be blocked from editing." This is not new to this guideline or new practice. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In which case, why the new guidline? Just so that there can be a Wikipedia:Plagiarism noticeboard and Plagiarism Patrols throughout the encyclopedia? If the guidelines exist already, there is no need for this one: that the promotors insist on pushing this through at any cost shows that they aspire to something more. Physchim62 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Plagiarism is a separate issue from copyright infringement and should not handled under that umbrella, even though the two sometimes overlap. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • And why not? You are admitting that the goal of the guideline is to remove information which is legally included in Wikipedia articles on the basis of a moral standard which is of very disputed applicability to this project. The promotors of this "guideline" wish to turn Wikipedia into some sort of writing class, where every piece must be absolutely original so that we can judge the talents of the writer: it comes as no surprise that the initiative was born and raised in the WP:FA stable. However, they forget that Wikipedia is NOT a writing school, that we exist to transmit free information (if possible, in grammatical prose, something which featured articles don't always manage). When the promotors are claiming the right to block editors on the sole basis of a disputed guideline, I cry "ESPERANZA!" Physchim62 (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I do not know anything about ESPERANZA, which predates me, but I do note that none of those six people who opposed "guideline" status called for deletion. Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism/Archive_3#RfC shows me that User:Cedars said, "There is no concern with keeping this article on plagiarism in Wikipedia for reference but to upgrade it to a guideline is unnecessary." Others said variations of one IP contributor's comment that "I have serious concerns about the text of this proposed guideline as it presently stands," calling for overhaul rather than elimination (some specifically supported the concept, but not the present language, of a guideline on plagiarism). The only person who seems to have opposed on principle during the RfC was User:Philcha, who said, "Not another bloody guideline!" and who has subsequently challenged the designation as guideline. (In a "straw poll" weighing whether that challenge tag should be removed begun less than a week ago, 7 people (including me) have stepped forward in support of the guideline status, while only 3 so far (include the nominator of this MfD) have stepped forward even in favor of challenging it). Again, blocking editors on the basis of plagiarism predates this guideline by several years. Wikipedia is quite capable of creating its own standards. "Original research" is also legal for inclusion, but core policy is that it doesn't belong. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I forgot to answer the "And why not?" Because Copyright is a core, legal matter with no room for dispute; similarly, WP:BLP is separated out even though it boils down to a mix of WP:V and WP:NPOV. Copyright, like BLP, deserves special and separate handling because it can create legal issues for the project. Further, copyright decisions are based on Foundation mandate and US law. There is considerably more room for standard consensus in shaping a plagiarism guideline. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. We definitely need a guideline on the matter, and this seems to be the agreed-upon one. Any issues should be approached through the normal process of editing such guidelines, not by attempting deletion. Also, I don't see any excessive reference to "academia" in the current guideline, so I'm not certain how that's a reason to delete. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The guideline has had multiple problems, many of which were brought up and, it seemed to me, generally acknowledged, towards the end of the RfC. Discussion then petered out, without promotion. Durova single-handedly promoted it to guideline status some weeks later. It currently has the Disputed tag. I am against a Delete at this point, but the concept of what plagiarism should be in a Wikipedia context, and the readability of the text, still need work.
  As the nominator said, editors in Wikipedia are expected NOT to do original research, so it is inappropriate to apply plagiarism principles created for academics who are supposed to do original research. In the academic, student-essay sense, each and every good Wikipedia article is plagiarised, since it does not and must not add new thoughts to the debate. (To clarify, if a university student delivers an essay that does not contain any original thought, but restricts itself to summarising the ideas of others, they will get a "fail" mark for having plagiarised others' work, even if everything in their essay is fully attributed and cited.) It may well be that we don't need a separate plagiarism guideline and that everything said here can be profitably integrated in other existing policies and guidelines (and indeed, some of it may already be covered there), but for the moment I would like to give this guideline and the ongoing discussions on its talk page a shot, to see if it can mature into useful and pragmatic advice that's of practical use to editors and results in better articles. Until such time it should be kept with the Disputed label in place. I am also against a speedy keep, since I would like to see more input and feedback from other, previously uninvolved editors. JN466 15:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Disruptive nomination. There are right ways and wrong ways to object to Wikipedia policy, this is one of the Wrong Ways. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment One issue I would particularly welcome wider community input on is the proposed notion that even if a source is reformulated and paraphrased sufficiently for there to be no copyright violation, the writing might still be plagiarism. (related discussion here). By adopting this approach, we are in effect telling editors, "So far you thought that in re-expressing the content of a source it was enough to avoid copyright violation. Now we are telling you that your text should really have no similarity to the source text at all, unless you use an explicit quotation."
  I wonder how practicable this is. User:Philcha brought up concerns on the talk page that some exemptions would have to be made – text should not become less readable than the original because people are fastidiously trying to avoid reusing even brief sequences of words occurring in the source; in some cases precision and the avoidance of OR might simply require the editor to reuse some of the words in the source; some things (in the legal arena, in science, etc.) can only be said one way to be right, requiring substantial duplication of the source wording; etc. While the aspiration to strive for original writing is surely right, I wonder if we are not asking too much of people in making this requirement a guideline, and if the balance between making it easy for everyone to contribute and expecting people to fastidiously avoid the duplication of source wording, using an even stricter standard than that of copyright rules, is right. JN466 16:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is not the forum to discuss individual factors in the guideline or even whether this should be a guideline. This forum is specifically for discussing deleting the page. Input on relevant issues can be invited in any of the usual ways of dispute resolution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I understand what you are saying, but this proposed principle, that we should go beyond copyright requirements to avoid plagiarism, is a key reason why WP:PLAGIARISM exists under the name it does. We already have plenty of policies and guidelines that tell editors that they must cite their sources; the new points that WP:PLAGIARISM adds are (1) stricter requirements not to duplicate source wording, and (2) rules on clearly attributing content even if the sources are in the public domain. If either or both of these concepts are rejected wholly or in part, then there may not be any point in having a guideline named WP:PLAGIARISM; instead, the relevant ideas could be incorporated elsewhere. JN466 17:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • That has nothing to do with the point of deleting or not deleting this page, unless you've changed your mind. You've already opined that the page should be kept. Discussions related to the content beyond that belong elsewhere. This board has a specific purpose. The MfD page itself says, "Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy." (Also, see Wikipedia:Speedy keep: "The page is a policy or guideline. The deletion processes are not a forum for revoking policy.") --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I am not familiar with the guidelines governing the use of MfD, but have assumed that the nomination was made in good faith. JN466 17:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I presume that it was made with full conviction that deleting it would be best for the project, but "Speedy Keep" makes clear that guidelines should be speedily kept. Deletion of this would be blatantly inappropriate. This is not the forum for it. (I did not quote from the MfD page to cast any aspersions on the nominator's intentions, but to explain why I do not believe it is appropriate to prolong the discussion simply to get feedback on content questions.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Wrong venue xFD is not the place to get rid of unwanted policies/guidelines ect. Agathoclea (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep "a quite pernicious little piece of work" is not much of a raionale for deletion; claiming the guideline is based on "prevailing guidelines at U.S. universities" ignores the considerable effort put into avoiding exactly that; the guideline was written precisely for the purpose of collecting guidance into one place to reflect existing community consensus on best practice to avoid plagiarism on Wikipedia; and the nominator has already threatened to bring any block based on long-standing practise against serial plagiarisers to ArbCom. Or Speedy Keep as an out-of-process nomination. Take your pick. Franamax (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Nomination is disruptive and out of process. — Jake Wartenberg 20:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Avoiding plagarism is an important part of any academic project, whether it be a high school history paper, a graduate thesis, or an encyclopedic article. I was honestly shocked that we had not had this guideline before this past year, but now that we do have it, we ought to have it with the strength of policy, not just guideline. In any case, the page was properly put up for RfC and was strongly supported with what I see as a reasonable consensus to support. In addition, the FlyingToaster mess on WP:BN shows that even if those individual editors who commented at WP:BN did not participate in the Plagarism RfC, they did implicitly approve of the guideline. If you have any concerns with the guideline as it stands, the talk page and the village pump are the places to bring it up, not XfD. NW (Talk) 20:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The nominators arguments that:
  • Some of the recommendations at WP:Plagiarism are not appropriate for editing on wikipedia.
  • It should not be a guideline or policy

can both be discussed on the talk page and are not valid reasons for deletion. Heck, we even retain pages for proposals that have been rejected. However, I will advice against speedy close since that will just mean that we will be back here in a month. Let the best arguments for deletion be made and evaluated here, so that we can settle the issue. Abecedare (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 a withdrawal by nominator. Edits were made during lack of sleep (and clarification on IRC). ^blurred_peace ☮ 04:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guns N' Roses

Tag the project as historical (hasn't been active for at least a year or two now). ^blurred_peace ☮ 04:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's already tagged as {{inactive}}, so to be honest I'm not sure what the point of this MfD is. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 User allowed 2 weeks to make page non-promotional. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Steve Gatena article recreation

• User:Steve Gatena
• User:Gosugatena

These user pages are archived copies/recreations by the article subject and primary editor of Steve Gatena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Gatena (3rd nomination), with additional promotional blurb about the editor's business venture. Such use is specifically mentioned under WP:UP#Copies of other pages as not being allowed on user pages.--Mosmof (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Excessively promotional. The two accounts are very likely the same person. Note that User:Gosugatena has made good contributions to mainspace football articles. Redirect User:Steve Gatena to User:Gosugatena. Edit User:Gosugatena to make it into a non-promotional userpage in balance with the users' mainspace contributions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I will change my page so it is more about me as a Wikipedian and my contributions to Wikipedia projects Steve Gatena (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

2009-06-16

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 T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 06:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Theme songs

No relevant discussion on talk page. Overly narrow scope, very few articles. Tagged as historical since 10/08, not edited at all since then. Mostly long-inactive members. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as harmless wikiproject already marked historical. It dismays me that after repeated attempts to explain that deletion does not save space, nominator continues to make spurious nominations of this nature. –xeno^talk 23:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Again. What benefit do we have in keeping it? It's just another page that serves no purpose, has no historical edits worth saving. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Now if someone wants to begin a Wikiproject for theme songs they don't have to start from scratch. And maybe some of the old members will come back into the fold. If we delete it, we don't gain any space, and we lose that possible benefit. Net negative. Also, when you nom something that someone does want to keep around, you tick them off. Again, net negative. Some stuff just doesn't need to be nominated for deletion. –xeno^talk 01:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Before weighing the advantages of keeping this page, consider - first - the benefits of deleting it, if any. Since you were the one who proposed to delete the article in the first place, you must have had a feasibly beneficial reason in order to do so. I see none in the nom.--WaltCip (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Xeno. StarM 00:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per no valid reason given for deletion, mostly because there isn't one. Keeper | 76 03:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Xeno and Keeper76, as well as my above reasoning.--WaltCip (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep All it needs is one or two highly interested users to kick-start the project and gear everyone up. The value of having it as a potential reference and a potential tool is far greater than the small amount of space that would be saved through deletion. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Xeno. feydey (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

*Delete. Unnecessary and a waste of time. If these users would spend 10% of the time editing articles as they did pointlessly debating some non existent "theme song" (A theme song for an encyclopedia?), the project would be much better off. Erich Mendacio (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I do believe you've misunderstood. No one here is discussing a theme song for Wikipedia (although, given my singing ability at least, it would certainly fail WP:Notability) but rather whether or not we should keep a WikiProject that would focus on improving enWikipedia's coverage of Theme Songs were it active. Hopefully that makes some more sense. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 05:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note:Erich Mendacio is a banned user. -- Banjeboi 02:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 06:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear

All prior XfDs for this page: Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear (2nd nomination)

Pointless mini-essay. Everything discussed in it (that isn't chatter about meanings of the word "bear") is already covered at established policies and guidelines. The wording and logic of this piece are confused, and it mostly describes behaviors that would be dealt with rapidly and without hesitation at WP:ANI and WP:AIV. It is a clear case of WP:BEANS and WP:CREEP. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: Xeno, one of the page's frequent editors and defenders, removed the MfD tag from it just a few minutes ago (it was an incorrect tag, {{mfd}} rather than {{mfdx}}, but should have been fixed, not deleted). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - it's an essay and I don't share (or even understand, really) the nominators' concerns. Many essays synthesize what is said in policies and guidelines to speak to a particularly refined issue. –xeno^talk 20:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Regarding the P.S.: I would've fixed it had you actually created the requisite MFD page, which you've now (obviously) done.
• Keep: The irony of you saying "the wording and logic of this piece are confused," while simultaneously presenting no clear case for deleting the essay, does not escape me. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This is the very essence of what a Wikipedia essay is, a simplified (or metaphorical) explanation of more complicated policies, guidelines and procedures. I see no reason for deletion. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per being sensible. Friday (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete There are numerous existing policies (mostly based on being bold, being civil, and being honest) which are duplicated here for no good reason. doktorb _words^deeds 20:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. (1) Too ambiguous—if it means "don't intentionally piss off other editors" then it should just say so. (2) Offensive in that it predicts another editor will be over-sensitive—Logical Premise's interpretation (in the original MFD nomination) was "don't poke valuable team members who are likely to react poorly". (3) Won't be missed anyway—e.g. has only been used three times on user talk pages: on Sceptre's (talking about the original MFD nomination), on East718's (joking about a Cub Scout camping trip) and on TTN's (talking about nominating articles for AfD).-Pointillist (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - No compelling reason for deletion. Harmless essay. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Pointless? Nope. Best essay ever? Nope. Valid in projectspace? Yep. No new reasoning for deletion is given, hence prior result should stand -- as (snow) keep. Collect (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Excellent essay. More MfD participants should read it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep More people should read previous xFD's before nominating. Agathoclea (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The standards for essays in project space are deliberately quite low, and the nominator has not offered any reason why this essay violates those standards. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Gavia immer's sentence, better constructed than I could have come up with. Keeper | 76 03:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per my understanding of Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays. I believe that this essay contains valuable advice, so even if WP:IAR were to be required, I'd still !vote to keep. — Ched :  ?  10:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Let sleeping bears lie. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I'd like to suggest the invocation of WP:SNOW.

