Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Osm agha (talk | contribs)
605 edits
Osm agha (talk | contribs)
605 edits
Line 11: Line 11:


==={{#formatdate:2010-01-05}}{{anchor|2010-01-05|January 5, 2010|5 January 2010|2010 January 5}}===
==={{#formatdate:2010-01-05}}{{anchor|2010-01-05|January 5, 2010|5 January 2010|2010 January 5}}===
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Malikakbar/islam}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jim Fitzgerald/Ayala Abukasis}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jim Fitzgerald/Ayala Abukasis}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chubbennaitor}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chubbennaitor}}

Revision as of 00:25, 6 January 2010



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

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, 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

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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

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

I.
Edit PageName:

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

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

or

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

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

  • Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
  • Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • 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 2 2
TfD 0 0 0 6 6
MfD 0 0 0 0 15
FfD 0 0 1 14 15
RfD 0 0 16 27 43
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.

Purge server cache

2010-01-05

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Malikakbar/islam
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 deleted per nom's rationale. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Malikakbar/islam

A page titled Islam, is talking about a pornographic movie. I do not believe this page has any purpose except to insult this religion --Osm agha (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jim Fitzgerald/Ayala Abukasis
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, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jim Fitzgerald/Ayala Abukasis

Previously deleted article --Osm agha (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks user:Black Falcon for merging histories. After this huge support, I believe User:Jim Fitzgerald deserves a chance to improve the article. I changed my mind to keep. Good luck everyone Osm agha (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chubbennaitor
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. NAC. Timotheus Canens (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chubbennaitor

Not encyclopedic, just a bunch of non free images, user has admitted to leaving wikipedia, and this page takes up too much byte space, does NO overall good to the project, and can cause browsers to crash. Rasputin72 (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, no valid reason presented for deletion:
    • "Not encyclopedic": Encyclopedicity (is that a word?) is not required of user pages.
    • "Just a bunch of non free images": All of the images I examined were freely licensed.
    • "User has admitted to leaving Wikipedia": user pages are not deleted simply because the user is inactive. (Especially not if the inactivity is as short as two months, as it is here.)
    • "Takes up too much byte space": Twelve kilobytes is a pittance, and deleting the page won't even affect that.
    • "Does NO overall good to the project": Sure it does - it lists this user's uploaded contributions. Sounds good to me!
    • "Can cause browsers to crash": No more than any other image-heavy page. Works fine for me.
Zetawoof(ζ) 07:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the images are free content, then I see no problem here. Gigs (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - since these are free images, the deciding factor for me is that these images were all uploaded by Chubbennaitor. Had this been a gallery of randomly-selected free images, then I could have supported deletion (largely since the user is retired); however, this is clearly not the case. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 02:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A record of uploads is entirely proper. A gallery of thumbnails is a normal and highly sensible way to review images. The page does not take up much space, it is just links, and see Wikipedia:Performance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Precedent is clear - galeries of allowed images are allowed on userpages. Most userpages are not encyclopedia articles, hence that is not a grounds for deletion. "Admittted to leaving Wikipedia" is a novel reason for deletion, but not one founded in policies. "Can cause browsers to crash" is absolutely not a grounds for deletion. Collect (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2010-01-04

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Fenestrae (disambiguation)
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 per WP:CSD#G7. For future reference, disambiguation pages should be nominated at AfD. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fenestrae (disambiguation)

Unnecessary disam page - only two relevant articles so a hatnote on each pointing to the other is sufficient. ukexpat (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Please delete the disambiguation page. Wuahn (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Wetappakegga
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 per db-author. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wetappakegga

Orphaned userbox Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bblanc/Magillem
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. Killiondude (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bblanc/Magillem

Over a year and a half, no improvements and is an abandoned draft. Delete Per WP:FAKEARTICLE, disallowed uses of subpages and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Hu12 (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Editor has been on WP within 7 months, so we can not assume he is departed. Material in userspace does not need to meet notability standards, etc. Not SPAM. Not commerical. The material in Magillem failed at AfD for being non-notable -- as such is not a requirement in userspace, it is not an argument for deletion from userspace. The issue of whether it has reached "indefinite storage" without any changes is insufficient in itself for being grounds for deletion, it is in userspace after all. Collect (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BigPadresDUDE/Secret Page Challenge
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete all per NOTMYSPACE, etc. Killiondude (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:BigPadresDUDE/Secret Page Challenge

Fails Wikipedia:UP#Games. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 05:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

–BLACK FALCON (TALK) 23:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BrandManager NB/astonishresults
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. NAC. Timotheus Canens (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrandManager NB/astonishresults

Userpage being utilized as a promotional tool for a company, complete with spam links. Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING. --sixtynine • spill it • 22:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where is the evidence that this is promotional? Triplestop x3 22:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree, of course, that Wikipedia is not for advertising; however, this page doesn't look blatantly promotional to me. On the contrary, it looks like a userspace draft (tagged as such) that was created just a few days ago and edited by the creator just hours ago. Let's assume good faith and give the editor a chance to work on the draft and move it to the mainspace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove all external links, or Delete if the pages exists for no reason other than to host the external links. Live external links on wikipedia, even in userspace, are an excellent way to get your site upranked by the search engines. This page is promotional, even if unintentionally. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per A Stop at Willoughby and unlink the insurance agency names in the section "Astonish Results Clients". Several of the external links in the article (e.g., those pointing to articles in journals and magazines) are acceptable and simply need to be converted into wikilinks or footnotes. Except for the external links to insurance agency websites, which are neither necessary nor appropriate in the long term, it is difficult to differentiate this page from a valid userspace draft (and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, there is little reason for us to assume that it is anything other than that). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 23:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a recently-created draft that is still being worked on. If it needs improvements, such as removal of inappropriate external links, then by all means improve it, but deletion would be premature. --RL0919 (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:D4g0thur/***SECRET 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 per WP:CSD#U1. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:D4g0thur/***SECRET PAGE***

Unencyclopedic (per WP:UP#Games)). ArcAngel (talk) (review) 18:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:DragonofFire/index/Hidden page challenge

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 per WP:CSD#G7. –xenotalk 12:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:UP#Games. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 18:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DragonofFire/index/You Found My Secret Page 375427
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 by Smashville (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:DragonofFire/index/You Found My Secret Page 375427

Fails WP:UP#Games) plain and simple. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Everlast118/SecretPage
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 FALCON (TALK) 23:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Everlast118/SecretPage

A user subpage that fails item #8 of this policy. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 18:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on whether to delete this page, despite being the source of over half of the small amount of content. EndingPop (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Totaldramaman/Contests
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 deleted WP:CSD#G7 at user's request JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Totaldramaman/Contests

These subpages of this user fail Wikipedia:UP#Games in the utmost possible way. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 05:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Again, other than the already-deleted "hidden page", these appear to be on the same order as guestbooks (noting the duplication of the Art Contest between two MfD discussions). Guestbooks ar permitted, Also humor is permitted. The pages do not intrinsically violate userspace policies. Collect (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:UP#Games "Approval" by an administrator means nothing. Gigs (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where an experienced admin states it is a "guestbook", I regard that as a categorization of a page on which a user reasonably should be able to rely. Disputes about admin actions belong at ANI, not at MfD. Collect (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The opinion of an admin carries no more weight than the opinion of any other editor, come on Collect, I know you know this. Further, the context [1] of this supposed "approval" is that DragonFlySixtySeven (the administrator) had deleted some of Totaldramaman's other user space games junk, and was explaining WP:UP#NOT to him. His comment was "As for your art contest... I guess." Not exactly an endorsement. Gigs (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Totaldramaman/Contests/Art Contest
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 deleted WP:CSD#G7 at user's request JohnCD (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Totaldramaman/Contests/Art Contest

Another usersubpage that fails Wikipedia:UP#Games. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 05:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Totaldramaman/Contests/Hidden Page Challenge
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 deleted at the request of the author (non-admin closure) ArcAngel (talk) (review) 22:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Totaldramaman/Contests/Hidden Page Challenge

Again, fails Wikipedia:UP#Games. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 05:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Totaldramaman/Fanfiction
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 deleted as G7 [3] Skier Dude (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Totaldramaman/Fanfiction

Here's another page that I believe fails this policy, specifically item #8. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 05:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

2010-01-03

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neptunerover/The Only Economic Solution
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 Clear consensus. WP:NOTWEBHOST applies. User can request material to be emailed to them if they want to find someother webhost. Spartaz Humbug! 04:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neptunerover/The Only Economic Solution