Tricenarian (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC) **Vicenarian logged in from a public computer.**

Seconded :-\ Pointillist (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Its only an essay and it isn't mauling anyone. MBisanz ^talk 18:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The essay was referred in the incident related "Giano's departure", and I don't see why the "essay" should be deleted.--Caspian blue 22:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Where was that incident, btw? - Pointillist (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Check xeno's block log. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If you mean this then I'm none the wiser! - Pointillist (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep It's a harmless essay. No need to delete it. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Help protect bear rights. Stop the onslaught of metaphors, let's keep this article. The previous MfD nomination (ending in Keep) was 22 May 2009, has there been a lot of change since then? EdJohnston (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I think the deletion of an essay is perhaps the most non-beneficial act one could perform on Wikipedia short of deleting a featured article. Let's not prod this ursa any further.--WaltCip (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete There is certainly no need for this essay on wikipedia. And I worry about pointless essay writing as a way of putting unreferenced content on wikipedia. Even the non-namespace pages shouldn't become a forum for preachy self-publishing. That said, this essay's presence or non-presence is not a big deal. xschm (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Xeno and all the other keep arguments here and in the first MfD (only a few weeks ago). It's an essay per WP:ESSAYS. — Becksguy (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 speedily kept, assessment subpages are regular artifacts. I've fixed up the TOC issue, but there's another issue now. I'm wondering if it's a problem with WPBannerMeta, you might want to raise this at WP:VPT. –xeno^talk 19:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Eastern Nazarene College/Comments

Found [2] and seem to have a problem where the TOC won't load even when using _FORCETOC_; also can't find any WP info. on "assessment summary page" and think this info. shouldn't just be at Talk:Eastern Nazarene College anyway. -- King of the Arverni (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 keep Harmless edits, no rationale really. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Rm you

Three edits in 2007, and I don't think he's coming back. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Blank only, if it really bothers you. We don't, and shouldn't delete edits due to inactivity. If the account were to be deleted, then it could be deleted, but we don't delete accounts. Even when usurped, the account is renamed, not deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep No reason given for deletion. "Don't think he is coming back" is not listed. Collect (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep rationale is completely invalid. Gigs (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. As noted, inactivity alone is not a reason for deletion. No objection to blanking this if that's desirable. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: no reason to delete. --Carnildo (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Accounts aren't just for editing. I only started editing in earnest this past April, but for the years before then I used my account to make browsing the site more enjoyable by using different skins, keeping a list of pages, and making use of other tools. His/her account, his/her preference of usage. Who are we to judge? ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Haystack

Failed attempt "to highlight the most essential in Wikipedia". Probably best removed to discourage this kind of unproductive experiment? -- Kleinzach 04:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support deletion, as the initiator of the project, I agree with deletion. The project of summarizing Wikipedia:vital articles can always be done later if anybody (e.g. me) gets interested again, and is not directly dependent on the existence of this page. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:CSD#G7. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Or mark historical. Gigs (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• G7 per Mikael Umlaut's comment above. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Now speedied per G7. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:CelticWonder/Non-Barnstars

Very, very, very mean spirited. Blatant WP:NPA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from creator: Input from users like User:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, User:Hobit, and User:Orangemike have reinstated the notion to me that there actually ARE genuine people on here after all. Ultimately, I was this || close to using a choice phrase from this page as a response to Wikipedia as a whole and wash my hands on something I was trying to save from what I believe to be unfair and unbased attack, which is what inflamed my model of actions as of late. I am very much adamant about the RantMedia article (as you all can obviously see). So as far as the Non-Barnstars go, keep in mind that they're in my subspace, I'd be happy if they were just tagged (as they currently are) with {{humor}}, and I'd be eager to tone it down if necessary (and make more!) if they stay. They had something to say that I was feeling, and I even chuckled when I was making them saying "what am I doing?", but I figure others would get a kick out of them too. Keep or delete, I don't really care. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 21:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Also User:CelticWonder/Non-Barnstars/Axe To Grind and User:CelticWonder/Non-Barnstars/Admined, the barnstars themselves. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED And to wit, 'tis not "blatant". For a "blatant personal attack" you need to have someone's name in it, don't you? Sure looks like they were written generically to me. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 04:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "

• Delete Appears to be nothing but a platform for personal attacks against other editors. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Most likely retalitory to WP:Articles for deletion/RantMedia too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Those are actually pretty damn funny. Keep if being used for obvious (and therefore IMO harmless) humor and venting, or not being used at all. Delete if actually being handed out to well-intentioned admins/editors to poison wells and otherwise cause grief and drama. Keeper | 76 02:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• One was placed here. Cameron Scott decided to leave it as an apparent "badge of honor". IMHO it's still a personal attack though. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well that's discouraging. If these are actually meant to foster ill-will, then the choice is obviously delete, with other relevent warnings to the user about our cultural guidelines here. In fact, I believe I saw his/her username at ANI recently for other issues. Perhaps a short timer. Keeper | 76 03:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I never had any intention of putting them on User pages; I had posted one of each on User Talk pages. What's in my user space that is my own creation has every right to remain. If anyone took offense to it, it's their right to simply remove it from THEIR page, not mine. I'll note that User:Cameron Scott moved it to his User page on his own accord, and that User:Doug wasn't so "offended" as some of you seem to be, enough of the contrary to leave it here untouched also. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 04:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "

• What a funny idea, but well, if the non-barnstars are actually intended to award editors for whom the creator feels to deserve them, well, that situation could be ugly, so I'd say, delete.--Caspian blue 02:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete These are inappropriate and are of no possible positive use. Camw (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, but not that it matters one fucking bit. I've been on Wikipedia since March 2005, and I'm just about thoroughly done with the strange political shit that goes on here. For case in point, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RantMedia, paying careful attention to the multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources, and see how somehow no one can answer my question "What SPECIFICALLY is it going to take for a 10-year-running staple of internet radio to STAY in Wikipedia if this isn't enough?" Instead, the notable sources which *should* by all means prove notability beyond reasonable doubt IMO (you'd think others too, but stranger things have happened) are flagrantly dismissed with comments like: oh, besides the "little" article in Wired, I don't see anything else [around my blinders]. I would have loved to contributed to this project more, but I'm at wits end here and dumbfounded at the idiocy that happens with all these "not-notable" attacks on perfectly good articles. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 04:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "

Comment: I should add that I believe it's perfectly just for me to point out that somehow Chris Crocker is notable enough for the typical Wikipedia admin, as well as other stuff like RapeLay and the 500+ individual Simpsons articles, but RantMedia isn't? *rolls eyes* yeah, makes perfect sense. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 04:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "

• Let them be These do no harm if they are not used, as seems to be the case. People can be allowed to express extreme annoyance in their own user space at deletion of their articles--it's much better than when they become actively disruptive. DGG (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  There is evidence of him using them twice presented above. Neither caused great drama-producing offence however. Keeper | 76 05:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  • And some linkies. Gave User:Doug an "award" here, presumably for closing this as delete. Not a very collaborative response to his frustration. Proves to me that celticwonder has created these out of frustration as a way of attacking the integrity of an admin simply closing a debate. Not cool. Keeper | 76 05:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

my meaning was, if he doesn't use them that way again. DGG (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I have no idea where the idea that a personal attack must refer to a user by name came from, but it's simply wrong. A personal attack need simply be intended to refer to a specific user - and these "non-barnstars" are certainly detailed enough to have been intended to refer to specific users who the creator was in a dispute with. Regardless of the fact that neither of them have caused any great offense thus yet, this is not behavior which we should condone. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per User:CelticWonder. Reasonable leeway within userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Runs counter to user page guidelines and clearly violates WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I add to leave words on users' talk pages describing same as "semi-sentient HORSE SHIT" or 'COOL' (linking the word to feces odor) is clearly a personal attack. The fact that the user is described in the second person and not by name makes no difference whatsoever. Victoriagirl (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: That's interesting, Victoriagirl, because the "I have an axe to grind" non-barnstar was originally custom designed for you actually, but I decided not to put it on your page to leave you be after you threw a fit and stormed off. Hey, 'YALL forgot this one too: WP:SOAP. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 16:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "

• Comment & Queries CelticWonder, I find your statement curious as I have made a point of avoiding all contact with you for several months now. Indeed, It is only today that I broke this practice by commenting here and at the RantMedia AfD. I wonder then, why after all these months would you have felt the need to write create a non-barnstar designed specifically for yours truly? May I also ask when and where it was that I "threw a fit and stormed off"? I have never done so. Victoriagirl (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: 1) The majority of what was written had you in mind, I just hadn't posted it until last week. 2) In my bedroom last time when you decided you didn't feel comfortable using a toy "like that". retract At the previous Sean Kennedy (author) DRV. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 16:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "

• Strong Delete The exchange above is by itself enough to convince me of the need to remove this stuff. CelticWonder is clearly using it to attack people - stating that the "Axe to Grind" was made for Victoriagirl is tantamount to calling her/him a "semi-sentient HORSE SHIT that managed to gather the kinetic skill of typing." If CelticWonder could tone down the extremely abrasive and abusive nature of the comments, then perhaps they would become acceptable. As they stand, however, they are simply a way of getting around expressing his/her true feelings from reactions to AfDs and other articles CelticWonder feels attached to, which would very clearly be reverted and CelticWonder left with a warning. Completely goes against the spirit of Wikipedia and especially the Userspace, which is not a free license for whatever one wishes. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep "Mean-spirited" as opposed to "legitimate use of irony" is not something readily judged in a deletion discussion -- and certainly is not a valid reason for deletion. Not an attack on anyone as normally interpreted here - so that is not grounds for deletion. And we likely should recognize humour where it exists. Would we rather have the user engaging in actual destructive behaviour of some sort? On a scale of 1 to 10, these barely ht a 1 on objectionableness, and apparently furnish a reasonable outlet for an editor's frustrations. Collect (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And to prove a POINT, I suppose, I was awarded one for defending userspace. I find it shows far better the attitude of the one "presenting" such than anything I could say. Many thanks! Collect (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep - tag with {{humour}}. –xeno^talk 14:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Templates don't attack people, people attack people. Gigs (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Gigs, with all due respect, templates such as these consist of words and, as WP:NPA makes very clear, words can be used to attack people. To create such a thing, whether "custom designed" for use against a specific person (as CelticWonder has stated) or for use when the spirit moves is a clear violation of policy. Victoriagirl (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• His excessive behavior is something that should be addressed in an RfC or the like, not here. The templates' existence is not a personal attack, as there is nothing about them that indicates they are about any person in particular, whether they were created in bad faith or not. Gigs (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, non-constructive, incivil and non-collaborative. It's been my direct experience that people who hand out rude crap like this are rarely doing so to be humorous, but genuinely do have an "axe to grind", and are more often than not out in left field on the issue they are upset about to begin with (cf. the example I've kept on my own userpage for a case in point). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Goes against the spirit of Wikipedia as a community of editors working towards an aim through consensus doktorb _words^deeds 20:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - It appears the barn star I got was created about an hour or two after I took a number of actions: I deleted the user subpage mentioned above, deleted another on the spot G12 noted on his usertalkpage, removed links to GFDL violating mirrors and Google caches from his main userpage and warned him for copyright violation. As for it remaining on my usertalkpage, I try to never remove complaints, especially complaints about admin actions, though it will eventually get archived, if MiszaBot isn't completely broken. I find the barnstar objectively offensive to the point of rediculousness, subjectively it didn't upset me. I'll abstain from taking a position or making any arguments due to my involvement.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete not helpful to the project, only likely to cause more unnecessary discussion and drama in the future. Guest9999 (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete likely to cause offence, more trouble that it's worth.--Otterathome (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

2009-06-15

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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Lenoraclaire/LenoraclaireBio

Recreation of a previously deleted entry for a nn individual who used wikipedia policy disruptively. Not sure if this is being used a faux wikipedia or as a step in an attempt to recreated the page later -- in any event this clearly violates wiki guidelines for user pages. -- Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• • What part of the user page guidelines does this page violate, specifically? Dogtownclown (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Userspace need not be for "notable" people -- this appears to be a c.v. if one assumes it will never be in mainspace, and, as such, is allowable. When userfied, the person doing it stated a belief that it might meet WP standards with another source or so -- hence it really does not make sense to choose deletion becasue the person was "disruptive." Collect (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that "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. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." --- if that's not so then my bringing this here is misplaced. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep It does not seem impossible to me that with a few good references, she might become notable and the article upgraded. If nothing happens in another year, then we can ask the user to remove it. DGG (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete User pages are supposed to be related to one's wikipedia presence, per the wiki entry on user pages. Wildguy42 11:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Text placed in one user's userspace by a second user, without any request. Since the userspace here belongs to the article subject, it is difficult to see 1) why she should be encouraged to write another autobiographical article for Wikipedia, and 2) why she would need this text to write her autobiography. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you insist on making it seem as if the subject was the only one who worked on the article? I put in many hours of research myself and I've never met the woman. Dogtownclown (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I agree, I've found several good Lenora Claire references. She is IMHO notable and the article can be upgraded.

Swancookie (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This page will never show up in a search of Wikipedia so the idea that it is being used as a "faux Wiki page" seems a little alarmist to me. I've been continuing research on the subject and am looking forward to adding more info to this user's page, I'm glad I found it.

Additionally: Wikipedia routinely publishes bios on people who aren't famous or notable on a world-wide scale. Being unique or interesting often suffices for inclusion here, or in any other encyclopedia for that matter. This person is not a household name but that doesn't disqualify 99% of the bios here. Why the article couldn't have been left up and allowed to be worked on further is a shame. Dogtownclown (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• KeepFirst to address the noms concern about disruptive behaviour. Its true the subject was editing her entry against policy and was rude when civilly challenged about it. However she stopped when asked to by editor dogtownclown so she responded well to friendly advise. Even some of the nicest show business people can be rude if they (mistakenly) feel their public image is being attacked, and lots of good editors weren't civil or compliant with policy on their first few edits, so I hope the early edits from the subject wont be held against her.
• Secondly the page isn't there for long term storage. Personally I feel the subject is already noteable but as respected editors disagreed I thought it would be good to leave the page in user space until a good new source comes up. Its in line with policy to have work in progress articles in user space as long as they are not attack pages and have potential to become encyclopaedic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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. Ruslik_Zero 17:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ZN

I became aware of this redirect as it was being used to defend the keeping of WP:ASE and WP:ASTAR at Mfd, so to address that, I propose this like those, is a redirect to a User's page that does not fit in the established use of the shortcut system, and thus should be deleted also. (I looked at what links here and couldn't immediately see any special reason for 'ZN' linking to Bishonen's user page, although no doubt there is a perfectly obvious in-joke for why it should, no doubt involving some dino-fun). Note: past Mfd (bulk nom) -- MickMacNee (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete for same reason as the MFD's below. I also note that per the previous discussion it looks like Bishonen had no issue with deletion.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• delete There seems to be no reason to have this any more, there is no meaning in it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Completely unnecessary. Viridae^Talk 23:32, 15 June 2009
• Delete per nom.Caspian blue 02:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(UTC)

• Delete per nom. Resolute 03:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, I believe all cross namespace redirects should be deleted. (barring some extraordinary reason) Prodego ^talk 04:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Why isn't this being discussed at redirects for discussion? Gurch (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I was wondering the same thing. Killiondude (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • There is one listed at RfD, but people there are !voting to keep! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It was Wikipedia:GURCH but author requested deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I think you're confusing two separate (but similar) situations. Killiondude (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sarah 12:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This "vanity" cross-namespace redirect does nothing to help build the encyclopedia. Anomie⚔ 12:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as an unnecessary joke cross-namespace redirect (according to the creator, "ZN = Zilla Noticeboard") with no significant incoming links or edit history. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete no, just no.--Otterathome (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 Redirect deleted but page kept. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 02:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:George W. Bush/Wikipedia

Since moved to Wikipedia:Silly Things/Wikipedia's article on George W. Bush

What the heck is this doing here? It serves no purpose whatsoever, hasn't been touched since 2005, and the only incoming link is from WP:STUPID (no comment). All it is is an article about an article, and I'm pretty sure that the content is so far out of date as to be useless. It was moved from article to talk space in 2005 as the result of an AFD, a result that definitely wouldn't fly today. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting artifact - move to a subpage of WP:Silly Things. –xeno^talk 18:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC) (which I've now done)
• Keep in its new location. –xeno^talk 18:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Is an essay concerned with wikipedia's most edited article. Probably belongs in project space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Unsure - C'mon, an article about the article? Really don't see the notability in this, this is meta-navelgazing at its worst. Tarc (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  It's not actually in articlespace anymore though. I find it an interesting little tidbit of wikihistory to be honest. –xeno^talk 18:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  Hrm, I don't know then. If it is off article-space, that's the main, good thing. I'm not sure what it is an artifact of, really; a monument to edit-warring? What is described there is pretty much what has surrounded Barack Obama for months on end. Tarc (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  I just found it interesting to see the kind of articles people were creating back in '05... –xeno^talk 19:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete the redirect created by moving the page that was the original nomination, and Keep the current page. As in, Delete - Talk:George W. Bush/Wikipedia and Keep - Wikipedia:Silly Things/Wikipedia's article on George W. Bush. It's an interesting piece of history, and certainly one that I'm glad to have found. It doesn't hurt to keep around somewhere, and since a few users here already found it intriguing, it's worthwhile. Given your comment, Tarc, about Obama, this would be a useful reference point for writing an essay on the importance of US politics and political figures, Wikipedia, and press coverage. This would amount, I guess, to a Weak Overturn of the original AfD decision. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  Amendment to the AFD decision would be more accurate, WP: space was one of two options highlighted by the closer. –xeno^talk 03:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep in its current location and mark as historical. I have no opinion about the merit or otherwise of the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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. Cross-namespace redirect. Ruslik_Zero 18:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ASTAR

Users don't need shortcuts. Damiens.rf 13:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why not? What's it hurting? (Please note that Damiens.rf and AllStarEcho have a bit of an ongoing feud, and I'm not sure this nomination is made in good faith.) – Quadell ^(talk) 13:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• delete with fire before it catches on. A ridiculous waste of space. Viridae^Talk 13:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Deleting it will increase the database size. Wikis are not filesystems. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - (repeating what I said on the other MfD) What kind of harm is it doing to the project? User shortcuts have been nominated before...and kept. In regards to a good faith nomination, I agree with Quadell's assessment. APK (If You Wanna) 13:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:NOHARM. --Damiens.rf 13:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • See this. APK (If You Wanna) 13:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
      • See WP:OTHERCRAP. --Damiens.rf 14:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - (again, repeating what I said on the other MfD) Considering the nom's attitude (above) and the disruptive editing mentioned here, this MfD was obviously made in bad faith. APK (If You Wanna) 14:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Mostly per Viridae. Is it likely that many editors will be searching for AllStarEcho in Wikipedia space under the name ASTAR? No. AniMate^draw 15:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Virdae. Adds no value to the project. It's also a cross-namespace redirect. Resolute 16:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The oft-stated reasons for deletion of cross-namespace redirects only apply to redirects out of the encyclopaedia proper into the non-encyclopaedia parts of the project. They don't apply to redirects from non-encyclopaedic areas (such as the project namespace, as in this case) to other locations. Mirrors, forks, and readers of the encyclopaedia proper, are entirely unaffected by the existence of this redirect. Uncle G (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Bad faith nom, but it's still a cross space redirect. Garion96 (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Nominator's motivation is suspect, but this is vanity garbage, really. I wouldn't mind seeing the past junk come up for another MfD as well, see how they fare. (Note: seems unlikely, but if this closes as a keep, I'm creating Wikipedia:Tarc. :) Tarc (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - serves no obvious purpose, other than being a vanity redirect. Andrei Rublev (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and Close per this past discussion and if you delete this, you should delete the following too:

• Wikipedia:GURCH → User talk:Gurch
• Wikipedia:EVULA → User:EVula/opining/I am always right
• Wikipedia:ZN → User Talk:Bishonen

And I'm sure there are others floating around.

I'll also note that the nom is someone who's had a negative editing history with me for a while now so this is no doubt in bad faith. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does appear that he has a negative attitude towards you, but the character of the nominator should have little to do with the nomination itself; it should be evaluated on its own merits, regardless of how we got here. Also, WP:OTHERCRAP is not much of a valid argument to make, as I'd prefer to get rid of those 3, and any others, anyways. Tarc (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, Users don't get redirects to their User space. It's disruptive. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:BEEFSTEW and WP:RAUL beg to differ. Uncle G (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per rationale at WP:ASE. MickMacNee (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for pretty much all the reasons listed above. Nom may be bad-faith, but it does bring up a good point. The meta namespace is for info/discussion about meta issues, not for redirects to user pages. If this closes as keep (thus upholding the current precedent), I can already see a Land rush happening. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yup. I may be first in line. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I've filed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ZN. MickMacNee (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete regardless of nom's motives. Cross space redirect with no reason to keep then other people have one. I also see from the previous MFD discussion that 2 of the 3 users involved would have been fine with deletion.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Certainly a bad faith nom but cross-space redirects are a bad idea however they come about. There are exceptions when a policy or guideline starts and them moves from one to another but this doesn't seem to be the case here. -- Banjeboi 02:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can come up with a policy reason to keep. If there was an important essay behind it or an historical reason, then we could keep, however this one has a history of about 1 day. I could speedy delete this as a cross namespace redirect, but at this point let the debate continue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, I believe all cross namespace redirects should be deleted. (barring some extraordinary reason) Prodego ^talk 04:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Then you should read and think about what the problems with cross-namespace redirects actually are, and more importantly, are not for redirects that lie entirely outside of the encyclopaedia content proper. I suggest reading Wikipedia talk:Cross-namespace redirects#Redirects from Wikipedia namespace to User namespace, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per delete comments above. Sarah 12:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This "vanity" cross-namespace redirect does nothing to help build the encyclopedia. Anomie⚔ 12:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete There's no reason for individual users to be creating shortcuts to themselves with a WP prefix. Alansohn (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete regardless of nom's or creator's motives. I would not go so far as to call it a "vanity" redirect, but this cross-namespace redirect is definitely not necessary. In addition, it sets a poor precedent for creation of similar shorcuts for other users. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete As I've stated elsewhere, I think "vanity" redirects that just go to someone's user page should be deleted, as it's hardly a shortcut, but redirects to subpages that happen to bear a user's name shouldn't. Take that position with a grain of salt, given the existence of WP:EVULA, but I do think there's a difference here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete no, just no.--Otterathome (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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. Ruslik_Zero 17:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ASE

Users don't need shortcuts. Damiens.rf 13:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:JJB which goes to a so-called "friends list". Sarah 03:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why not? What's it hurting? (Please note that Damiens.rf and AllStarEcho have a bit of an ongoing feud, and I'm not sure this nomination is made in good faith.) – Quadell ^(talk) 13:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment If you take these to WP:RFD it'd probably be deleted as a cross-namespace redirect. --64.85.210.121 (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - What kind of harm is it doing to the project? User shortcuts have been nominated before...and kept. In regards to a good faith nomination, I agree with Quadell's assessment. APK (If You Wanna) 13:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:NOHARM. --Damiens.rf 13:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • See this. APK (If You Wanna) 13:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
      • See WP:OTHERCRAP. --Damiens.rf 14:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Considering the nom's attitude (above) and the disruptive editing mentioned here, this MfD was obviously made in bad faith. APK (If You Wanna) 14:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep no reason to change them, unless they are needed for something, although P:ASTAR (not nominated here) can probably be speedied, as it's in the article namespace. snigbrook (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Notwithstanding the probability of this being a bad faith nomination, such a shortcut adds no value to the project. It's also a cross-namespace redirect. Resolute 16:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Bad faith nom, but it's still a cross space redirect. Garion96 (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - serves no obvious purpose, other than being a vanity redirect. Andrei Rublev (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and Close per this past discussion and if you delete this, you should delete the following too:

• Wikipedia:GURCH → User talk:Gurch
• Wikipedia:EVULA → User:EVula/opining/I am always right
• Wikipedia:ZN → User Talk:Bishonen

And I'm sure there are others floating around.