See this other MfD. User is using his own namespace to host personal webpages that do not belong to the project in any way, and risk to bring WP into bad reputation. Cyclopiatalk 12:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that the user copied almost verbatim the page at User:Neptunerover/The_Only_Alternative_Economic_Solution_We_Have, that should therefore be discussed in this MfD too. --Cyclopiatalk 13:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the difference that the other essays, like the "stop beating the dead horse piece of crap", are about the project, while this one is blatantly not. About social networking, it can be said at least it helps building a community of editors. This essay is just promo stuff for the editor's idiosyncratic opinions. We're not a random blog or a webhost. The page itself may look harmless, but it is a serious matter of principle: if we allow this, we start a dangerous slippery slope to all kind of random web hosting taking place on WP. --Cyclopiatalk 01:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's about as on-target as the essays. And we've already decided, just a couple of months ago, on AN/I that using wikipedia for social networking is just fine. So, the essays no more readable than the wikipedia space crap, and the slippery slope has already been greased. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@IP69: what? "stop beating the dead horse" is an essay about Wikipedia. This is not. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It could just as well be, as well-written and useful as dead horse is. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was intended to be on topic and useful. This was intended to be off topic. APL (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It failed the mark so badly that it's intentions do not save it. It is worthy of being the "other crap" example, except that in neither case are we discussing crap in article space. Crap in wikipedia space is, imo, far more offensive than crap in user space. Who would've even seen this user page or have spent more than one second looking at it if not for it being nominated for deletion? But dead horse is thrown around as if it's not the piece of shit it it. If either is deleted, it should be dead horse to prevent it from being used to offend the newbie to death. This won't ever be used in such an offensive manner. And that should be considered when expending time on deletions. If it's not speediable because you can't find a reason for speedying it AND it's not a copyvio (...) AND it's in user space, leave it be. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 03:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose it for deletion if you're so concerned with that essays' appropriateness for WP. --Cyclopiatalk 03:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a great way to get people to quote lame essays at me. No, but I will bring it up as an example of the type of crap routinely allowed in more important spaces with greater consequences. This personal essay is nothing in comparison, offense-wise. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 03:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can guess what's going on here. Editor gets into an argument somewhere. After argument goes on for a while, other editors cite WP:STICK and embarrass editor. Now editor is bitter about WP:STICK and bringing it up in irrelevant places to make a point. In any case, it's not very important, since no closing admin would give much weight to such a bogus !vote and, in any case, the outcome of this MfD is already obvious. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having stick or soup or fungus quoted at one by another wikipedia editor does not cause embarrassment for the recipient of the quote. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 06:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you first discussed the user's intentions with the user before assuming you know what his intentions are? How can you possibly make such a declaration? --Neptunerover (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've been going back and forth on this unlike the other MfD as this isn't harmful like the other one. WP:NOTWEBHOST applies as the user is just using Wikipedia user space as an alternative for Blogspot and Myspace. None of these user pages pertain to the encyclopaedia either in terms of content or policy, and is there because the user "can do it". Not a necessary use of storage space, and exactly what WP:NOTWEBHOST was designed for. -SpacemanSpiff 20:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query: As far as WP:NOR, I looked up Publishing, and I fail to see how it pertains to the document in question. If such a thing was really considered publishing, then whatever comes of it should then be allowed on Wikipedia, right? Is Wikipedia considered a publisher? If so, then why not reference itself just like all those ridiculous "webhost" articles do? Does publicity make something become published? This "article" is getting a lot of publicity from being in this arena. Does that make it notable? If something therefore becomes notable due to this process, such as this, then how can it be deleted from Wikipedia other than through pure censorship? --Neptunerover (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wikipedia is most definitely a "publisher". So yes, it is published. BUT, one of our rules is that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source", which means that you can't use it. See also User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles point 6. Please try not to get "notability" confused with "Wikipedia:Notability", despite a good case for being forgiven. It must be more than notable. The must be objective evidence that others (not us) have ([[WP:RS|reliably)) noted something about it. We are not really about censorship. If you want to tell us about how stupid we all are (short of naming individuals), you will be welcome to host it in your userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to assume you are assuming good faith with your response, even though I don't quite understand everything you are saying. So thank you anyway SmokeyJoe for trying to help me to understand.--Neptunerover (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You greatly offend me Cyclopia with your assumptions. If you think you are a moron, then you don't need me to point it out to you. Or, are you calling me a moron because of the question I asked which you assume I asked because I already knew the answer. Why should I have known the answer? I'm not a know it all who has had so much education that I cannot even think straight. Could you possibly be biased in such a respect? My suggestion would be for you to cease attempting to read my mind, as it is far too complex for you. --Neptunerover (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are clever enough to ask that question and to devise this smart-alec answer, you are also clever enough to understand what the policies we are citing mean and to understand why we think your pages are inappropriate on Wikipedia. My AGF has a limit. So, please bear respect for our intelligence as we do for yours. My advice for you is that you stop wikilawyering and begin trying to reach some kind of compromise and understanding of what is going on, because all you are doing now is disruption. No one "hates" you, we simply happen to think your content has no place here. Sorry about that. --Cyclopiatalk 13:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important Point: User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles point 8.
I believe the votes cast by people who disregard this very important point should not be counted. (not that it's gonna happen, but that's my opinion.)--Neptunerover (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point 8 emphasizes "honesty and politeness". Trying to make up increasingly ridiculous dodges to rules that you know you are violating is not at all honest. (It's also painfully transparent, obvious, and childish. I thought I'd point that out in case you thought that you were being clever and impressing us with your intellectual strength and logical abilities. )APL (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, you impress me with your ability to read my mind and know my motivations (not). As far as politeness, look below at the very next vote by Viridae. Your projections of my motivations and knowledge are indeed clever, but unsubstantiated, and so you should keep them to yourself. This is supposed to be a discussion about the article which is up for deletion, yet somehow people keep wanting to make it personal. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT a webhost for your crackpot theories. ViridaeTalk 01:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

2010-01-02

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Artemis Fowl
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. There is consensus for userfying the portal (and I will do so at request), but no individual editor or group (including WikiProject Artemis Fowl, which was notified of this discussion) has expressed a concrete interest in working on the portal. I will post a link to the deletion log page that lists all pages associated with the portal so that they can be undeleted and userfied at any time by any administrator. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here it is. Please note that several of the deleted pages contained little or no content or page history, so there may be no need to undelete and userfy them (of course, doing so would cause no harm). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Artemis Fowl

Too narrow scope for a portal (Wikipedia:Portal guidelines). Also, the portal's categorized as under construction, but hasn't been edited in a year and a half (not counting vandalism). --Shubinator (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (tentatively) the books have a following, albeit not as big as Harry Potter, and has the potential to be quite decent. I might have a look later myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Delete as incomplete and unmaintained portal, if Casliber doesn't pick it up. I give Casliber permission to strikethrough this !vote in its entirety depending on what they decide. Gigs (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because this portal does not meet our portal guidelines, and has not since its creation. Parts of our portal guidelines that are not met here:
  • "The portal subject area should have enough interest and articles to sustain a portal, including enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section."
  • "The portal layout should be complete or there should be ongoing efforts to make the portal layout complete."
  • "The portal should be maintained"
  • Required portal content: Related portals, topics
  • Recommended portal content: Selected article

I'll drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Artemis Fowl to see if there's any interest in userfying this portal (or, optimally, fixing/maintaining it). If Casliber wants to move it to his userspace, I'd have no problem with that. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Editor involved seems to be still alive on WP. If Casliber has faith in the potential for the portal, so do I. Collect (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or delete. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the series to judge whether it's "big enough" for a portal, but the current contents of the portal (one selected article and one selected character out of a rotation of five) definitely aren't sufficient to consider it finished. If the author (or anyone else) is still interested in completing the portal, then they are of course free to do so, but - if not - there's little point in keeping the portal up. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, assuming that User:Legoktm or some other user wants it. It isn't a good portal now, and maybe it never will be, but the author of the books is still active so there is definitely opportunity for future expansion. Since the topic isn't inherently impossible as a portal, there's no harm in allowing it to be worked on in user space. --RL0919 (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Victoriabenatar
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 Skier Dude (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Victoriabenatar

I put a noindex tag on and it was removed, so it appears that the editor is trying to use their userpage for Google publicity. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fishes Wikipedians' notice board
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. Never used or even completed, so no need to retain as historical. RL0919 (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fishes Wikipedians' notice board

Noticeboard for WikiProject Fishes created in 2008 that doesn't seem to have ever been used. Jafeluv (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Single
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 deleted. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Single

Not sure if this page is being used anymore (not really any incoming links), and seems superseded by WP:WARN, to which it could be redirected. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

2010-01-01

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Delicious carbuncle/PCHS-NJROTC ban redux
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 Deleted per author request. Please, let's call it a day on this never ending feud and get back to editing the encyclopedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Delicious carbuncle/PCHS-NJROTC ban redux