I'll also note that the nom is someone who's had a negative editing history with me for a while now so this is no doubt in bad faith. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, Users don't get redirects to their User space. It's not helpful to the project. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure vanicruft. The very idea that this should just be kept because it's not used for anything else has got to be a joke. I already end up many a time at the wrong Wikipedia policy/process page by trying to guess the right acronym, we don't need to be directing people to user pages aswell. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Unnecessary cross-project redirect. I'd not be opposed to any of the others listed as a keep rationale being deleted as well. AniMate^draw 19:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect that serves no purpose but the vanity of the user. I mean seriously, is there someone other than Allstarecho who uses this to contact the user? Also, looking at the redirect mentioned by Snigbrook above, I'd request Allstarecho to disclose any other such redirects that are being used. This debate is given as the right for such redirects. ^LeaveSleaves 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I've filed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ZN. MickMacNee (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete regardless of nom's motives. Cross space redirect with no reason to keep then other people have one. I also see from the previous MFD discussion that 2 of the 3 users involved would have been fine with deletion.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete completely unnecessary. Viridae^Talk 23:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - shortcuts to essays are one thing. Shortcuts to talk pages are entirely different. Many people in the past RfD page above make compelling arguments for deletion of WP:GURCH and WP:ZN which I believe apply here. Should WP:JJB be nominated as well...? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Certainly a bad faith nom but cross-space redirects are a bad idea however they come about. There are exceptions when a policy or guideline starts and them moves from one to another but this doesn't seem to be the case here. -- Banjeboi 02:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and salt unless someone can come up with a policy reason to keep. If there was an important essay behind it or an historical reason, then we could keep, however this one has a history of about 1 day. I could speedy delete this as a cross namespace redirect, but at this point let the debate continue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, I believe all cross namespace redirects should be deleted. (barring some extraordinary reason) Prodego ^talk 04:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This "vanity" cross-namespace redirect does nothing to help build the encyclopedia. Anomie⚔ 12:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the delete comments above. Sarah 12:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete There's no reason for individual users to be creating shortcuts to themselves with a WP prefix. Alansohn (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment It is worth noting that WP:GURCH is now at RfD, and Gurch has placed a speedy delete tag on the redirect. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete regardless of nom's or creator's motives. I would not go so far as to call it a "vanity" redirect, but this cross-namespace redirect is definitely not necessary. In addition, it sets a poor precedent for creation of similar shorcuts for other users. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete – regardless of either party's motives, it's not good to have random CNRs for specific users; it'd be generally unhelpful to let this stand as a potential precedent for others, like Black Falcon said. Also, it is plausible that a guideline/essay may be created that abbreviates to "ASE" as a shortcut, and userspace redirects shouldn't be a hindrance to that. Jamie^☆S93 17:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete As I've stated elsewhere, I think "vanity" redirects that just go to someone's user page should be deleted, as it's hardly a shortcut, but redirects to subpages that happen to bear a user's name shouldn't. Take that position with a grain of salt, given the existence of WP:EVULA, but I do think there's a difference here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete no, just no.--Otterathome (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all (Yes, I am aware that this discussion only covers one, but my thoughts are the same for the rest). Since these are cross-namespace redirects, they should be nuked. The contents of the target page won't be affected, but there is no reason for any user to have a mainspace redirect. Horologium (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 02:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Joe9320/Illogicopedia

I asked the author about this page back in April, pointing out that 1.) Illogicopedia has been salted, and 2.) not one, but two of the site's admins even admitted to the site's lack of notability in its AFD. The author of this userpage didn't take me seriously at all when I asked for secondary sources, saying "Remember, I can make the impossible possible. We will wait and see." Given that this doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of becoming an article, and the author's utter lack of seriousness towards such things as notability and reliable sources, I believe that it should be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep a harmless piece of userspace. Also keep the image too. Notability rule does not apply to user subpage. Potential to become an article does not apply to user subpage. User pages does not have to have secondary sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep it! Screw this, I'm saving this page! Joe9320 of the Wikipedia Party | Contact the Encyclopedian Embassy 09:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Becoming an article is not a requirement in userspace, hence not a reason for deletion. Nor is notability a requirement. Collect (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Unless they're actively working on addressing the reasons why it was deleted (and with a salted page, that is quite unlikely), users don't get to keep deleted articles in userspace to make a point. Toss it. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, violates "copies of other pages" user page policy. ^blurred_peace ☮ 18:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• To be more specific, "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. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." ^blurred_peace ☮ 18:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Closing admin, please read that. I think it says more than any of the "keep, it's harmless" !votes do. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete user was already warned about this being deleted a month ago (User_talk:Joe9320#User:Joe9320.2FIllogicopedia). Article is clearly not notable, per nom. Users last edit to it was on 27 April 2009. Seeing as the user is a member of its sister site, it could be seen as a violation of WP:SPAM, WP:COI and WP:USER (see Blurpeace quote).--Otterathome (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete user space is not for long term hosting of deleted articles. Gigs (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep*. User apparently believes that wikipedia should have such an article. Maybe he's right. As a contributing wikipedian, he's entitled to host that opinion in his userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content" seems pretty clear to me. Gigs (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I know. But as this one concerns satire connected to wikipedia, I think it should be allowed to stay, in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, that's an interesting take. I could see that. Gigs (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Well a consensus has been achieved to show the article isn't notable. And user space is for opinions, but not a depository for deleted articles that are no longer being worked on.--Otterathome (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not notable. It's not OK as an archive of a deleted article. But it would be OK as a statement of the user's opinion related to wikipedia. We should ask User:Joe9320 what its purpose is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • If Joe wishes to express his opinions regarding illogical aspects of the Wikipedia...of which I agree that there are more than a few...then I believe he is free to express those (while being mindful of WP:NPA and the like) on his main user page, without the need of keeping them in the form of a deleted article. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • *Keep, subject to it being tranformed into a user-essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Comment- How can I make an essay? I rather be on Uncyclopedia than here. I'm not even allowed to work up on an article! This is hypocrisy! Joe9320 of the Wikipedia Party | Contact the Encyclopedian Embassy 07:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
            • What is the relevance of your Illogicopedia to wikipedia? Is there anything to be learned from it? What do you have to do with it? The standard concern here, as I see it, is that your page exists to promote something. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This is not an essay, or anything like an essay. So I don't know why you are bringin that it's an essay. Maybe this has been brought out of confusion due to people not reading the page properly.--Otterathome (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I got one comment for you: Why delete a harmless piece of userspace? Joe9320 of the Wikipedia Party | Contact the Embassy 09:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    • It's about thin ends of wedges. If anyone can keep an archive of any deleted page, then it will become commonplace. Userspace might then start to host a shadow, inferior encyclopedia, to the detriment of the reputation of the project. Why do you want to host this page? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    • See WP:NOHARM. Oh and it's against about 5 other guidelines/policies mentioned above.--Otterathome (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

2009-06-14

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 userpage in current form, delete subpage. Black Kite 20:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User:TRMFT

Wikipedia is not Myspace. Page represents the author's only efforts to contribute. -- bd2412 T 01:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Also User:TRMFT/TemperMental. MER-C 04:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete both as blatant advertising, possible hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Edit back down to a reasonable userpage for an intending contributor. Delete/block if he reposts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Done with this edit. Was definitely too promotional. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete User:TRMFT/TemperMental, just a copy of the unreasonable userpage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with deleting User:TRMFT/TemperMental. As for the user page, obviously keep iff it stays in a non-self-promotional form. bd2412 T 00:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak conditional keep user page if it remains non-promotional. Delete User:TRMFT/TemperMental per SmokeyJoe. All of the user's contributions so far have been self-promotional: User:TRMFT, User:TRMFT/TemperMental (userfied from TemperMental), and adding himself to the list at Long Branch, New Jersey#Notable residents. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 21:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 Black Kite 20:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Kyprissxx

Appears to be some sort of game. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wierd. I wonder if he'll turn up and say what it's all about.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The latest in a long line of TV show related games in userspace, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TopModelFanmade and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ashlotte for others. MER-C 04:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• User has now replaced the content with a rather nasty attack, I have therefore asked that it be speedy deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Which I have reverted to prior version. CSD would only be appropriate if there were no non attack version. Actually, it was not an attack-- merely the user expressing his outrage at a page being proposed for deletion in his user space. Can't say I blame him, though it does not appear to be consistent with WP:userpage. Sometimes a little patience is in order when users do not understand our policies and guidelines. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I have attempted to enter into dialogue with the page creator and to de-escalate the matter. It is unfortunate this matter was not approached via discussion and education rather than in the way it was. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• So, you don't think "Fuck you cunt" is an attack? You can't say you blame them? Because their obviously inappropriate, not related to Wikipedia in any way page was nominated for deletion, and they were politely informed of all this [3] and asked to please explain it's purpose? Not biting the newcomers does not mean ignoring it if they are here only to engage in activities utterly unrelated to Wikipedia. Also, as has been observed here, there is an odd new trend of these weird game show pages being created by users who apparently think Wikipedia is a free web host, and they don't do anything but build these junky user pages. I think it is important that a message be sent that this is not a proper use of Wikipedia. I'm not sure where these folks are getting this idea, but it is becoming a nuisance. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 subst single transclusion and delete. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User:MrMetalFLower/Template:Illogicopedian

Userbox of non-notable wiki created by MrMetalFLower (talk · contribs · email) who has obvious conflict of interest with the site, see their talk page. Only used on User:Hindleyite who also is likely to have a COI with the site. Otterathome (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Userfy Harmless userbox, but unlikely to be used outside Hindleyite's page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's already in the userspace.--Otterathome (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oops, my bad. Subst to Hindleyite's page, then, since almost nobody else is like to ever use it (note that Illogicopedia has been salted.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Do you mean move or substitute? I think you meant substitute.--Otterathome (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 Usefy. Ruslik_Zero 16:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Illogicopedian-othername

Userbox for non-notable Wiki. Only being used on creators page and User:Ryan Taylor/userboxlist. So substitute both and delete. Otterathome (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Illogicopedian is used a bit more frequently but it requires that the user has the same name on Illogicopedia as on Wikipedia, which is the reason for this one. I think that both templates should be moved to the user namespace. Someone the Person (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Userfy per above since it's only used on one userpage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Userfy as not violative of anything really. Collect (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 is blatantly unacceptable as in the nature of an attack page and should have been speedied. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Setwisohi/Thatcher

• delete userbox that makes a likely false assumption, or celebrates the potential death of a person, very close to an attack page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• delete divisive userbox, attack on a living person, no encyclopaedic value, no place on a collaborative project GTD 08:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: the user is not the only person who will be glad to see the old girl shuffle off this mortal coil. This is a statement of the user's feelings, not an attack on the Iron Biddy herself - tastelessness is the height of the user's crime.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: It is just a user-box. If we start to remove all user-boxes which express opinions that some might find offensive - there will soon be few user-boxes left! Setwisohi (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Ooh, resorting to the slippery slope argument, are we? Personally, I'm fine with userboxes like these, so long as impunity is given to both sides of the political spectrum.--WaltCip (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I defend lots of userboxes with topics which might be offensive. This one goes beyond the edge of my defense. It is not an "opinion" but a specific desire that another be harmed or die. As such, it falls well outside the scope of normal free speech in a userbox. Collect (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: This has no encyclopedic value and is a direct attack on an individual. I question Setwisohi's latest POV edits in conjunction with this userbox. seicer | talk | contribs 12:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I have no problem with people questioning my right to free speech. But who is the troll making off topic remarks? Setwisohi (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy is an official policy of long-standing. This is an encyclopaedia, written on a set of privately owned wikis that are open to volunteers like us for the sole purpose of writing that encyclopaedia. It is not a platform for making speeches. Uncle G (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• keep People are indeed entitled to their own opinions. Setwisohi's userbox is no more offensive than a userbox supporting a nationalist (racist) political party. JaneVannin (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In fact, thinking about it a bit more, I find this whole debate rather sinister. It reminds me, in a minor way, of the Mohammad cartoons. Like his/her opinions or not, freedom of speech, the right to express an opinion - however unpleasant others may find it - is what distinguishes Free countries from non-Free countries. Of course it has to stay. Change vote to strong keep JaneVannin (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think you understand how freedom of speech actually works. It means that the government may not limit speech. Private entities are not subject to the same restriction. Delete per Collect, and frankly the sooner we get rid of offensive userboxes entirely, the better for the project. //roux   14:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Not only is Setwisohi entitled to his opinions, it's a net benefit to the project that he chooses to disclose opinions that represent an identifiable bias, as this clearly does. Moreover, despite the nominator's assertion, there's no implied threat here. This type of expression in userspace should be allowed. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Setwisohi is entitled to his opinion, but Wikipedia is not the place to express that you will celebrate somebody's death. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep too trivial a problem to bother about . Non-inflammatory language. DGG (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. This userbox is a personal attack on a living person, which violates Wikipedia:USERBOX#Content restrictions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • put she's a major politician, and must be quite accustomed to comments like this, and worse. We cannot tolerate threats or implications of violence, and neither need she, but verbal attacks saying that "I'll be glad when you're finally dead" are not threats of violence. DGG (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't say this userbox was a threat of violence, because it isn't. It is a personal attack, though. The fact that the subject of the personal attack has been subjected to lots of other personal attacks does not make additional personal attacks appropriate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The civility and NPA policies documented in the userbox content restrictions apply only to other editors, not to celebrities or users who do not edit Wikipedia. The userbox is within established boundaries.--WaltCip (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I think it would be very unfortunate if Wikipedia adopted a policy that we are supposed to be civil to each other, but that third parties who don't edit Wikipedia are fair game for personal attacks. WP:USERBOX currently states: "Essentially: Express what you do like, rather than what you don't like." So if I created a userbox that said "This user hates meatloaf", in reference to the food, that would probably be deleted as a "dislikes" userbox. But under the standard suggested above, it would be okay to have a userbox that said "This user will be glad when Meat Loaf is dead", in reference to the singer, because he is not a Wikipedia editor. I can't agree with that kind of standard. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Let's put this in more immediate terms, DGG: If a volunteer librarian at your library placed a notice on xyr library desk that read "I'll celebrate the day when Barack Obama/Bill Clinton/George W. Bush is dead.", would you tell that volunteer to remove it? Would you do so if other volunteers complained about it? How would you reply to assertions that the notice "does no harm", that the volunteer "is entitled to xyr opinions", that it benefits the library for the volunteer to state this opinion on xyr desk, and that the library desk at which xe worked was xyr own to affix notices to as xe sees fit? Uncle G (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • If xe put such a notice on her own individual study desk where she was working, I would not mind in the least, any more than if xe wore it as a button. If xe put the notice on the library circulation desk, then I would mind very much. If this user puts such a notice on a WP space page, I'd remove it immediately as vandalism. But it's in user space. DGG (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete "I'll be glad when you die" is an attack however you phrase it. Guest9999 (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Divisive userbox that is unrelated to Wikipedia and doesn't provide any information useful to collaboration. snigbrook (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• I find it amazing that so many people feel so worked up about this. "Too trivial a problem to bother about" said DGG: yes indeed. "Unrelated to Wikipedia and doesn't provide any information useful to collaboration" says Snigbrook, and similar remarks from others: true, but the same is true of much stuff on thousands of pages in user space, and these users are not clammering for them to be removed. "Divisive", say GTD and snigbrook: somewhat ironic, in relation to the person who is widely regarded as the most divisive UK politician of her century, and in any case the userbox is no more divisive than any other statement of political position. "A specific desire that another be harmed or die" says Collect: no it isn't, it is an indication the user will be pleased when the inevitable happens, and she does die. Uncle G refers to the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy", and says "It is not a platform for making speeches". However, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of wikipedians who have declarations of their political affiliations on their user pages, and after spending some time searching through Uncle G's contributions I have failed to find any evidence that he has a history seeking to have them removed. I do not deny that this userbox is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, but, as I have indicated above, it is trivial, and no worse by any reasonable standard than a lot more which is allowed to exist in user space. Yes, I know that "bad stuff exists elsewhere therefore this bad stuff should be allowed to exist too" is not a valid argument, but that is not my point: my point is that if the stated reasons were the true motives for objecting to this, then many more things would be objected to as well. "Too trivial a problem to bother about" said DGG: yes indeed, and my conclusion is:

Let it be. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • If it was the name of a Wikipedia user in the box I'm sure it would quickly be deleted - probably G10 - despite the fact that (assuming all editors are human) every one of us will die. I don't see why we shouldn't hold the same standard for the treatment of others as we would for each other. Guest9999 (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • You need to read what I wrote in the proper context of what I was in fact replying to. Uncle G (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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. Ruslik_Zero 16:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Steely Dan

Long since abandoned wikiproject. Only seven members, five of which are inactive since 2007. No relevant discussion about the topic on the talk page at all. This is almost a clone of the former Billy Talent wikiproject, which was just deleted for the same reason. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep - already tagged historical, deletion doesn't save space. –xeno^talk 02:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• What benefit is there to keeping it? The Billy Talent project was tagged as historical under nearly identical circumstances (only it had 7/9 inactive members instead of 5/7) and it got unanimously deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just because something does get deleted, doesn't necessarily mean that it should have. Since Wikipedia saves exactly zero space deleting these old artifacts, there's no net gain, and possible negatives as outlined below by Graeme. –xeno^talk 08:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - a project that seemed to be fairly active in the past. The history may as well be visible to any one who cares to look. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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. Stillborn project. Ruslik_Zero 16:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Uncle Kracker

Stillborn WikiProject, only one contributor who has only one edit since December '08. Absolutely nothing here is salvageable, much like WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Billy Talent. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or userfy. –xeno^talk 02:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

2009-06-13

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 Redirect Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 02:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiproject McDonald's

Only one member. We already have larger wikiprojects that cover the McDonald's articles; there aren't enough for a whole wikiproject for the chain itself. This user also has a huge string of questionable edits. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Make taskforce (possibly "Fast food") of WikiProject Food & Drink. –xeno^talk 22:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I've left a note for that parent wikiproject. –xeno^talk 00:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Foodservice taskforce. –xeno^talk 19:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge (was delete) - There is already a restaurant and commercial food taskforce, WP:Foodservice. This clearly falls under that, if he would wish to contribute through that it would be welcome. --Jeremy (blah blah) 02:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Not entirely inappropriate. Can we solve with with merge and redirect without insulting the only member? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Insults? Who? --Jeremy (blah blah) 04:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The only contributor, User:Mr. Prez. User talk:Mr. Prez suggests to me that this user is having a hard time coming to terms with how Wikipedia works. In nominating this for deletion, as opposed to a more positively framed "merge and redirect", Mr. Prez may get the message that all is effort is to be judged worthless. Deletions can easily be bitey. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as taskforce per Xeno. The Junk Police (reports|works) 11:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Again, we already have one, WP:Foodservice--Jeremy (blah blah) 11:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom etc. --Kleinzach 04:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Turn it into a taskforce. And keep it Joe9320 of the Wikipedia Party | Contact the Encyclopedian Embassy; 10:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  Jerem43 say that we already have one, WP:Foodservice. The Junk Police (reports|works) 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I say - We already have one, WP:Foodservice. --Jeremy (blah blah) 03:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mr. Prez's desire to set up a WikiProject for McDonald's is commendable but, as noted, there is already a task force (WP:Foodservice). As for the idea of merging and redirecting, I'd be for it if there was any content to merge... The WikiProject is a new one and, understandably, contains only some basic content. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• No consensus? The Junk Police (reports|works) 02:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • No, slight consensus for merge. By the way you stated your opinion was the same as Xeno, he stated merge. --Jeremy (blah blah) 05:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 as this. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 02:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:DRUOX

Terribly fails WP:USER: extensive autobiography/free-webhosting of an editor who has no contributions except building this page, and edits are not aimed at making this page (which was userfied or recreated after mainspace deletion) into one that even passes CSD-A7. Attempts to explain this problem have met responses of "I was told I could do this". Various third-party editors have contributed and not helped (and told me that the user would have wanted this) so this page is nothing but a magnet for this ongoing misuse (borderline meatpuppetry, if I weren't in a good mood). DMacks (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Del - per nom. //roux   17:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above, WP:WEBHOST applies. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Matt Deres (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Edit to cut back content in balance with the user's non-userspace contributions. There is no need for MfDs to address these sort of problems in the first instance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • DMacks' blanking was overdone. I suggest this edit as appropriate. Basic information, clearly non-promotional, is OK for an intending contributor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I suppose, but I also see no actual intentions regarding contributing to the encyclopedia. On the contrary, everything I see suggests that the user is only here for self-promotion (which could well be as a result of some earlier misinformation; I'm not making any assumptions about good or bad faith here). In any case, you're probably right that MFD isn't entirely appropriate, though I'm not sure what would be better. WP:ANI? Matt Deres (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
      • If he reposts, then best forum in practice seems to be MfD. If the editor continues to act against an MfD consensus, then he can be blocked. See User:My21cents for an example. This MfD is appropriate, I hadn't initially noted that DMacks had already attempted editing the page. WP:ANI should be reserved for issues requiring immediate attention, or relating to administrator actions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I have no objection to the content in SmokeyJoe's form, maybe with a {{userpage}} to clarify to others (lots of third-party edits from new/anon editors) what this page actually is. DMacks (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 Redirect Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 02:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Andymarek/Climate Table Precipitation

• User:Andymarek/Temperatures
• User:Andymarek/Climate Table
• User:Andymarek/Climate Table Temperatures
• User:Andymarek/USCensusPopTest
• User:Andymarek/Climate Table/color

Abandoned test pages in sandbox-space. User is long gone. Clearly test pages, G2 declined. Nothing worth retaining. Note that the rest of this user's userspace is also at MFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Convert to redirects to User:Andymarek, if they are so clearly old test pages and if they bother someone somehow. Deleting them would be rude, and with no benefit. The user is not long gone. He still exists. We'd like for him to return to active contributing, not shut doors, unwelcoming him. There are not time limits on sandbox activities. Users contribute when they can, and we should understand that users can have real lives. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep all no point in deleting, sandboxes and experiments can stay around for years if harmless. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Featured_articles

There was a naming dispute almost a year ago: it was proposed to rename Wikipedia:Featured articles into the portal with the same name. While this proposal was rejected, the proposer still created the portal, which was intended to serve as a supplement to the Portal:Featured content. Unfortunately Portal:Featured articles is not maintained properly (there is even no talk page), and largely duplicates Wikipedia:Featured articles. Moreover Portal:Featured content does not need supplements in my opinion. So, I think, the portal should be deleted. Ruslik_Zero 13:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Portal created against consensus, redundant, not maintained. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Kleinzach 04:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, more or less redundant to WP:FA. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, several of the statements above about the background of this page are incorrect. That said, I'd agree there is no need to keep it. What actually happened was a dispute amongst various people about the location and content of the different types of 'featured content' pages. Most of these pages (e.g. WP:FA) are currently almost entirely focused on helping Wikipedia editors with the process of designating things as 'featured'. Some argued that they should instead be made more like 'portals' where there is a mix of process information and a showcase of the resultant content for readers of the encyclopedia. I created the P:FA page, at the suggestion of people on both sides of that dispute, solely as an example of what such a 'mixed purpose' page might look like. I noted at the time that a major problem with such a parallel structure (both project and portal namespace pages for each type of featured content) would be finding people to maintain them. As expected, that hasn't happened. Ergo, the page might as well go. Though no doubt this 'project vs portal' conflict will come up again... as it has repeatedly in the past. --CBD 15:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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... I read the arguments of the both sides. The keep side has given solid reasons why the page should be kept, and the other side has also given solid reasons why the page should be deleted. Both sides have strong points. After analyzing the arguments of the both sides, there is no consensus to keep or delete the page.

In most cases, when there is no consensus to change the status of the article, the article will be kept. But, this is a page about a living person, and the notability of Mr. Boothroyd is low. As Jenna has pointed out below, Mr. Boothroyd doesn't want his biography on WP. We should not keep borderline biographies, when the subject does not want them.

Close: no consensus, default to delete. AdjustShift (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd

Rationale

This was nominated for deletion by me on May 23 and was succesfully deleted as a non-notable biography. It was then recreated out-of-process, nominated on May 27 for another AFD instead of being Speedy Deleted for some reason, and then deleted again. It finally came up on WP:DRV on May 27 then, here, where it's deleted status was heavily endorsed. JoshuaZ then got it recreated in his userspace, and then Childofmightnight took it over to try to make it notable.

There is still no evidence that David Boothroyd meets our notability standards. The article is like any number of truly "local" politicians in urban areas, who are not executive level--utterly borderline; this is a non-notable BLP article about a municipal council member. There's been no real indication that anyone will be able to make this notable and for contentious BLPs where the subject has requested deletion, there is no valid reason to do the work on-wiki; if either user has a computer they can use something as simple as Notepad or any Word Processor to work on this. Once the user is notable, they can present a finalized draft at WP:DRV. Consider: this link is the final JoshuaZ version. This link is the present Childofmidnight version as I write this MFD. Notice... the complete lack of difference in referencing, functionally? If an additional 32 edits can't do much but stylistic changes, and not address the principal and ongoing concerns of notability, I don't much see the point of prolonging this any further.

Before anyone asks--yes, I'm WP:ABF on this and assuming political concerns, that this BLP is being kept around by not one but two users as a form of punishment or hanging chad or something weird by two users in regards to the fact it's User:Sam Blacketer. JoshuaZ has fallen afoul of the AC by being removed as an administrator for his abusive actions in the past towards WP:BLP subjects and victims, in particular Daniel Brandt to the level that he illegal used socks to game AFD/DRV[4]; Childofmidnight has been especially vocal at the AC notification board about some massive and murky conspiracy theory to cover up David Boothroyd in response to the Sam Blacketer fiasco, up to and including (apparently) User:Jehochman being a shadow member of the Arbcom and me (of all people) somehow being some enabler or something.

Once/if/whenever Boothroyd is notable, someone can present a list of sources at WP:DRV, which is frankly all that is needed to "unlock" a page via DRV, since DRV at that point is just a gauge of whether a page would survive future AFD. It's time we stamp all of the stupid in the neck, get on with our lives, and write an encyclopedia. rootology (C)(T) 13:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments 1

*Keep: It may be pointless, but I can't see why User:ChildofMidnight can't keep it in his sandbox.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)*Delete: per Jayron32 after 20th if nothing has changed--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: current version has no BLP issue relating to User:Sam Blacketer and in 2005 the consensus was that the article at that time (ie before the controversy) was notable. OTOH, if the closing admin decides I'm too unreliable to take any notice of, I'll understand that too.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Because 1) theres no evidence Boothroyd is notable; 2) BLP concerns trump the "I can't see why..." rationale 101% of the time; 3) this was nuked at two AFDs and' a DRV. rootology (C)(T) 13:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of people have non-notable (or not verified notable or not sure if it's notable) stuff in their sandboxes. Tell me how it violates BLP and I'll change my mind.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