Rehash of pre-Christmas AN/I drama. I see no legitimate purpose for this; it does not help the encyclopedia. Admins have asked both of us to disengage. It's best that we listen to the admins and put this mess behind us. Discussion at this MfD should be based on the consensus that we both should disengage, not the already settled issue that the page is about. --PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 20:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your way to disengage is to file a deletion discussion regarding a page of the person you're in conflict with? Seriously? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not interact whatsoever with DC until I noticed he recently created the page. I'm trying to get rid of this so that the heated debate will stay dead, and it won't come up in further issues regarding DC. In short, I prefer the issue be history; I'd rather the issue not be brought up beyond trivial mentions in disputes between DC and another user as I fear that it will revive the controversy for a never ending arguement. User:Delicious carbuncle is currently in a war with User:Neutralhomer, and the two users were both engaged in the AN/I drama. DC made this page "for his stalkers." I'd rather not be linked to DC and NH's drama at this time as the ongoing drama seems to have nothing to do with me. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 20:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure that Neutralhomer's actions have much to do with anyone other than Neutralhomer. I am not in a war with Neutralhomer, although they clearly have a grudge against me, but that's a whole 'nother issue and is probably best just ignored here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regardless, I'd just assume remain neutral stay out of your issues with User:Neutralhomer. Lets relax and disengage as the admins and non-admins alike suggested. It's a new year, let's put 2009 behind us. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 22:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd just as soon stay out of my issues with Neutralhomer too, but I don't see how they are in any way relevant here. You may wish to look for a reason to delete this page that is based on policy. I don't intend to make any further comments here, so feel free to ignore that advice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:User page? It's implied in my original basis for starting this discussion; I didn't point it out with a wikilink because I assumed anyone with experience at MfD would already be quite familiar with the policy just as it is commonly assumed that those working with WP:AIV should already be familiar with WP:Vandalism. Based on your edit summary when creating the page, I assumed that you created the page in attempt to demonize me for you own personal defense against NH, and I have indicated that I desire to stay out of your issues with NH. If that were the case, it'd be inappropriate use of your user space as it does not help the project. MfDs occur regularly where the helpfulness of pages in userspace is questioned. This is one of those MfDs. However, you have indicated your intent to rehash the ban discussion despite lack of support, making it a legitmate use of userspace by technicality, although probably a waste and will further make you appear obsessive. The horse is dead, move on. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 23:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The earlier topic ban discussion was not allowed to run its course due to the improper closure and archiving by non-admins. I had intended to start a new discussion today or tomorrow (when more editors were back from their holidays), and created that page to hold relevant material. Given the contentious attitude displayed toward the earlier proposal, I wanted to present the case as clearly as possible, so I began looking through PCHS-NJROTC's contribution history. I stopped looking very quickly. As of this moment, the page consists of two recent and relevant quotes made by PCHS-NJROTC which, with the recent unilateral "banning" of another editor, make very clear the need to topic ban them from vandalism related project activities. There is nothing improper, offensive, or against policy on the page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Userspace is not required to be "useful." It is, moreover, rather non-productive to seek deletion from userspace when one has an active conflict with the other user. It only serves to draw the conflict into the open even more. In the interests of no drama, forget about deletion. Collect (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Full disclosure: I made a single edit to the ANI thread in question, advising Delicious carbuncle to let the issue drop and end the unnecessary drama. Several other editors did the same. DC apparently ignored that advice, however, and created this page in his userspace. I firmly disagree with Collect's assertion that PCHS-NJROTC is prolonging drama by taking this page to MfD. DC prolonged the drama and deliberately avoided disengaging by creating this page for no purpose other than "blowing on the dog's nose." Deleting this page ought to put an end to this drama, once and for all. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along" I think that deleting this page would represent a step towards putting the dispute in the past. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just for the record, I did not support ending the discussion. I gave up on it as there unfortunately did not seem to be sufficient interest in dealing with it. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the starting of this MfD, Delicious carbuncle has created User:Delicious carbuncle/work page, which is basically the same page recreated to survive this MfD. In my opinion, that's recreation of (soon to be) deleted material in anticipation of deletion, and that page should as well be subjected to whatever action that may stem from this discussion. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 17:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what part of this you fail to grasp - I am going to initiate a new discussion about a topic ban for you. I am working on that discussion in my userspace. This isn't the place to have that discussion, so be patient and you will be able to defend yourself very soon. This MfD will end in keep because there are no policies or guidelines being broken. It makes no difference because it is only a step toward the discussion which you are trying to avoid, but will occur before the MfD closes anyhow. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Haven't you heard of WP:IAR? MfDs are closed based on consensus, not when one person's cries "I'm not violating any policies here!!!!" I'm avoiding this because it's already been through WP:AN/I several times already, and it's already been agreed that we need to let this go. Why must I repeatedly defend myself over and over again? Here's an idea, try a self nom at WP:RfA, failing, then trying a second WP:RfA less than a month later. Same applies with ban proposals. If you open a discussion, it will be closed per WP:SNOW as absolutely nothing has changed since last time, and it's not like the discussion was closed unilaterally or anything, so why don't we stop fighting over this like elementary school students? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 18:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment May I also add that this might get a little close to being an attack page since all of it's contents are negative towards me. Even if he's permitted to keep this and start another ban discussion, this needs to be speedy deleted after the case once again gets thrown out. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 18:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've asked for speedy deletion since the page was only ever intended as a prep page for the thread which is now at WP:AN. To be clear, I don't believe there is any way this MfD would have closed as delete, so please don't take this as an indication that there was anything at all wrong with the creation or content of the page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nehtefa/Portal:Imagination
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. Killiondude (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nehtefa/Portal:Imagination

This user sandbox page seems to be an experimental copy of Portal:Computer_science, and has not been edited in about a year. I don't see the purpose of keeping this page around, and the editor last edited December 5th, 2008. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 00:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything
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. While there are a couple keep quotes, consensus to delete is clear, and the delete !voters raised convincing arguments. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything

This page has nothing to do with editing Wikipedia. The user is under the impression that Wikipedia is a free webhost, even after I pointed out WP:NOTWEBHOST, see User_talk:Neptunerover#User:Neptunerover.2FTheory_About_Everything. This is their own speculative theorising that has no place here. Fences&Windows 17:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack noted in Cyclopia's opinion. "hopeless quackery". All votes showing bias not based on actual rules should be discounted. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Neptune. Straw polls on the various "X for Deletion" pages may look like majority votes, but they're actually a means of determining consensus, and the final outcome is based more on the the merits of the arguments used than the number of editors with a particular opinion. – ClockworkSoul 19:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neptunerover, I am sorry if the comment offended you, but it was not a personal attack. I am not talking about you, I am talking about the page. Your page is in my opinion hopeless quackery: even if I am sure you have all the best intentions and you are in good faith, the page objectively brings WP into a bad light. I am sorry if this sounds blunt or rude, but that's it. That said, my personal advice is to actually study some physics (say, up to Ph.D. degree) before even thinking of putting a T.O.E. together. --Cyclopiatalk 23:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not on Wikipedia the Encyclopedia (wherein resides plenty of hopeless quackery already), but rather on a user page. I don't make people go there. I imagine most people wouldn't be able to make much sense of it. But that doesn't matter, because it's not an encyclopedic article, but just one of a user's play around pages, which shouldn't be against the rules. Only adult rules restrict play, and Wikipedia is FREE, which flies right in the face of all those people who want to keep information expensive and copyrighted and limited. I say screw that! We're free! So don't cry for me. I laugh at these pathetic chaining attempted, but the beast of freedom cannot be contained! -Neptunerover (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User has actively edited in mainspace. Essay, clearly marked, is within normal userspace guidelines. No rule requires userspace to be only for articles which could be in mainspace (d'uh). Nor is there any rule I find which bars "speculative theorizing" (is there any other kind?) from userspace. Lacing a reason to delete, default to Keep. Collect (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason to delete as WP:NOTWEBHOST is policy: "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." This information isn't relevant to working on Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 00:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at MfDs -- the issue is whether the material is "compatible" with WP, which has generally been interpreted to mean that userspace has a different standard from mainspace as to what is allowed. Almost no essays are "necessary" - but that is not the issue to be discussed. Collect (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please define "web host" as it pertains to the page in question. Note: Unreferenced material should be deemed inadmissible for purposes of this proposed deletion action. --Neptunerover (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It pertains because it is not material related to Wikipedia in any way. It doesn't serve any purpose within the WP community, nor it helps editing or improvement of any article, nor it is a userspace draft of a possible real article. Therefore, it is something that you could bring on a personal web page. Since we are not a web host, that is, userspace is not a dump where you can post whatever you like, you are invited to bring that page outside Wikipedia. It is clearer now? --Cyclopiatalk 12:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non affirmative. I require all sources of information from within the wikispace, referenced from outside. I believe this is the format here. --Neptunerover (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The user plainly states that the page has nothing to do with the encyclopedia. Although I'm not for the over censorship of userspace, WP:NOTWEBHOST may apply here. Although one might also ask what secret pages and some of the userboxes have to do with building the encyclopedia? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are seriously saying that we should avoid taking appropriate action because the miscreant might retaliate?!?! Seriously?! We simply need to point out to NeptuneRover that he should not personally delete such material but instead refer them to MfD. If he turns into an active patroller of inappropriate material then that is a good outcome. SteveBaker (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey SteveBaker, come on by my talk page if you ever wanna chat (call me names like "miscreant") or play a nice game of chess. Don't mind Jules, he won't bother you as long as you avoid eye contact. But be warned against attempting any vandalism in my section of free space like F&W. --Neptunerover (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider that it could lead to a useful scenario. However this user's eccentricities and cherry picking of WP rules lead me to think that he may instead just nominate practically every userpage essay that he comes across as WP:NOTWEBHOST. In the end, everybody's time is wasted. (I should note that I'm not appealing to popularity in that I think the article should be kept because there is so much other useless crap on userpages. I'm saying that this user could cause a lot of time-wasting if this article gets deleted, which overall is probably negative for Wikipedia. I'm fine if you disagree with that). --Mark PEA (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but exactly who is doing "cherry picking" and wasting everyone's time here? Certainly not the person who neither started it nor is willing to bow down before tyranny? One person started us all on this joyride, and were he to simply retire instead of being forced into it, he would then be able to consider himself an accomplished human being.--Neptunerover (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the original nominator has caused a lot of wasted time or not is irrelevant; that time has already been wasted. My argument for weak keep is base upon the additional wasted time that could potentially occur if the article gets deleted. If SteveBaker is correct in saying that you (Neptunerover) will enforce the WP:NOTWEBHOST rule rationally as a result of a delete, then I completely agree with deleting the article. --Mark PEA (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It would not make Wikipedia look bad because it's not an article. While Wikipedia is not a soapbox, there is nothing wrong with making a self-evident argument. An exchange of ideas sometimes useful for thinking outside the box, and when people ask questions about these things on the Reference desk, it's possible to find ideas (and even inspiration) to edit and improve certain articles with reliable sources. ~AH1(TCU) 03:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here is a citation. Einstein himself submitted articles and theories to a science foundation without citations. Today we know where these ideas go–directly into the trash bin. ~AH1(TCU) 03:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. It's a little weird and a little long, but not utterly outrageous in length. Also it might aid collaboration by giving other editors a better sense of where this editor is coming from. There's a limit somewhere, but I don't think this page has quite gotten there. --Trovatore (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Neptunerover really created these pages for "practice" (as he claims on the new contribs help page), he could reduce the amount of content, and improve his disclaimers explaining what the pages are for. The fact that this has come this far, shows that he is unwilling to do this, so deletion is the best resolution. I don't believe all this was created just for practice. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate the required timeline for user practice page content reduction as well as the content requirements for such pages. --Neptunerover (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Summary Dismissal Request.