1) The subject has requested deletion and is non-notable, so it ought to be deleted, BLP; 2) the subject got himself in trouble on Wikipedia, it was in the media for a fraction of a second, and now two users--did you read my entire rationale in context?--are fighting tooth and nail to keep his article on Wikipedia mysteriously, perhaps as punishment--BLP; 3) we keep sandbox stuff of non-notable content all the time, sure... but not BLPs, especially that have been through two successful AFD discussions and a successful DRV to be removed. Show me a couple of more of non-notable BLPs in sandboxes that have failed AFD & DRV, and I'll show you the MFDs for them that'll be created immediately. Do you have any? rootology (C)(T) 13:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Rootology. I see no reason for keeping article content in a sandbox if it shows no chance of ever becoming a useful article. It's User:Netrat/United World Chart all over again. As Jehochman highlights, it's BLP problems out the yin-yang, and there're no signs of progress. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete to help end the drama. JoshuaZ and CoM seem to be doing this as some sort of political exercise. User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd is just a recreation of deleted content from David Boothroyd and Sam Blacketer controversy. There's no sign of real progress, and the page remains a WP:BLP violation because it overly emphasizes wiki-controversies. Jehochman ^Talk 13:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  My comment is premature, as User:Daniel reversed his close of Sam Blacketer controversy. I think taking things one step at a time is not a bad idea. I will reconsider in about two days, when that other discussion is expected to close. Jehochman ^Talk 21:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment only I userfied this article in good faith, based on a request to do so. Given the sensitive nature on this, I notified JoshuaZ that he had one week (which would have expired June 15) to bring this up to community standards. I have no opinion on this article at all. My only request to the closing admin is that this MFD run until June 20th (5 days after June 15th) so that the original terms of the good-faith deal are kept in place. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• As the nominator I have no problem with that. Finality done right. rootology (C)(T) 14:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Politically motivated MFD. We don't delete things around here simply because some people find them to be uncomfortable. There is furthermore a long history of letting people work on drafts in userspace and this is a slap in the face to that. Jtrainor (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I was waiting for the first such comment, and I'll just point out (anyone old-timer can fill in the details, if they feel like it) that any accusations of an AFD or MFD about this from me of this being a political thing in regards to the "Sam Blacketer Controversy" or "Defence of Arbcom" are about the least likely scenario imaginable. It would be like accusing James Carville of setting up the Monica Lewinsky fiasco for Kenneth Star. rootology (C)(T) 14:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep until decision at DRV There seems to be a particular effort to stamp out wp-related articles. This sandbox article - as long as it does not defame the subject -- is well within policy to be kept as such - in this case it might be limited to the time the article is reasonable worked on. It was intended to bring the finished result to DRV for approval. Preempting this with yet another deletion attempt smell more of censorship than with BLP protection. DB is a public figure there is no doubt about that. Is he notable? He is classed as an expert in his field. He is a published author. His actions on Wikipedia have attracted world-wide media attention, which would not have happened if Sam Blacketer had been Joe Blogs but was propelled by his previous minor notability. Pointing the spotlight on DH has helped established that. OTOH I do agree that the emphasis of the final article has to be the person and not this relatively minor incident. Agathoclea (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, the original intent was to bring this to MFD and not DRV for approval, per the original terms of the userfication, see: [5]. This MFD did jump the gun by a day or two, but the intent of the deal worked out was that this would always be handled in this forum. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Then see this as Keep as notable but fix any concerns of unsourced negative information and WP:UNDUE ie Fix not delete. Agathoclea (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Jimbo Wales ("fairly clear BLP violation")[6] and puke to one-up Thatcher [7]. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In case there is any doubt: I do have policy-based arguments, e.g. lack of notability, intent to improperly recreate a properly deleted article, attack page against another editor in user space, technical violation of WP:OUTING. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

While there is WP:BLP violation, I do not thing there is any outing. Boothroyd has identified himself and does not appear to be complaining about any invasion of privacy. He is requesting courtesy deletion of the article on grounds that he's borderline notable. Jehochman ^Talk 21:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment Userdrafts are allowed. Having a draft in userspace was specifically allowed by the closer of the DRV so your claim that there's an intent to "improperly recreate a properly deleted article" is ridiculous. Lack of notability is a claim that should be decided at a proper DRV after people have had time to assemble sources. Calling this an attack page is simply so ridiculous I need to wonder if you've actually read the draft in question. And claiming that there is any violation of OUTING (even a "technical" one) is simply false given that he stated who he was on Wiki. Moreover, if OUTING prevents us from working on actual encyclopedic topics, we have a problem. The encyclopedia takes priority. To use the obvious hypothetical, if the New York Times outed a notable individual as being a specific editor and it was relevant to their article, having a mention in their article would not be a problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, so it would be OK for me to start working on User:Hans Adler/Joshua Zelinsky, using all the non-notable, non-reliable stuff I can find on the web? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
      • That's a strawman argument in that we've already had at least one AfD that decided that Boothroyd was notable so working on an article to make the community happy about it again isn't the same at all. Furthermore, I'm not someone who has become publicly involved in politics. And there'd be a whole POINT issue. But, if you genuinely think that I'm notable and want to demonstrate that feel free to work on a page in your userspace (if you want, I'll even help you assemble sources. I don't think I'm notable but I see nothing wrong with you trying to do show otherwise). I'd hope that the draft be NOINDEXed as the Boothroyd draft is. I'd hope that you wouldn't use "all" the "non-reliable stuff" you can find on the web, just as we have not done so in this draft. Indeed, all the sources used are from mainstream publications and such that are generally considered reliable. But subject to minimal constraints of reasonability feel free. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
        • You are seriously arguing that this deletion discussion from 2005 carries any weight now? Where a guy of at most borderline notability asked for his article, which had no 3rd-party sources whatsoever, to be deleted, and since WP:BLP didn't exist yet it was kept for spurious reasons? I think it can hardly get more silly than that. This article is wrong for exactly the same reasons that an article on you would be wrong. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
          • • I'm arguing that a) that the discussion has non-zero weight and b) he didn't request a courtesy deletion in the sense of "I don't want an article" but he asked for its deletion in the "I'm not sure I'm notable". That distinction should be pretty clear. In any event, that was only one example of a variety that I listed. And if you think in good faith that I might be notable you are welcome to try to establish a draft showing that. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
              • Giving non-zero weight to a pre-BLP deletion discussion full of inane arguments? OK, you win. This is the point where I stop assuming good faith. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
                • Yes. The relevant issue is that the community decided that it was notable. That's the primary issue relevant from that discussion. The introduction of new policies doesn't make everything magically operate on a blank slate. You are entitled to disagree with that position (although I'd be very curious if you could expand your reasoning as to why you disagree) but thinking otherwise doesn't mean bad faith. Please understand that just because you disagree with someone, even disagree strongly, is not a reason to "stop assuming good faith"(your words, not mine). JoshuaZ (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • I have nothing to add, so you can stop digging. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The nom is filled with misinformation. The article was kept for four years. The subject did not request that it be deleted or indicate that they wanted it deleted, they nommed it in 2005 saying they weren't sure they were notable enough and their friends all decided they were to which they made no objection. There's been a lot more news coverage to establish notability since then. There's an article on the subject'sbook. The recent deletion was totally out of process lasting only 40 minutes after which Jehochman deleted it, repeatedly, and threatened anyone who tried to work on it with a block.

• I resent the accusations of bad faith, when this article has been treated in a totally different manner than any other BLP. There are no BLP violations for this public political official who has taken public stands on issues. We don't delete articles just because there's bad news for the subject, especially not aggressively and out of process. I was given until June 15 to work on the article and now Rootology went ahead and nommed it anyway. The bad faith and the lies are ongoing in this cover-up and it makes the whole situation stink much worse than the initial story. The lie that there aren't more sources is also disproved by those I posted on the articles talk page so I could add them. There is a rush to delete this article because powerful editors want it to go away and don't mind breaking our rules and violating our practices and integrity to do so. They owe us all an apology. And furthermore a sitting arbcom member threatened a user working on it in their userspace that their desysop review would be jeopardized if they continued to work on the article because arbcom didn't like people working on the article.ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• comment And to further the misinformation, the nominator has apparently conflated various misconceptions CoM had with various accusations against me which all have zero relevance to the matter at hand (never minding that I've repeatedly denied those accusations and am in the process of appealing to the ArbCom (again something the nominator knows, but apparently doesn't feel a need to mention)). The closer of the DRV agreed to allow 7 days of work time on this and to see what happened. Apparently, Rootology for reasons I don't fully understand isn't happy with that. (The fact that I'm also likely to support Sam in his RfA doesn't really jibe with the nominator's narrative but that's again how things seem to work). JoshuaZ (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. It's "deleted status" (that assertion is a joke in itself seeing as it was debated for barely two hours and deleted twice by the same admin for various specious reasons, none of which were valid for either a speedy or an incredibly short length of debate) was not "heavily endorsed" at DRV in the slightest. This is a NOINDEX user space copy of an article being prepared so that it can legitimately go for a full length deletion debate while being publicly viewable (not conveniently invisible as happened at DRV). If the BLP concerned admins are so insistent that this is still a BLP violation, the use your powers as they are defined, and speedy delete it as an attack page, otherwise, stop your manipulation of the deletion processes to suit some of your already wideley known personal views of the merits of the article, and allow the community to decide this article's fate in the proper manner. If prior admins hadn't made such a ball's up of the administration of it in the first place, this whole issue would not have been spread over umpteen venues already. MickMacNee (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I would just like to make a couple additional points regarding this abusive out of process deletion campaign over an article being worked on in good faith in userspace with permission: if there are any BLP violations in the article as it now stands, please remove them. Notability is typically assessed at a fair AfD hearing. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. [8] Thanks for the invitation. If the edit sticks I will change my !vote from "delete and puke" to "delete", since non-notability and out-of-process recreation will be the only remaining issues. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Don't be ridiculous. In what universe is any mention of a well-sourced event that was reported internationally constitute a BLP violation simply for mentioning it? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Puke again. In the same universe in which the press gets almost everything wrong about the event and we know this. In other words: in the same universe in which this is a huge BLP violation. I am very much surprised to find myself supporting a bloke who works for Bush's poodle's party, but what is going on here is incredibly immature. We know that all the sources for this articles are unreliable, because we know that almost everything they say is either wrong or severely misleading. See Talk:Sam_Blacketer_controversy#Statement_by_Hans_Adler for a longer explanation. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
        • • No, we know that some of the sources got some details severely wrong. Thus, we need to be careful in their use. That doesn't make them any less of reliable sources. And it would be appreciated if one could refrain from such remarks as "puke" which are wonderful for calling for emotional reactions but aren't very useful as logical arguments go. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Per Rootology.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, as there has been good work going on at the page in userspace which should be allowed to continue, and Keep as subject has received coverage in multiple secondary sources over a time period, even prior to recent events. Cirt (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  Could you link to the article you wrote about Boothroyd's book. That might help your argument. I am not opposed to a proper article, but the page that's currently hanging around userspace is so defective that it needs to be fixed pronto or go away. Jehochman ^Talk 21:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  Sure, the book written by David Boothroyd is Politico's Guide to the History of British Political Parties. Cirt (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  The fact that you could write an article about the book might indicate the possibility of writing one about the author. Up to now I have supported deleting the articles we've had about Boothroyd because none of them, nor any prior revision complied with WP:BLP. That's not to say that somebody couldn't write a proper article, but until one is written, I think we are better off deleting. People can save the old content on their local machines to work on it until there is an acceptable revision to post to Wikipedia for consideration. We also need to consider the subject's request for courtesy deletion. If he's borderline notable, we should respect his request. Jehochman ^Talk 21:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  The fact that you could write an article about the book might indicate the possibility of writing one about the author. Most certainly agree with this, his notability from coverage in secondary sources, in addition to reception of his overall work, is enough to write a good article, prior to this coverage in the press of recent events. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• keep This constitutes a BLP compliant draft. There appear to be a number of serious misconceptions, most of which have already been dealt with. However, one thing that needs to be clear is that this is a NOINDEX(i.e. not google searchable) page that constitutes a draft. Claims of UNDUE weight about the recent issues while interesting do not by themselves create a BLP violation when we are working on a draft. No one is claiming that any statements made therein is false and undue by itself is a difficult and subjective matter. If we followed this logic through, drafts of BLPs would never be acceptable. Moreover, the article is making steady progress as we are finding more material about Boothroyd's successful career. Building articles takes time. That process is still ongoing. Let us ask, would we allow such a draft if it had nothing to do with Wikipedia? The answer seems to be yes. Let us then evaluate this with those same objective standards. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  Could you take out the questtionable or challenged content, and work on the basics first? Start with thoroughly reliable and unchallenged sources to begin. Jehochman ^Talk 21:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there's zero being claimed to be factually incorrect in the current version. The sole claim at this point is UNDUE. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion: take out all the navel gazing, self-referential stuff. Show that a proper article can be written about him, ignoring his involvement in Wikipedia. Then, when that's done, toss in one or two sentences about his involvement here. Jehochman ^Talk 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So let me understand, is that content being actually challenged? Moreover, this is a bit strange in that it increases that bound for an article to be notable. It might be that he meets notability with all the coverage together but not without that content. If the desire is to make the strongest possible case for keeping the article that doesn't work. I will however note that the content about the Wikipedia matter has been limited to only a few sentences. How many sentences that should actually have is an editorial decision that should be essentially decided if a decision to keep an article is made. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you also address the issue of why we'd write an article about a borderline notable subject after that subject has twice requested that the article be deleted? Why is it so important to write this article when the subject does not want it? Jehochman ^Talk 21:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's easy to do but not relevant to the above. First, of all. Boothroyd has not "twice requested" that the article be deleted. A few years ago express the position that he wasn't notable. The community disagreed. That's not a request for deletion in the same sense of courtesy deletion. The second time he gave what frankly seemed like a pretty non-committal opinion making it clear that his friends consider the entire thing to be more silly than anything else. Hardly a stirring example of deep emotional hurt or anything like that. Even if he had made a serious request for deletion, there's no consensus about under what circumstances we should allow courtesy deletions. One of the more common standards is that we honor such requests when people are not willing public figures. As an elected politician, he is a willing public figure.