One user has invaded another user's free space and imposed an ugly sign there while making accusations based upon their personal disagreement with a distinctly different manner of thinking, therefore, the action before this senate is one which is specifically pointed out here in the rules as exactly the thing that this process is not to be used as a forum for. I believe Fences should be given a warning about misusing this process, and the ugly sign should be removed posthaste. Thank you fellow Wikipedians, and have a wonderful day. --Neptunerover (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NR, there's a reasonable chance that this will go your way, provided you don't take the opportunity to make everyone irritated at you. As an advocate of giving people some latitude in userspace, I'd prefer you didn't do that. --Trovatore (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are merely confused as to which side you are on. That's easy enough. Fear not, for you have told me nothing that you have to worry about. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant. The matter is not a content dispute (that would be something like "this article says too much about theory X and not enough about theory Y"), it's a disagreement over whether the page even falls within Wikipedia's scope at all, which is the exact purpose of deletion discussions. There's no need to warn anyone, and no need to close the discussion early. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 10:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user." This is from the very rule you say does not apply in this case. How can that be? Not about content? Um, actually nevermind, I don't even need to respond to you since you obviously don't understand the nature of this dispute. --Neptunerover (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


In order that the accused be allowed to marshal a proper defense, I repeat my much earlier request for the information he requires for a proper understanding of the charges.

For the benefit of anyone puzzling over the repeated statement about "unreferenced material", Neptunerover has looked at 10 different Wikipedia articles about web hosting (so he does know what it means), and has noted that all have "unreferenced material" section topper boxes, and is proposing deleting some of this content here, presumably in retaliation for this deletion proposal. I have advised him against it. I (and others) have also advised him on how to deal with his userpage situation (he has posted several consecutive sections on the new contribs help page), but he has stated he doesn't want our opinions, and also doesn't want to post anything on the deletion proposer's talk page page prior to opening an admin incident report complaint against him, even though this is a requirement (which is a point Neptunerover himself raised). Better cooperation and laying off pseudo-lawyer stalling tactics would probably have gained him more support; sorry if that sounds harsh. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How am I not being cooperative? Please explain. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. That sounds like rather POINTy behavior. I think Neptunerover would benefit from reading these pages: WP:POINT, WP:LAWYER, WP:CIVIL, WP:NOT, WP:FREE. As for his question: A webhost is a website or service that make content publicly available on the internet. Wikipedia does not make all content submitted to it available just because it was submitted, so it is not a webhost. No I do not have a citation for that. If you don't believe me, then go get a copy of the Encyclopædia Britannica and look it up. --Thinboy00 @873, i.e. 19:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Internet. But what is web host? I am limited to Wikispace, and without outside references, the loops go nowhere. Are you reading me?--Neptunerover (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? "This page in a nutshell: If you disagree with a proposal, practice, or policy in Wikipedia, disruptively applying it is probably the least effective way of discrediting it – and such behavior may get you blocked." Who here disagrees with what? What rules am I disagreeing with, tell me please? Who here has been disruptive? I am merely defensive when necessary. I in fact agree with all the rules, which is why I find this action so curious. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bottom line: This user is using Wikipedia to promote his particular brand of Time Cube-like pseudo-science - and we don't allow that kind of thing. He has pushed this pseudo-science on the Science reference desk in the form of a long diatribe with no real question at the end of it and he is also promoting it in this sub-page. This is not content that would ever be notable enough (or true enough, or referenced enough or...anything-enough) to become a Wikipedia article and it's very clear that it's not sandbox editing or anything like that. NeptuneRover is using this page as a place to push his ideas of how cosmology works. That is without doubt: "content that is unrelated to Wikipedia" and that makes it a clear breach of WP:NOTWEBHOST. If he claims that this sub-page was merely an effort to learn editing techniques in a sandbox-like environment - then it's purpose is done and he should have no objection to us deleting the content. Claiming otherwise is an insult to our intelligence. The fact that NeptuneRover claims not to understand what a web host is (he claims not to understand quite a lot of things that he does not wish to address) is quite irrelevant. Failure to understand a Wikipedia rule is no defense against removal of inappropriate pages. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your own brand of pseudo-science. SteveBaker (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, I fail to comprehend "Time Cube", although it is an article on Wikipedia. Can you please study it for me and explain to me what you are referring to. Might I be wrong? --Neptunerover (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god, thanks for pointing to us this page too. At this point your abuse of namespace and violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST is obvious. Do you have any other?--Cyclopiatalk 12:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All target locations are being determined at this time. Calculated list arrival will be soon. Further lists will be forthcoming as they become available. --Neptunerover (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that was not just a rhetorical question, see Special:PrefixIndex (although I don't see how that information is relevant to this discussion). Gandalf61 (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It came up in my mind just after I posted. It seems these two are the ones worth attention. It is vaguely relevant, in that the argument that it is just a sandbox is obviously denied by the fact that the user has already a sandbox page and that there is a pattern of using userspace to host stuff.--Cyclopiatalk 12:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The full set of NeptuneRover sub-pages (as of this post) are:
  1. User:Neptunerover/Anonymous Quotes
  2. User:Neptunerover/another talk page
  3. User:Neptunerover/Anonymous Quotes/Paradoxes
  4. User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything
  5. User:Neptunerover/Theories About Everything
  6. User:Neptunerover/My First Practice Article
SteveBaker (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Steve, Please ignore that request. I need you much more urgently for another matter of possible importance to a guard like you. I do not know who else to turn to. This just came in. Here is the message:

"Have no fear, I fed the warden earlier. He's sleeping now."

— Overheard Prison Inmate Message, Could they be planning an escape?
--Neptunerover (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment I really don't think whether or not it's pseudoscience has anything to do with the question. I know of no policies or guidelines that preferentially delete pseudoscience. Nor are MfD discussions the right forum, in general, to decide what's pseudoscience and what's not. (I'm talking about the general case here, of course; as to the specific case I thought my remark about aiding collaboration by helping other editors understand this one's point of departure, was rather sly.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Wikipedia:User page says: "In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute". Maybe "disrepute" is a strong word here but scientifically minded readers may think less of Wikipedia or its editors if they see things like this. It's userspace but people may wonder whether such things also find their way into articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, perhaps we should come up with a whole encyclopedia of contingency plans. Good idea. --Neptunerover (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of whether it's specifically pseudoscience - it's that we do not encourage personal-opinion/original-research pieces that are not relevant to the process or practice of writing an encyclopedia. These personal diatribes simply do not belong in Wikipedia - even in user sub-pages. SteveBaker (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about if I were to move all the material from the page in question back to my own talk page where it all was just a few days ago? Not that I ever would, but would that solve the "problem?" --Neptunerover (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We are not debating whether these things are in the wrong place. We're questioning whether they belong in any form whatever or in any place whatever within the entire Wikipedia web site. We do not exist to provide free web space for any individuals' opinions or theories unless they relate very specifically to the art or practice of encyclopedia writing - so, IMHO, these pages need to be deleted and not be recreated anywhere on this site. NeptuneRover needs to go and create his own web site where he can post anything his imagination desires - Wikipedia doesn't welcome this kind of activity. SteveBaker (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree with Steve. I must have my own webhostsight. This will allow me complete internet domination. Tell me, does Wikipedia explain webhostsight construction? --Neptunerover (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. This userpage does not contribute to improving Wikipedia, so there is no reason for it to remain here. Also, delete per Wikipedia:User page, which states: "Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia. Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia." Cunard (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but he page in question is absolutely not unrelated to Wikipedia. It's just a practice page for a new user to practice how to work on articles with, as well as it is helping him to learn how to deal with the rule processes of Wikipedia and with the people who attempt to impose them artificially. They are being dealt with right here, right now. -Neptunerover (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not that I need to voice my thoughts at this late stage, but the page in question is obviously a large statement of the user's alternative and non-Wikipedia-related ideas, which for myriad reasons, we do not host here. Looking at the goings on, this is starting to seem to me like a WP:SNOW event. – ClockworkSoul 20:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who cares what it's a statement of? It's a user page! This user is not trying to force anything on anyone. Please keep in mind this user requires no one to go to his personal user page wherein he is doing his own private thing without harming anyone, except for users who like to be bossy. And it is entirely thanks to them and the big fuss they have created that people are going there now. All of my pages, and I'll just keep making more, because by doing so I am not hurting anyone except for petty rule tyrants, who we all know need theirs. -Neptunerover (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2009-12-31

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cjneversleeps/Corrections.com (2nd nomination)
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. There is no specific time limit, but userfication is not an unlimited opportunity to retain previous speedy-deleted material without any changes. In the previous MFD for this page, the successful Keep arguments were mostly based on giving the user time to update it. The current Delete argument that 22 months is long enough is persuasive. RL0919 (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cjneversleeps/Corrections.com

Page about a website with no secondary third party sources. It was userfied for improvements but the editor stopped editing shortly after that, in March 2008, and the article was never improved. Still no sources. Prod tag was rejected on grounds that it was a userspace page and said to send to mfd. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

2009-12-30

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Southern Ontario
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. The portal's creator, PhilthyBear (talk · contribs), was notified and has not made a request for the portal to be userfied; if userfication is desired, please let me know. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 19:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Southern Ontario

While a portal on the topic of Southern Ontario is possible, this isn't really a portal, as it doesn't contain any of the standard portal components (featured content, categories, etc). There doesn't appear to be any effort under way to make it into one, either — it hasn't been edited significantly since its creation in June. Zetawoof(ζ) 16:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because this portal does not meet our portal guidelines, and has not since its creation. Parts of our portal guidelines that are not met here:
  • "The portal subject area should have enough interest and articles to sustain a portal, including enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section. To aid in this, the portal should be associated with a WikiProject to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal."
  • "The portal layout should be complete or there should be ongoing efforts to make the portal layout complete."
  • "The portal should be maintained"
  • Required portal content: Related portals, categories, topics
  • Recommended portal content: Browsebar, selected article, things you can do, in other projects, portals footer

I'll drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ontario to see if there's any interest in userfying this portal (or, optimally, fixing/maintaining it). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Clearbourne
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 in its current form. If the page is returned to its previous form and used as something other than a talk page, engage the user and pursue the matter at other venues (e.g. WP:AN/I) as appropriate. Thank you, –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 19:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Clearbourne

Not really a talk page, seems to be just a copy and paste from the main user page itself. Ngyikp (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CFlive/Clive Fencott
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. The same user created the mainspace article, so there is no issue with credit for his contributions, and ArcAngel has separately performed the same edit on both pages, so again, no issue. Therefore, a redirect is not needed for copyright compliance. There is a notification of this MFD on CFlive's talk page, so an explanation is accessible if he looks for it upon his return, and if needed any admin could revive the draft. RL0919 (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:CFlive/Clive Fencott

This appears to have been a sandbox article which has now been transcluded, and so this page is no longer necessary or useful. ArcAngel (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Clearbourne
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. Clearbourne, if you would like to retain a copy of the page to move to an alternative outlet or to save to your hard drive, please let me know on my talk page and I will temporarily undelete the page history or e-mail the contents to you. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 19:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Clearbourne

Wikipedia is not a web host and violates WP:USER#NOT Ngyikp (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mollica93
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killiondude (talk • contribs) 02:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mollica93

Per WP:NOTWEBHOST. User is apparently using his userpage to host information about offline contests of video games. It's been going on for a while. See past iterations [4][5]. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 07:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikiproject Latin First Member userboxes
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 both. For {{User WikiProject Latin Former First Member}} this is an easy call as it is entirely unused. Userfication of {{User WikiProject Latin First Member}} was specifically suggested to its one user at User talk:95jb14, but without response. Since the user has explicitly disclaimed the position, userfication seems unwanted and unnecessary. RL0919 (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User WikiProject Latin First Member and Template:User WikiProject Latin Former First Member

These userboxes were created as part of an ill-conceived effort to establish a hierarchy at Wikiproject Latin. Consensus, and indeed WP policy, stand opposed (discussion here). Deletion should be uncontroversial. Camenae (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The existence of the userboxes have nothing to do with consensus on the existence of what they declare. If an user wants to call himself "WP Latin First Member", however silly it sounds, why not let him/her do that? --Cyclopiatalk 12:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I agree with the hierarchial issue here but the problem has been addressed, why is it neccessary to delete them, i'll let the concensus decide. 95jb14 (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, userboxes serve no purpose as the "office" they describe no longer exists (obviating the first) and never should have existed at all (obviating the second). +Angr 19:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Wikipedia:Userbox migration to the userspace of whoever is interested in taking them. Current guidelines are that userboxes should rarely be placed in Template: space, mostly for indicating language skills. However, users are given a good deal of leeway in terms of having userboxes in the User: space. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because Wikipedia is communism. @harej 05:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as useless, or userfy upon request per WP:UBM. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - if the consensus is that the position ought not to exist, then the userboxes should not be preserved. In response to Cyclopia's question: it is misleading to claim to be a "First Member" because it suggests the existence of a hierarchy that does not and did not exist. While those who participated in the WikiProject discussion or in this MfD will be aware of the circumstances surrounding the title, we cannot assume that everyone will know not to take it too seriously. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 19:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wrestling fan pages
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 deleted except 09nick Skier Dude (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling fan pages

These pages all consist of wrestling fans' recordings of various wrestling matches. Each is maintained by an editor who has no (or very few) other edits to Wikipedia. These editors are not here to build the encyclopedia, but rather to use Wikipedia as a webhost. Per WP:NOTWEBHOST, these pages should be deleted. Peacock (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old business

2009-12-29

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:A cutts
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. Killiondude (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:A cutts

An article in userspace, editor hasn't edited it or anything else for seven months. Not clear what it is about, apparently OR. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weakish keep or subpagify either way, throw {{Userspace draft}} on there to prevent indexing (which I've done). –xenotalk 20:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This looks like an opinion piece of sorts. These types of essays belong in blog posts, not on Wikipedia. The user has no mainspace edits, has not edited since May, and shows no indication that he is planning on moving this to the mainspace. Violates WP:UP#NOT #2 (extensive discussion unrelated to Wikipedia) and #4 (extensive personal opinions unrelated to Wikipedia), and arguably #6 (promotion) given the subsection on the "Project For Awesome". A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it reads like an op-ed piece. It appears that the editor's only goal was to create such a page. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 05:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No rules against OR in userspace - this is not mainspace, and does not have to meet article requirements. Not a blog, hence not deletable as one. Mark as noindex? Fine. But not deletable per se. Collect (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is so much a question of "OR in userspace" (you are correct that there is no prohibition against OR in userspace per se) as it is a question of a user page not being used to "facilitate communication among participants in [Wikipedia] to build an encyclopedia", containing "substantial content ... that is unrelated to Wikipedia", using Wikipedia as a "general hosting service", and failing to be "part of [a user's] efforts to contribute to the project". (quoted from the introduction of Wikipedia:User page) –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 21:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UP#NOT #4 ("extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia") and possibly #5 ("personal information of other persons without their consent"). This appears to be a copy of a school essay rather than an attempt to write an encyclopedia article, and therefore falls under WP:UP#NOT #4. The fact that it includes personal information (including names) about living people, one of whom is below the age of majority in Arizona, raises issues with WP:BLP and possibly WP:UP#NOT #5. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 21:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not attempt to write articles about your frends or colleagues. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2009-12-28

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BQZip01/FBS Trademarked logos
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. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 21:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:BQZip01/FBS Trademarked logos

This page is nothing but to show off images, trademarked as the page says, that the user has uploaded. This is clearly not allowed and should be immediately deleted. NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC) 07:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it's a non-free gallery, then it can be speedied under WP:U3. If there is not a copyright issue, then I am not sure I understand your point.  Skomorokh  08:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, to be honest, I wasn't aware there was a CSD option. I looked, but didn't find a good option, so I went with a MfD (which is the XfD that came up in the TWINKLE list). If you wish to take it via WP:U3, please feel free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries, but having looked at about a dozen of these I did not find any marked as non-free. Those that are will be taken care of by the bots in time I imagine. Is there some other reason you feel the page ought to be deleted?  Skomorokh  08:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, when I tried to add images to my userpage (in my case they were radio station logos) as part a system I was working on to check if images were PNG, I was told that images of any kind like that were not allowed under the rules. Having a picture on the userpage (as some do) was allowed though. If they wish to list the images, I think they should be in a [[:Image:NAMEHERE.jpg]] format. That is the reason I brought this here, I am under the impression that having a page full of images like this isn't allowed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry to hear that. I can't find anything in WP:UP#NOT that tells me why your radio-logo-page was nuked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Neutralhomer, if the radio station logo you tried to include in your userspace was non-free, then of course it would not be allowed. However, if it was a freely-licensed image, there should have been no problems. Which was it, free or non-free? As I'll state below, regarding the current nomination, so long as the images are free, there is no issue with having a gallery page like this one. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since it is in userspace and not an article, a general delete is not warranted. Each of these logos needs to be checked. Those that are not free need to be removed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are indeed trademarked images, but they are ineligible for copyright. I would not post them here if they were copyrightable. Furthermore, this is not a "show off" page, but a repository for ease of use. Additioanlly, I did not upload most of these. — BQZip01 — talk 08:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep possibly speedily. [WP:Clearly not allowed] is not yet a free-standing policy, it needs to be followed by "because it violates <something>". The nom may think their own experience was analogous, but they haven't provided a diff to that discussion and I got dizzy trying to work back through their edit and talk history. Non-free images in user space are a problem, but PD images organized for easy reference, I can't figure out what the problem would be. Franamax (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps strangely, I oppose a speedy keep. Let's hear the full gamut of opinion on the subject before closure. — BQZip01 — talk 07:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A gallery of public domain images in userspace is obviously permissible and a case for neither U3 nor MfD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chmod007/Copy of User talk:33451/2004 Archive
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, with blanking of the page permitted. @harej 23:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chmod007/Copy of User talk:33451/2004 Archive