Incidentally, I'm becoming increasingly amused that even as all the claims of BLP are being made here and at the AfD for the general controversy article, I'm apparently the only Wikipedian who is bothering to go and explain in the comments sections of various newspapers and other websites what actually happened and why the Cameron edits were misrepresented. Apparently BLP applies on Wikipedia and stops as soon as a web address doesn't start with en. 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

correction I claimed above that Boothroyd seemed not that strongly inclined to desire deletion of this article. There's other evidence that I've run across that suggests that that analysis may be incorrect. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Like Boothroyd himself saying,

"The subject repeats his request made four years ago for deletion."[9]

Which was right in AFD #2? rootology (C)(T) 01:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, he did that but his deletion reasons for 2 years ago were simply about notability. Furthermore, after that comment he made this remark. So his views seemed to be a bit more complicated. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your calendar is off by 2 years. The first deletion discussion was in August 2005. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were done commenting? But thanks for pointing that out. Not sure why I wrote 2. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You're conflating issues and articles, Joshua. On David Boothroyd, "The subject repeats his request made four years ago for deletion."[10] is unambiguous as possible. "Delete". The second one is about Sam Blacketer controversy, a separate article. We have no evidence of any complication of his views on David Boothroyd, but what we selectively choose to interpret of it. rootology (C)(T) 02:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly the case. If so, that's even more reason for me to state that my understanding was incorrect. This section was after all about me saying I was wrong, so... JoshuaZ (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting "possibly" from in any kind of logical explanation, or unwilling to admit the veracity of the subject's own words outright, but if it works for you, OK. Saying "Delete me" is as day is unto night, and I'll leave it at that. rootology (C)(T) 02:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're discussing this since I've already agreed I was wrong. The issue in question appears to be that I (erroneously) concluded an unjustified degree of connection between his attitude about having articles about Boothroyd and his attitude about an article about the controversy. The issue is not as you put a question to the veracity of his words, but rather attempting to interpret the degree of emphasis and intensity intended in those words and the precise motivation behind the request for deletion (in particular, "I don't think I'm notable so this should get deleted" and "I don't want to have an article so delete me" are very different issues). My interpretation rested in part on an assumption that Sam's attitude towards an article focusing on him was closely tied up in his attitude towards an article about the recent events. This assumption, while plausible at the time, was apparently wrong. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments 2

• Keep Harmless user space page. The page is well sourced and I don't see any contentious or other potentially libelous material on it that would justify deleting this out of someone's userspace. Triplestop (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia has this hobby of writing about every last person who has made the news. —harej (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Article in user space, which is unlikely to be kept if in the main namespace, and the subject requests deletion. snigbrook (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: The draft is BLP compliant and work in the userspace, which has a NOINDEX property, should continue. The individual has received coverage in multiple, secondary and reliable sources over a lengthy time period. seicer | talk | contribs 15:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• KeepFrom what I can see the individual is marginally notable but because there are several marginally notable reasons (councillor, spoke against ban on gay flags, spoke for RR statue, spoke against removal of graffiti-art, wikipedia editing), he has enough notability for an article. Since we don't, and this is just in user space, I don't see much point in this discussion. There are no BLP violations, no OUTING that isn't already out there. Keep it. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  It is our custom to delete marginally notable BLPs when the subject requests deletion (as has happened here). Can you explain why we should make an exception here? Jehochman ^Talk 16:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think it is a factor to be considered rather than a custom (if for no other reason than that the definition of 'marginally' is inherently fuzzy). In this particular case, and I refer to David Boothroyd rather than User:ChildofMidnight/David_Boothroyd, the individual is a publicly elected official and the article largely consists of public acts of the person and it is already difficult to think of why including public acts on wikipedia is a problem. Additionally, while I'm all for respecting the privacy of individuals, politicians generally give up that right when they take office and I don't think there is enough reason to make an exception for Mr. Boothroyd. (I also think that several marginal reasons for notability add up to more than mere marginal notability but, even on the margin, I think that the article should be kept.)--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  By "publicly elected official" - you mean, "councillor for Westminster's Westbourne ward" (from the article's text). Westbourne has had to be linked to Westbourne, London and ward to ward because the ward he represents of a local council is not notable. WP:POLITICIAN says "international, national or first-level subnational" - a mayor *might* qualify, a humble councillor would not. We then go onto "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" which is necessary to prop up "an elected local official" for notability. This is also absent. Orderinchaos 04:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  You seem to be misinterpreting what RegentsPark was saying. He isn't asserting that Boothroyd meets notability due to WP:POLITICIAN (indeed, I don't think anyone has tried to claim that so why you bring this up here and below isn't at all clear to me) but rather that he is a politician which as a publicly elected official is relevant for consideration of how much weight to give a courtesy deletion request from a willing public figure (and its hard to be more of a public figure than a politician). JoshuaZ (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - It's a user-page draft, and, the panicking of certain editors aside, BLP-compliant. Demands by subjects for deletion are, most, a courtesy, and WP is not under any obligation whatsover to fulfill them.--Calton | Talk 02:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • • There's no current standard on under what circumstances they should be deleted(there's nothing resembling consensus as to what constitutes marginal notability among other issues). And the deletion of an article in mainspace is a distinct issue from a draft in userspace where individuals are trying to demonstrate sufficient notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't find any mythical "BLP concerns" in this extremely well-sourced rough draft. TotientDragooned (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's because they were deleted.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Rootology and Boothroyd. He's not notable as a politician. This controversy has not received wide-spread attention in multiple reliable news sources. It's been inaccurately reported, libeling him. It's a non-notable event and, for all the same reasons the controversy article was deleted coupled with the reasons for the original BLP being deleted, this version should then be deleted as well. The cherry on top is the fact that the Boothroyd requests deletion. لennavecia 23:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • And in what universe does any of that mean that people can't work on drafts in userspace to demonstrate notability? Or for that matter, how does it deal with the fact that there are many sources having nothing to do with the controversy at all as you can see from reading the current draft? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Re "many sources" – if I see this correctly, you have one (1) article in a local newspaper which covers a then upcoming local election in expert interview style, calling him an "election expert". What we learn about him from this interview is that he is an "election analyser from London-based Indigo Public Affairs consultancy". That's it. There is something very obviously wrong with an article that cites such a trivial source twice. Everything else seems to be "man in the street committee" type interviews that typically produced a single sentence each in an article about some political topic. Apart from the Register story on 26 May and 7 newspapers taking it up on 6/7 June. This Wikipedia story overshadows everything else, but it's still nothing. There is only one fitting word for writing an encyclopedia article that details the voting behaviour of a local councillor (for a rainbow flag, against a graffiti removal, for a Reagan statue): obsessive. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • With all due respect, I don't see anything obsessive in an attempt to make an article about an individual. Attempting to write encyclopedia articles is what we do here. And, this is again, an individual whom there was enough info such that at least one discussion found the individual to meet WP:N. Moreover, there are other sources not currently incorporated in the article (for example Politico's Guide to the History of British Political Parties which is currently a separate article). Simply dismissing his remarks as a major member of the council especially when he frequently the only committee member quoted is at best misleading. Moreover, contrary to your claim that the other sources produced single sentences each, the other sources frequently have further details. Even if none of this were the case, acussations such as yours and your other remarks don't answer the questions given at all. In what universe do any of these concerns mean people cannot work on drafts in userspace to cooperate with other editors in an attempt to assemble notability? Instead of gratuitous name calling in edit summaries and in comments, perhaps you could answer the question. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Attempting to write encyclopedia articles is what we do here. That's true. That's the goal of Wikipedia. Encyclopedic content creation. Hey, tell me, what encyclopedias have a page for David Boothroyd in them? What encyclopedias have a page on anyone of comparable notability to Boothroyd? We're in the business of writing articles that are notable. Boothroyd is not. You're in the business, and have been for a while, of writing BLPs on marginally notable individuals against their wishes. Our purposes on this project conflict, Joshua. A blessed fact for the living victims of Wikipedia biographies. Also, your attempt to color this article as anything other than pathetic is ridiculous. Many sources. What a joke. لennavecia 01:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
          • • I understand how things might look like that at a superficial level. However, much of what you have stated above is either misguided, inaccurate, or simply wrong. To begin with, you ask "what encyclopedias have a page for David Boothroyd in them? What encyclopedias have a page on anyone of comparable notability to Boothroyd?" While the first question has an answer of none the second has an answer of "quite a few." For example, Wikipedia itself has biographies of olympic athletes of all levels, many of whom are far less notable than Boothroyd. Moreover, their notability is a shade more involuntary: they have become notable purely through the inevitableness of notability when one is in the top of one's profession. This is in contrast to voluntary notability by joining politics. And I can give evidence of people of even lower levels of notability. Various encyclopediae devoted to Star Wars, Star Trek and Dr. Who for example have entries of people (especially actors but also stunt men, makeup people, prop men etc. ) of notability far less than anything we would ever have on this project. Moreover, claiming that Boothroyd is not notable is a bit odd given that a) one of the issues that needs to be discussed and thus requires time to construct a possible article b) whether or not he is notable is not even the issue which this MfD is to discuss, rather is there enough plausible notability such that a NOINDEX draft can be worked on by a group of people. Moving on in your above comment, your statement that I am in "in the business, and have been for a while, of writing BLPs on marginally notable individuals against their wishes" is about as inaccurate a statement as I can imagine. I disagree with you about what our standard should be for allowing opting out. In particular, I favor a standard of willing public figures. Moreover, I think that the community needs to be much more careful and think in much more detail about how we will handle articles when the subject does not desire to have one. You are of course, welcome to look at the list of articles I have begun which is listed at User:JoshuaZ and see if it has any of the business you claim I am in. Disagreeing with you over what standards should be in such cases does not make me some evil caricature, as much as you seem to want to think so. Individuals can disagree as reasonable people without throwing around such acussations. Likewise, I suspect that your claim that my purpose and your purpose conflict on this project is incorrect. My primary purpose and (I presume) your primary purpose is help construct an encyclopedia. We may disagree on how to do that sometimes. We may disagree on what that encyclopedia should encompass. But our purposes are aligned. If you think otherwise, then I feel very sorry for you. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, this seems solely to exist to disparage the subject which is a BLP no-no. Sweeping a bunch of little bits together to weave a BLP together when the subject finds it distasteful and has only served to cause problems seems like a really bad idea. This is the kind of thing that drives people away from Wikipedia when we should be working to do the opposite. The sourcing issues to the one scandal also seem to counter BLP so get rid of and move on. Wikipedia is not a battleground and we don't write articles to shame or make some WP:Point which is what this feels like. -- Banjeboi 01:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnotable London councillor. Self-referential naval-contemplating phrases like "and has been an active article contributor and administrator on Wikipedia" do not appear in the articles let alone the ledes of BLPs like Arthur Rubin or Elonka Dunin. (The wikilink is pure genius on CoM's part.) Mathsci (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, I don't believe that either of those people have ever had their activity on Wikipedia reported on the internet or thought it would be. Moreover, your response makes sense for an AfD, this an MfD over a potential draft. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think Elonka has fairly recently been giving public talks on how wikipedia works. Her WP involvement has been reported on the internet, for example here, a bio for an Educational Games conference in Madison, Wisconsin. As for your second point, I agree with what Hans Adler has written. With no notability so far established, this probably could never became a namespace article. Mathsci (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • That's an argument to include it on Elonka's page (although looking at the coverage it seems that it simply is getting short mention in a handful of non-independent biographies established). JoshuaZ (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • "Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?" :) Mathsci (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry. I thought this was abuse. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments 3