User:33451 was an early Wikipedia vandal, troll, and sockpuppeteer, as shown at this RfC and elsewhere. He has not edited since September 2004. During that same month, User:Chmod007 became an administrator after a successful RfA in which 33451 was the only opposer, on the grounds that Chmod007 "accused [him] several times of trolling and sockpuppetry, without any grounds for such accusations." There was, of course, plenty of evidence backing up those assertions, documented by administrators such as User:Theresa knott and User:Michael Snow. Anyway, 33451 moved the contents of his talk page to a hidden archive and refused to allow Chmod007 to link to the archive page, apparently afraid the contents would be used to soil his reputation and trigger a RfAr. Even though linking to the archive page was obviously acceptable then (and still would be now), Chmod007 copied the contents over to this page in his own userspace and included a list of sockpuppets. At the risk of digging up ancient drama, I think there are three significant questions here. First, is it acceptable to copy someone's talk page archives into your userspace, particularly if they have objections? Second, is the answer to the first question the same when the user is a vandal, sockpuppeteer, or troll? And third, is the evidence against 33451 collected on this page in violation of WP:UP#NOT #10, given the absence of a pending WP:DR process? My take: No, probably not, and yes – so I'm nominating this for deletion. --A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My take on it is no, don't know, and probably no. However seeing as it was 5 years ago I think we can reasonably delete this page per WP:DENY. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1). Yes, assuming a worthwhile purpose, objections notwithstanding. (2). Yes, but probably speaks to the question of purpose. (3). It is not clear that this is an evidence page. It looks like a talk page, for discussion and resolution of issues in real time, which is proper, and it is proper to keep the records.
    Blank as a sufficient response to WP:DENY concerns, possibly tag as historical, if anyone can be imagined to care. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, you're correct that it looks like a talk page, but it was not "for discussion and resolution of issues in real time." All the communication you see on the page originally occurred at User talk:33451 and was copy-pasted from User talk:33451/2004 Archive. The only thing that happened on this page since the cut-and-paste was a collection of evidence that 33451 had socked. I think this qualifies as an evidence page.
I also don't think blanking is the right course of action. Why do you think copy-pasting someone's talk page archives into your userspace is acceptable? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that the copy of an entire talk page violates WP:UP#NOT/10. I don't think that it is a collection of information on specific editors.
    • I think that copying and editing anything and everything released under our copyright is acceptable by default. Users do not own their userspace, including their talk pages. If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that a page such as this is worthy of the attention of MfD until one of the following happens: (1) You discuss it with the custodian (ie User:Chmod007), and the discuss leads to an impass; or (2) You blank the page, are reverted, and subsequent discussion with the reverter is not fruitful. Bad ideas should be resolved between editors. Bad idea pages should be blanked, or tagged for speedy deletion under {{db-u1}} or {{db-g7}}. Someone else's bad idea page should not be advertised at MfD before exhausting the above steps. The posting of WP:DENY rationales is a self-conflicting action. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Good points. #1 is not feasible due to Chmod007's apparent retirement. #2 I certainly could have tried. I agree with your final point in general, but I think WP:DENY may be used as a rationale for deletion at MfD in unusual circumstances. Whether this is among them is a different question entirely. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I actually do not see a reason for deletion enunciated above. I see several questions which are outside the purview of MfD, however. Looking at the material, it appears that all links to people making posts are retained, making it a proper copy in that sense. I am unsure that "attack" is a problem, as the editor in question was apparently barred from WP, making any issue in that sense a tad moot. Is there a major point in favor of deletion that I am missing here? Much of the added material was by Theresa Knott, which muddies the question posed a bit. Collect (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Outside the purview of MfD? Perhaps, but since they're being presented with regards to deletion of a page in userspace, I think they are legitimately posed. If you would like me to start a discussion at WT:UP about this, I will. I think the major point here is that copy-pasting someone's entire user talk archives into your userspace is simply not an idea that makes much sense, and that maintaining a collection of sockpuppetry allegations (proven or not) as evidence against a user (even if that editor hasn't been on Wikipedia in years) is simply contrary to WP:UP, not to mention WP:DENY. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As there is no separate noticeboard for userpages -- likely it would have to be raised at AN to get any eyes on the overall issue of copying material from other pages in general into userspace, and copying to material from user talk pages in particular. It is, to my knowledge, a common practice. I doubt that userpages are more protected from copying than other pages, and the requirement that the date and name of editors involved does not appear to be an issue in the current instance. I regard MfD as presenting weight of arguments for and against deletion based on policy and guidelines, with the onus being on the proponent of deletion to furnish valid reasons. If the material was solely that of the user whose space it is now in, you might have a valid point about attack information which could not be used in WP DR or processes otherwise. The material, however, does not fall into that category. The other issue running in at that point is whether references on userpages and usertalk pages to WP process pages (including SPI, EW etc.) are proper in the first place, whether or not they are quoted extensively. In short, several questions for which MfD with its very limited number of participants is not well-suited to answer. Collect (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I agree that it's a common practice, per se. Copying over excerpts, possibly, but entire talk page archives? I don't know that I've ever seen that previously.
I find it interesting that we have similar ideas about MfD (the onus being on those favoring deletion) and yet so often come to different conclusions. Perhaps we weigh certain arguments differently. In any case, perhaps you are right that MfD is not the best forum for some of the questions posed here. I will start a discussion at WT:UP about the idea of talk-archive-copycat pages like this, probably advertising it at WP:AN. In the meantime, I don't think there's any sort of consensus in this discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator's points would be better raised at the village pump, and a deletion discussion would best be postponed until that time (if it comes) when discussion at the VP says that keeping this kind of thing is against policy. At this point, I don't see a problem with it — if Chmod007 wants/wanted to keep this information around, I don't see how it's hurting the encyclopedia. Yes, Chmod007 is now inactive, but we don't delete userspace subpages because the user is gone. Nyttend (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vinsfan368/^^
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 them all (including the dependent pages that Black Falcon linked, except for User:Vinsfan368/?. Killiondude (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vinsfan368/^^

Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#Games. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 09:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players)
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, with no prejudice against continuing discussions elsewhere of possible non-deletion actions, such as a merge, redirect, or demotion. RL0919 (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players)

Pointless fork of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). All this guideline does is bulk out the kudzu of process by trying to describe all the ways in which one might disambiguate two baseball players with similar names. How often do you think we're going to find two players with the same name who are both pitchers but one is left handed and the other right handed? It's a pointless attempt to legislate clue based on hypothetical examples which may never come up. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Utterly ridiculous" might be overstating. It was intended to be a helpful guide for how to disambiguate baseball players consistently - by position first, then by right-handed/left-handed, etc. Just baseball-specific attributes that would form some helpful consistency to baseball readers. But someone is intent on turning the helpful guidelines into weapons to enforce a rigid consistency at all costs. Truly the original intent was not ridiculous. Wknight94 talk 19:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can appreciate that the original intent was to be helpful... I just believe that the disambiguation guidelines should be generalized and able to apply to all sports figures, baseball players included. JBsupreme (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could look it up easily enough if I cared to, but I think this page predates the (sportspeople) page. The issue isn't that baseball is special, but rather that this page was never properly folded into the new page that had a broader scope. Resolute 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disambiguation guidelines had to be rather specific due to a) the huge number of articles that fall within the article's domain, b) the rather rapid population grown of articles and c) the maddeningly-overlapping nature of baseball careers. Look at the Bill Smiths and Bob Millers of the baseball world, for example. Was the level of detail ridiculous? Yes. I know, because just as I thought I had wrapped things up, another editor would throw another wrinkle at me. But I wanted to create something that would be comprehensive and lasting. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 04:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with sportspoeple per JBSupreme. This is really the same basic idea as the other sports on that page, no need to have a seperate one. Triplestop x3 19:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has apparently been brought here to resolve a controversy over what it should contain--during the course of an rfc on the subject. It would be better to settle the issue at the rfc. I see this as an attempt to short-circuit discussion. (as for the merits of the different proposals, I havent the least idea or interest) DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I take no stance on the arguments presented, but this meets criterion #4 for speedily keeping as the page in question is a Wikipedia guideline. XfD is explicitly not for discussion of revoking policies and guidelines. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was never proposed, just written and declared a guideline by its major authors. By such standards, I could create a fork of WP:MOS that, for example, did everything the American way, and then slap a {{Guideline}} on it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an inaccurate comparison. A bit of digging shows that there was extensive discussion before the guideline was tagged with {{proposed}}, was uncontested on the talk page, and was promoted to guideline status by an administrator about a month later. Was WP:PROPOSAL followed? No. But should a guideline that has been tagged and treated as such for almost two years be eligible for a speedy keep at MfD? Absolutely. I've raised this issue at AN. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he is alluding to WP:NOTPAPER, in that it doesn't hurt and could help the wiki to have specific guidelines for an area so that when issues do come up there is somewhere to look to see what has been done in the past. That being said since the list is also listed at the (sports people) page there is no need to have it listed twice. -DJSasso (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After reading all the above, I do not note a single WP rule or policy which would dictate the deletion of this. SmokeyJoe has a good handle on this. Collect (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and demote to essay status. Too useful to delete but too specific to rename a guideline. --Thinboy00 @086, i.e. 01:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to those saying "speedy keep": WP:IAR applies here; it is absurd to have one set of naming conventions for baseball players and another for sportspeople; we've already got half of a discussion here, there's no reason (well, no good reason) to close it down, disrupting discussion in the process, only to immediately reopen on the talk page. --Thinboy00 @089, i.e. 01:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form. Note ethat this also means redirecting it to the sportspeople list, where the info's currently at, is acceptable. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2009-12-27

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jay2518/ZIZORK
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 FALCON (TALK) 20:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jay2518/ZIZORK

Wikipedia is not a choose-your-own-adventure book. Also all the related subpages here. Q T C 18:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

2009-12-25

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:98.88.23.235
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, with no prejudice to recreating the page if it is needed (for example, if someone else uses the IP and needs to be engaged or welcomed). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 19:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:98.88.23.235

User page created for the current floating IP that I am using while on vacation. I made some edits and did not feel like logging in. --CaveatLector Talk Contrib 06:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the only person who's edited from that IP in the last few months? If so, I'll blank the page if it bothers you, although the content seems pretty harmless. A formal MfD is, in any event, not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain that this IP is unique to my family's provider. I can't guarantee that the ISP doesn't float it around, however. It doesn't *bother* me per se, as much as it just takes up WikiSpace. I would have gone for a Speedy, but I don't think User Pages can be speedy deleted, correct? CaveatLector Talk Contrib 08:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They can be (see WP:CSD#General and WP:CSD#User) but this doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Drhealthwatch (2nd nomination)
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 is. No prejudice against immediate renomination if (s)he reposts it. Non admin closure. Thinboy00 @895, i.e. 20:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be not the talk page of a user but the creation of an article in talk page space well over a year ago, with no activity since. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

2009-12-24

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daf/Telepathy
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 deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs) per U1 (the user !voted to delete below). Killiondude (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daf/Telepathy

User page unused by original editor since 2007, is a copy of information already in an article. Miami33139 (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fbot1/List of the Best Open-Source Apps
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. Killiondude (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fbot1/List of the Best Open-Source Apps

A user made these POV fakearticles in 2007 and never did anything else. The user never contributed to the project and these pages do not do anything to help the project and can't be used to improve the project. Miami33139 (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fbot1/List of the Best Open-Source Apps/Gnome Apps
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. Killiondude (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fbot1/List of the Best Open-Source Apps/Gnome Apps

A user made these POV fakearticles in 2007 and never did anything else. The user never contributed to the project and these pages do not do anything to help the project and can't be used to improve the project. Miami33139 (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fbot1/List of the Best Open-Source Apps/KDE or Gnome Apps
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. Killiondude (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fbot1/List of the Best Open-Source Apps/KDE or Gnome Apps

A user made these POV fakearticles in 2007 and never did anything else. The user never contributed to the project and these pages do not do anything to help the project and can't be used to improve the project. Miami33139 (talk) 06:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

2009-12-22

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 1
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. Killiondude (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 1

Despite the page's name, much if not most of the material (especially under the topmost header, "The Karel and JoyDiamond Chronicles", but there's more if you look through the page) seems to not be a simple archive of the user's talk page. It contains what looks like a cherry-picked record of comments and exchanges pertaining to selected users and events. It includes comments, exchanges, and warnings from other pages, some being accompanied by SkagitRiverQueen's thoughts on them. This would seem to violate Userspace policy, specifically Wikipedia:UP#What may I not have on my user page?, item #10.

I attempted to explain this issue to the user, but they seemed unable to understand, or are unwilling to acknowledge a problem. Equazcion (talk) 17:46, 22 Dec 2009 (UTC) 17:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Equazcion is referring to *is* my talk page archive. Equazcion continues to quote user page policy to me but has yet to show me from talk page and talk page archive policy that what I have on my page is any kind of violation. Equazcion seems to believe that I should delete my entire talk page archive just because he/she says I should. Beyond all of that, I'm extremely curious as to why, suddenly out of the blue, Equazcion finds it necessary to seemingly police, and be so deeply concerned about, what's included in my talk page archives to begin with. -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

continued on talk page Equazcion (talk) 21:45, 22 Dec 2009 (UTC)
I see...so now everyone who has had a beef with me in the past is going to miraculously appear out of the woodwork and vote for deletion (e.g., Wildhartlivie). Is this actually becoming a vendetta vote...? Interesting. I'd like to see an administrator involved here - not just editors. And let's make sure that Wikipedia policy is followed, okay? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not unless you want to provide a list like this one. A WP:3RR report was filed on you and you dragged my name into it. How does that content relate to possible use in a WP process or ongoing dispute resolution to a page that is locked for 3 months? Why am I mentioned on your "archive page"? Why is the person who filed the report included there? Do you have an ongoing dispute with either of us? No. We disagreed once, you were reported for violating 3RR. I didn't file the report, but you find it "helpful" to your needs to retain a report not filed on your talk page in your archives. That seems more like a vendetta style list to me. I'd suggest saving a document on your own computer rather than compile a list of grievances against others or where others are mentioned. And for the record, you posted an effort at editing on the same articles peace post. So how do I have a beef with you now except I object to your keeping a copy of a 3RR report wherein you tried to draw my name into it. These miscellany for discussion pages are here for everyone to read and comment upon. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did not find any policy or gudeline which states that "archive" is a reserved word. The editor, hover, seems here to state that it is retained for possible use in WP process -- which happens to fall into a specific protected class of userpages. If it remains in situ after a reasonable period of time after sch use would make sense (which would clearly be after an article is unlocked) then it might be presentable at MfD then. Until then -- it is protectable no matter what its name -- the user could call it "elephants" and the page is still in that class. Collect (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no problem with use of the word "archive". The user was referring to that word as if it were a defense of the page content though, which I disputed. Anyway, WP:UP states that this use is okay "provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner". The collection began on 9 October and the user plans to keep it around at least until February, which is at least a 4 month period. Just pointing that out. I'll leave it up to everyone else to determine if this qualifies. Equazcion (talk) 18:54, 22 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Has something changed in the definition of Wikipedia User Pages and the term now also includes Talk Page Archives? If so, could someone please point this out to me where it is? If not, could someone please explain to Equazcion that User Pages and Talk Page Archives are not synonymous and neither is User Page use policy? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
continued on talk page Equazcion (talk) 21:45, 22 Dec 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:UP#NOT. Example 10 is relevant. Gigs (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be -- except for that bit about preparing material for any WP DR processes. If that exception is claimed, I fail to see how MfD can overrule it. Collect (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said in response to your comment above, the exception in WP:UP is for preparation for processes started in a "timely manner". The user hasn't even resolved to start any process at all, and they don't plan on even making the decision until a point when the material will have been up for at least 4 months. Equazcion (talk) 23:25, 23 Dec 2009 (UTC)
        • I do not consider two months excessive. Indeed, I would suggest that all MfD "deadlines" be uniformly set at, say, six months. This would be in line with a number of previous MfDs concerning such material. Collect (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • My understanding of the current practice, and the purpose of the exception in the userpage policy, is to allow users to prepare cases for specific impending processes. An ArbCom filing or RFC/u, for example, that a user resolved to begin but nevertheless needed time to gather evidence for, would be a valid use of userspace. If you can find a previous instance where a page was kept where a user stored a listing of misdeeds for a period of up to 5 months, just-in-case it might be needed for some vague purpose in the future, then please present it. I'd be surprised if you could though. This is, in my mind, precisely what the policy is intended to prevent. Equazcion (talk) 00:12, 24 Dec 2009 (UTC)
            • [6] six months being a reasonable amount of time for a userpage to be untouched entirely. [7] retention of userfied article for 6 months not excessive. Case in hand is far different from [8] which is what I would label an attack page. [9] is parallel to the current case. Possible page for DR was around for over five months - and was a "Speedy Keep." Which was one case you asked for, I think. Need more? Collect (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes. As for the last page, it's a little different since the page clearly states its purpose at the top and is formatted for one of those processes; nevertheless I disagree with that discussion's close, and don't believe it to be typical. People shouldn't be maintaining lists long-term of other editors' misdeeds. That's why we have the policy stipulation -- so that people can't get around the "no attacks" rule by making it look like an innocent list of occurrences. It must have an impending specific purpose, precisely to prevent such misuse. I don't think your other examples apply to this situation, since we're not talking about article drafts here, or the recreation of deleted material. Attack concerns are a different animal, and are allowed or deleted based on more stringent criteria, due to the risk of inflammation. Equazcion (talk) 01:03, 24 Dec 2009 (UTC)
                • Disagree as you will with precedent, but that does not alter the fact that I provided the precedent you asked for. Collect (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I disagree that the one pertinent example you provided establishes any firm precedent. Equazcion (talk) 01:45, 24 Dec 2009 (UTC)
                    • Collect, we give 6 months on userspace drafts and abandoned pages that are otherwise harmless... we don't give 6 months on pages that disparage another editor. Pages of "evidence" that aren't immediately applicable to an ArbCom case, we have deleted those in the past... 6 months has never been a standard for that. Gigs (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UP#NOT. Example 10 is relevant. and some other comments above. Not proper usage of her user page, --CrohnieGalTalk 02:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Terrific. Another vote from the "Vendetta Crew". (NOTE: IMO, above Delete votes from editors Wildhartlivie and Crohnie are not from an NPOV standpoint, as we have have had editing conflicts previously - and recently - within the article Ted Bundy) Is it possible to get more votes from those with an NPOV? Moreover, I think it would be good that everyone remember Wikipedia policy when you vote (and not just cherry-picking the parts you like and forgetting the ones you don't). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd make a lot more headway here, SkagitRiverQueen, if you actually stopped making ad hominem attacks upon editors expressing an opinion here based on your self-perceived view that editors have "vendetta crews" and stop casting aspersions on the posters. The fact is, you personally are not important enough for me to waste my energy on. However, I raised a perfectly legitimate concern - why you included a WP:3RR report filed on you wherein you tried to pull me into it as part of your "collection of content referencing a content dispute" with someone else on a page unrelated to the dispute we had. Instead, you've made a huge effort to discredit my comments as part of some sort of self-perceived "hate" group who is against you. I'm not against you, I am against your retention of that report on your userspace. here is no valid reason for that report to be there. This has everything to do with policy and guidelines - you cannot defend the retention of a copy of a WP:3RR report on the grounds you have outlined. Please see WP:UP#NOT, #10. WP:3RR reports are not part of the normal dispute resolution process. And while you're at it, take a minute to review WP:AGF. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I have absolutely no history with this editor other than what User:Wildhartlivie points out above. Even though it's stricken, for the record, I am not part of any "Vendetta Crew". Policy is what matters here, I feel my comments about it is correct towards what policies state. Thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying you "have absolutely no history" is not quite honest, IMO. We argued back-and-forth over certain issues at the Ted Bundy article - and you were most certainly in Wildhartlivie's camp. I find it strangely "conincidental" that, out of nowhere, you find this discussion after Wildhartlivie does. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't appreciate the personal attacks. I think this should stop already. You keep attacking editors than accuse them of some kind of conspiracy theory. There is no reason not to assume good faith. I'm done, have the last word. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. You are allowed to hold on to stuff like this if you're writing up a RFC or RFAR or something like that and need a sandbox. This doesn't seem to be the case here; it borders on libel, in fact. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me you are going on personal opinion here, rather than actually referencing facts and/or policy. As far as the "libel" charge...(1) - you are bordering on WP:NLT here, and (2) - How can what's contained in my talk-page archives be libelous when it's all the written words of other editors themselves? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is saying that you are bordering on libel a legal threat? I am not saying that I am going to sue you. I am not saying that I am going to press charges against you. I don't know how I would even be in a position to. In regards to #2, you can take things out of context. You can cherrypick. You can misrepresent. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even bringing up libel is leveling a charge against me that is legal in nature. *That*, from what I understand, is a violation of WP:NLT. That you would even suggest that I am libeling anyone is also, from what I can tell, WP:WL, and another violation. In regard to your "in regards (sic) to #2"...I would not take what other people have written intentionally out of context (exactly why I am fighting to keep what is there so that it is all read *in* context), nor would I intentionally cherrypick. That you are accusing me of things that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand is, most certainly, uncivil Wikipedia behavior (see WP:CIV and a violation of WP:NPA) in addition to the aforementioned violations of Wikipedia policy. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing this to WP:ANI. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More personal attacks. Is it at all possible for people to weigh in here without using personal attacks? Wikilawyering? Really?? Not even close. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't accuse every delete voter of personal attacks this way. They're just stating the problems with the page and the flaws in your argument for keeping it, which is part of what deletion discussions entail. Suggesting that someone violated a policy isn't a personal attack. Theoretically a case could be made for incivility and personal attacks any time a perceived policy violation is pointed out; but people need to be able to do that, or else policy could never be enforced. Equazcion (talk) 17:08, 24 Dec 2009 (UTC)
The statement, "This is an attempt to wikilawyer" without any facts to back the claim up is, IMO, a personal attack. Just like Rschen's claim of libel was a personal attack. I'm starting to believe that those who watch dispute pages do so only because they *like* dispute and enjoy using it as a way to put others under their thumbs. Whatever. I really don't care anymore. Decide what you will. Just don't delete the page without me knowing it so I can get the stuff I need to keep out of there. Have a great Christmas. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have a very twisted interpretation of Wikipedia policy. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And yet another personal attack from Rschen is noted. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you really think so, then take it to WP:WQA or WP:ANI. Don't just make accusations and not back them up. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really do think so but don't have a need to validate my thoughts on such a matter by running to an admin notice board to tattle on another editor. I don't need to "back up" anything - your words above speak for themselves (as does your dare for me to take this to a notice board). I believe in discussion and trying to come to an understanding. I further believe that would have been the best course for you with me rather than running to AN/I because I complained about your obvious breach of good faith and civility above. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line here is that this is not a personal attack upon SkagitRiverQueen, although she seems to be taking it as one. She has yet to respond to my very direct question about what purpose the filed WP:3RR report has on her "archive page". Avoiding answering that does nothing to sway my opinion from this being her list of "serious injury lists" for purposes of what? payback? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add that in addition to trying to get my opinion mooted here, SkagitRiverQueen opened a sock puppet report where she named me as a possible sock here. Is this how offering an opinion should be met? I think not. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - SkagitRiverQueen has begun "maintenance" on the page, presumably to fix the issues brought up here; however the first step in that process has been to blank the page. Blanking during MfD is generally not allowed, because it makes it harder for people to judge the merit of the deletion. I'm therefore posting this link for reference, so people can see what it looked like prior to the blanking. I guess we can assume good faith for now that Skag will follow through with this effort in a timely manner and not leave the page blanked for an extended period of time. Equazcion (talk) 18:49, 25 Dec 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.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DFR(RAAF)
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. Killiondude (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:DFR(RAAF)