• Consider, is the person described in this version of the article (stripping out the self-sources (blogs) and the council documents (original research) and the Wikipedia business) important enough for an encyclopedia biography? Does the biography cover details of this person;s life that a biography should? (For a political biography; his mentors, his schooling, where he formed his political opinions, who he is an influence on?). Is there a single reliable source that is biographical in nature, as opposed to a news story covering one particular event or another? Thatcher 03:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment, you make a valid point but for a variety of issues. First, the council documents aren't original research. They are primary sources. Using the council documents to synthesize conclusions would be original research. Second, the presence of specific sources that are biographical in nature is not anywhere in WP:N. You do make a good point in regard to the lack of material about his schooling, etc. However, the primary question here is whether or not there is sufficient material presented that the community should allow a userspace draft to be worked on. That doesn't require a shining, featured article. It requires enough to show that given time and cooperation of interested users, we have a decent shot of making an article of sufficient notability. Thus, the question is not "does this article establish notability?" but or even "is this individual of borderline notability" but "is there enough notability that members of the community who wish to work on this article should be free to cooperate in an open and transparent fashion to construct a NOINDEXed draft?" JoshuaZ (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Regardless of the detailed wording of the current version of WP:N, I believe the underlying concept is that a topic is important enough to include in Wikipedia if it has attracted the interest of independent third parties who have written multiple independent reliable sources on the topic, that Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, can incorporate into an article. As such, primary documents may be useful in filling out the details about a topic but are not useful in determining whether the topic is notable or important. People frequently lose sight of the distinction between a biography and a newspaper. Writing an almanac of British elections that is used in schools could be a claim to enduring notability (although the editors of this widely-used US math textbook seem not to be notable, OCLC 276433333). The story of how a Wikipedia editor got into some behavioral problems and came back as an editor who was so well-behaved that he was elected to Arbcom, is a minor news story of interest to a relatively small population of propeller heads and British politicos. I doubt anyone will remember or care in 6 months or a year, outside a small group of Wikipedia users who will probably still be debating whether we can use checkuser or identity verification or dove entrails to prevent this situation from recurring.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatcher (talk • contribs) 11:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The use of primary sources in a manner not done by independent secondary sources is, in fact, original research and given that these documents are prepared within a limited local context by paid employees not writing for a global audience, we could make statements based on them which have no relation whatsoever to the value they have in that global context, and there's simply no way to know. It is possible to use primary sources constructively, but not as a basis for an argument or contention. Orderinchaos 04:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Fails notability as a politician, BLP where subject has requested deletion. I don't see why any "special" rules should apply because of his on-wiki behaviour - we may be a little too obsessed with ourselves and enamoured with our own newsworthiness as a site here, the rest of the world doesn't care all that much. Thatcher and Jennavecia among others raise good points, as does the nom. Also, per WP:POLITICIAN:
  • Westbourne has had to be linked to Westbourne, London and ward to ward because the ward he represents of a local council is not notable.
  • "international, national or first-level subnational" - a mayor *might* qualify, a humble councillor would not.
  • We then go onto "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" which is necessary to prop up "an elected local official" for notability. This is also absent. Orderinchaos 04:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • What relevance is this to a user-space draft? Seriously, are we ever going to get a proper Afd debate on this article at Afd? MickMacNee (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • MickMacNee, could you please turn down the rhetoric. Orderinchaos makes an excellent argument based on facts and logic. Wikipedia userspace is not for hosting materials of no use to the project, such as pages that exist to make a point or to disparage their subject. Jehochman ^Talk 13:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • You know full well this is a perfectly legitimate user space draft being prepared for proper presentation to a deletion debate in a timely manner and for the proper full term, something that could have happened the first time around had you been clued up enough to recognise your initial mistakes in trying to circumvent Afd in the first place. An Afd type rationale to delete this page has no place here in Mfd, it is not an article yet. I will repeat from above, if you think this page is merely an attack page being improperly hosted in user space, use the administrative tools that are legitimately available to you, and speedy delete it. MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete — As with the others, this is wiki-drama. Subject is of marginal notability and we should respect Sam/David's wish that these go. Edit such as this (and I'm sure there are others) indicate what this is really about. If kept, this page will veer sharply further down the BLP-problem road. That's the mob's goal and nothing short of delete will serve the project appropriately. Very compelling reasoning offered by Thatcher and Jehochman. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  Per WP:UNDUE that can be dealt with. What this is really about is not to allow internal paranoia to delete notable and policy compliant content. Agathoclea (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  Comment. The discussion here, as more generally, runs into the problem that David Boothroyd is a very active part of the Wikipedia community. Many of the people in the discussion are closer to the subject than is usual in a typical notability or BLP discussion, and this raises WP:COI questions. This applies to myself: I clashed with Mr Boothroyd editing as Fys in 2007, and so I am recusing myself from saying 'keep' or 'delete'. Is that an appropriate response? Would it be helpful if other editors took that approach: declaring their relationship to Dbiv/Fys/Sam Blacketer and/or recusing themself from the discussion? I really don't know, and so I put those questions to the community. And I put the question here because of Jack Merridew's 'delete' vote. I am not suggesting any bad faith on Jack's part, but I note that Jack was unblocked by ArbCom a few months ago, and Mr Boothroyd (as Sam Blacketer) supported that decision.[11] I am not suggesting that Jack is unique in terms of having significant past interaction with Dbiv/Fys/Sam Blacketer, nor that the points he raises above are invalid. I am suggesting that it would be valuable for all of us to bear in mind the WP:COI guidelines. Bondegezou (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure that would be helpful. The community is small enough that almost everyone has had some interaction with Sam. I've had a mix, some positive and some negative. If I have any serious COI to declare it would presumably be that I've said explicitly that I intend to vote to support in his now delayed reconfirmation RfA. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Unhelpful as there is no co-relation between friends/enemies and deletionists/inclusionists as they seem to be spread evenly. There are friends who want to delete and those who want to keep and the same goes for enemies (Both terms used loosely) Agathoclea (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not suggesting that anyone who has ever encountered Dbiv/Fys/Sam Blacketer recuse him or herself from the discussion, but I would have thought that anyone who considers him or herself a friend or an enemy should consider carefully the WP:COI guidelines before taking part in this or related discussions. That's precisely why WP:COI exists and, if one reminds oneself of its content, I suggest one may find it rather helpful. Bondegezou (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is a user-space draft. Notability arises when (and only when) it appears in mainspace; otherwise it would be impossible to use userspace for draft articles. I have removed the paragraph on Wikipedia, to ensure that this is not an attack page - although it seems clear that that paragraph did in fact satisfy BLP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  Which means you think it should go right back in should this page survive the MfD close in about 24 hours? That would be a gaming of the system, no? Jack Merridew 14:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  No, I think the omission makes clear that this is not an attack page, and should not be deleted. Whether the paragraph (which was sourced) should be restored is a separate discussion - numbers may prevail, or arguments may convince me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  Of course it should go in because it meets our guidelines and policies. The "amke up the rules as we go along" approach taken to this subject and others like Equality Mississippi hurts our integrity. Consistency and fairness matter. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Subject isn't notable. Media coverage has been inaccurate and unfair, but not widespread. A single embarrassing event will soon be forgotten in the real world. Why keep it alive here against his wishes? Anirishwoman (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a !vote for deletion on the grounds of something which does not have to be in the article (indeed, isn't there right now). Please weight it accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • In fact taking this reasoning further - we would need to delete any article about a person who has had a single embarrassing event despite other claims for notability. Take for example Jimbo Wales Agathoclea (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete There was a consensus in two AfDs and a DRV that the subject of this page is doesn't meet the inclusion standards, and there doesn't seem to be any reason why things have changed since then, so it's not appropriate for a draft article to be semi-published on a user's page. If ChildofMidnight would like to work on this subject they should do it offline. Nick-D (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Would you care to explain under what policy or guideline articles that don't obviously meet inclusion standards can't be worked at in userspace until a version that demonstrates notability is completed? Because that seems to be what you are claiming and it would make userfying absolutely pointless. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#After deletion states that WP:BLP applies to all Wikipedia pages. This person has been found to not meet WP:BIO and keeping or creating new material on them in user space would appear to be a violation of their right to privacy. Nick-D (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

2009-06-12

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Petrosianii/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 --Xavexgoem (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC) User:Petrosianii/sandbox Sandbox owned by an editor that turned out to be a sock of an indef-blocked editor. Article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Longley. Looking at the comments in the AfD, it's very unlikely that the draft can be improved to pass WP:N. -- Enric Naval (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Delete as a user subpage of an indef-block user. E Wing (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Delete seeing "client1" for an earlier page implies to me that this may be connected with a current discussion on paying for articles. Collect (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Delete: won't this speedy under G5--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Delete Per only the following: sandbox of a borderline BLP figure; user subpage of a sock account. There is no policy-based valid reason to delete for any of the "fiscal motivations" of the author, so any arguments along those lines are invalid. rootology (C)(T) 13:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 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.

2009-06-11

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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Andymarek/List of newspapers in Wisconsin

User inactive since 2007. Page not edited since 2007. Unlikely to be missed. Delete per WP:UP#NOT. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 18:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Move to mainspace. An appropriate list. Quite a number of these could reasonably have articles. DGG (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Good idea, no objection. I'd better look more closely at these subpages before tagging. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 03:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Inactivity is a very poor rationale for deleting someone's userspace content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: We already have that article. Collect (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as we already have an article on this very subject. This sandbox won't be missed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 move to mainspace and redirect, reasonable solution with no objections - agreed to by the nominator. (non-admin close) Guest9999 (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Andymarek/Journal Community Publishing Group

User inactive since 2007. Page not edited since 2007. Unlikely to be missed. Delete per WP:UP#NOT. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 18:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Any reason this shouldn't be moved into mainspace? Seems to pass WP:CORP as a significant subsidiary of a notable company. 69.212.204.13 (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• The material has already been merged to the parent company Journal Communications. Move thisd to mainspace, and turn it into a redirect, since its a reasonable search term. DGG (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Again, no objection. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 03:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Inactivity is a very poor rationale for deleting someone's userspace content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  Indeed so, on its own. The inactivity, however, was noted simply to state that the user in question is not likely to object to any deletions/merging/redirects - and thus an MfD would not violate the latitude usually given to the userspace of active editors. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 07:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  I like to think that people like Andy will return. I think that if he returns to find his userspace deleted, he will find it unwelcoming. I think it is better, if you find apparently forgotten and never-to-be-used-again userpages, to convert them to redirects to the main userpage, than to have them deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  Fair point. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 14:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

Recent discussions

2009-06-10

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.--Aervanath (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Andymarek/Aurora Health Care

Page has not been edited since April 3, 2007 and the related editor has not edited since May 30, 2007. I suggest deletion per this. -- Rockfang (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed on this, inactive user, so unlikely to be missed. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, won't be missed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. After 2 years of no work. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment. This user has a lot of other subpages that are worthy of listing. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 18:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as a duplicate, but pay some attention to the spammy article in mainspace. DGG (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Reject nom's rationales #1 & #2, but delete per rationale #3 (Wikipedia:USER#Copies_of_other_pages), and per DGG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

2009-06-09

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 blank.--Aervanath (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Addyjuly

Episode list for a made up series. User has no edits outside of this apparent sandbox page. I wouldn't be so concerned if not for the fact that a.) it's totally made-up, and b.) it's the user's only contribution. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• User's only other edit was subtle vandalism. Blank the page until the user shows some intention of productive contribution. This is beyond a sandbox, and crosses WP:NOTWWEBHOST. MfDing Deleting so quickly is too bitey. This user wasn't welcomed, and the template messages on his talk page are impersonal. Talk first, blank second, MfD third. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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 userfy.--Aervanath (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Iliad

I'm struggling to think of a purpose for this page. It's not funny, it's almost completely orphaned, and it's just a bit odd. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 16:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like an attempt to coin a jargon term. It obviously hasn't caught on, but it might be worth asking the author (who is still highly active) if he'd like it userfied. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll direct him to this page. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 17:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Userfy and it does have some promise -- the "long pages" are not a badge of honour for WP. (I have pruned several now) Collect (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Userfy. Challenged single-authored essays should be userfied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

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, for now. However, if this lurks in userspace for a long time without becoming an article, then the consensus will probably change to deletion.--Aervanath (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person

Editor keeps reposting this page into article space, with little or no changes except the title, despite it being deleted several times. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person Verbal chat 10:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• This sort of problem calls for dialogue, and if the user refuses dialogue, for blocking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Drnhawkins is responding reasonably. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• No answer It is clearly proper to have in userspace, the issue is how to handle the behaviour of the editor in moving stuff to mainspace. And that is not really where MfD works well. Collect (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment My thoughts were that this would stop the user from simply moving this repeatedly into mainspace, and would hopefully get the message across without the need for blocking. Dialogue has been attempted and repeated advice given by many editors. Seems to have failed so far. Verbal chat 14:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • And the material has already been copied again, to User:Drnhawkins/An alternative view of the 3rd dynasty of Egypt. Is this an attempt to sidestep AfD and MfD? Verbal chat 14:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I am not a fan of encouraging OR, but this is certainly proper for userspace. The editor in question has very few userpages, and does not seem to be abusing the privilege of userspace. Perhaps move protection would help, along with a reminder that re-creating deleted material in the mainspace (without a DRV) is vandalism and can result in blocking? Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know there was such a thing as move protection. Might be worth following up. Verbal chat 16:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to address Wikipedia's concerns about this article.

I can recreate this article and modify it accordingly if it is in my sandbox archive.

After all, isn't this what a sand box is for.

There are no external links to this article that I am aware of.

If the article that I resubmitted to wikipedia is unsatisfactory, I can still use this article to start again. --Drnhawkins (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If this article gets deleted from mainspace again, I will talk to an administrator before trying to republish or will ask for a deletion review.

Please leave it in my user space. I may be able to recycle it one day. (after discussion of course)--Drnhawkins (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for being so persistant but this is suppost to be a public encyclopedia where anybody can write an article and I think this article is very important.

I will not move it to mainspace again without consent from an administrator.

--Drnhawkins (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a venue for reference, not a publication site for original research; people have explained this to you over and over. Are you willing to have all but one copy of this deleted, and agree not to create new copies of this in your userspace? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes --Drnhawkins (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I may try renaming and improving it but will only keep one copy in userspace and will not move it to mainspace without permission from an administrator.--Drnhawkins (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - per Drnhawkins's promise not to move to mainspace. I see nothing wrong with having a copy in userspace. I would further ask Drnhawkins please to add the {{userpage}} template on the copy in userspace if it is not there already, and to keep it there. LadyofShalott 12:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - although I once again find myself forced to advise Drnhawkins about at least taking a look at some of the relevant policies, which his above comments seem to indicate he has not yet read. Wikipedia is not a place where people are allowed to put things that are "important", but rather a place where people can add verifiable information which can be found in reliable sources. If the content is kept in userspace, with no redirects to it from mainspace, I can't see any harm, provided it contains the template the LadyofShalott indicates such pages should have above. John Carter (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Deletethere is not really any way in which this is likely to be used in an acceptable article. There are many ways of preserving the content without it being on Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Agree, with rationale, if not with need to action in the short term. Refer user to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

2009-06-15

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/P:ASTART (speedy delete - R3)

2009-06-14

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DWTSGame (speedy delete - U1)

2009-06-13

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Peter Damian/Established Editors (no consensus)

2009-06-12

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Infobox TV episode (redirected)

2009-06-10

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as Wiki (keep)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:This flag once was red/27RFAreason (speedy delete - U1)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tanthalas39/dougstech (speedy delete - U1)

2009-06-08

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File:SSCA Flag.png (speedy delete - U1)