This userpage is a copy of Royal Australian Air Force Pilot, which was one in a series of job ads created by this uset and deleted via WP:prod (A article with similar content and formatting, by a different user, was more recently deleted after an AfD discussion).

I believe that this userpage should be deleted as it violates Wikipedia policies regarding advertising and promotion, and sections appear to be copied from the Defence Force Recruiting webpage advertising jobs as Pilots, and relevant subpages, which may breach copyright which may be copyright violations. -- saberwyn 07:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Userspace does not require the same standards as are needed to survive an AfD. There is no commercial advertizing here. I do not see any copyvio (reciting of facts is different in form and phrasing from the cite given). Absent a reason to delete, default to Keep. Collect (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One example of direct copying from the userpage
Upon joining the Royal Australian Air Force as a Pilot, Direct Entry Officers will normally undertake the Initial Officer Course of 16 weeks duration. This is a live-in course completed at RAAF Base East Sale, located 220 kilometres east of Melbourne (VIC).This course involves introduction to military life, Air Force values and attitudes, ground defence and weapons training, leadership and personal development, communication skills and Air Force operations studies.
From the Military Training subpage
Immediately upon joining the Air Force, direct entry officers will normally undertake the Initial Officer Course of 16 weeks duration. This is a live-in course completed at RAAF Base East Sale, located 220 kilometres east of Melbourne (VIC).
The major elements of the course involve introduction to military life, Air Force Values and attitudes, Ground Defence and Weapons training, Leadership and Personal Development, Communication Skills and Air Force Operations studies.
I'm fairly sure (but not certain, IANAL) that copying a copyrighted website this closely is a copyright violation. The entire 'training' section is either a direct copy, or slightly reworded in similar ways to the above example, of sections from the Military Training and Employment Training pages. The first sentance of 'qualifications' is a direct copy of the first sentance of the 'Australian Defence Force Academy' section of Education Requirements. There may be others I haven't found yet. -- saberwyn 20:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio requires more than simple English recitation of facts. Indeed, "rewording" is a cure for such an accusation. Further, the Australian Government does not assert copyright where the dissemination is not done with intent to deceive. In short, not a copyvio. Any more than quoting "All the news that's fit to print" is a copyvio for the NYT. In addition, note the WP position that up to a couple of paragraphs may be quoted exactly. Here there is not such amount of exact quote at all. Also note the common law precept that simple facts can not be copyrighted. "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius" can not be copyrighted, etc. The material is a recitation of fact, possibly derived from official sources, but such facts are not susceptible to copyright in the first place. Hence - a non-issue for consideration here. Collect (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copying whole sentences of a copyrighted work and maybe swapping a couple words and presenting them as article text would absolutely be a copyright violation. Our non-free content criteria only allows brief verbatim textual excerpts. Swapping a couple words around creates a derived work, which would be prohibited by our policies as an improper use of copyrighted material. As well, I believe that you are wrong about works of the Australian Government... they would fall under Crown Copyright and therefore would not be allowed in our article text. The fact that the Australian government has vowed not to enforce their copyright against certain uses is irrelevant. Our mission here is free content, and our copyright policies exceed what is allowed under the law. Gigs (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me where a simple recitation of facts is copyright? BTW, the shifts in wording appear more than minimal here. And at that point, it should be at the copyvio noticeboard - not MfD, no? Collect (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Facts are not copyrightable, I never said they were. Copying sentences and changing a couple words is still a violation. What would Wikipedia:Copyright problems do with this? They deal in infringing articles. If anything, we should just speedy delete this rather than dragging out this pointless discussion about a copyright infringing article that the community already deleted once. Gigs (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what's claimed above, the Australian Government normally very strongly asserts copyright on its websites and other publications - the website in question here is no exception - the material can only be reproduced in certain contexts and where it is not changed - Wikipedia clearly does not meet these criteria. Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyright violation, not related to the encyclopedia in any way. Gigs (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:User page even if there are no problems with copyright:

    Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia. Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website. Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project.

    This userpage violates every single sentence in that quote, which happens to be the introduction to the user page guideline. Its content is neither part of any "efforts to contribute to the project" nor in any related to Wikipedia, and its presence here is an example of using Wikipedia as a general hosting service. It is, quite simply, a copy-pasted (and somewhat modified) job ad posted by a user whose only other contributions have been similar job ads posted in the mainspace: [10][11][12]. While I agree that editors should have fairly wide discretion concerning the type of material that is present on their user pages, I do make a distinction between "editor" or "participant" (to borrow the wording of Wikipedia:User page) and "user". –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 20:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Copyvio and not an appropriate use for user space. Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2009-12-21

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheGreenMartian/TGM's Vandalism Tools (it's a joke)
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. I realize that this may be contentious, but regardless of whether or not it is marked as a joke, the information contained within is accurate, and there is no positive way in which that information can be used. Though we give fairly broad leeway for humorous content in userspace, the potential for misuse and WP:BEANS trumps any issues of userspace sanctity. I am always open for deletion review, however. GJC 05:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheGreenMartian/TGM's Vandalism Tools (it's a joke)

Clearly not appropriate, and in no way helps to build an encyclopedia. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 08:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were notified of this MfD here at 08:36, 21 December 2009 (same time as the above nomination). Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A seemingly automated notification is different than actually posting on my talk page. I should probably remove the deletion tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreenMartian (talk • contribs) 13:18, 23 December 2009
I would highly recommend against that...or you would have another notice on your talk page, more specifically {{uw-afd1}}. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't removed the tag, but I did make a parody of it in my userspace and place it below the original tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreenMartian (talk • contribs) 16:57, 23 December 2009
GreenMartian, try to remember that the main point of being here is to build an encyclopedia. A little humor is fine, but Wikipedia isn't a game or a webhost. Gigs (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BEANS. Whether intentional or not, this could be viewed as a vandal's manual, documenting various techniques and showing which are most likely to cause irreparable damage. We don't need that. If its only purpose is a joke, and it could potentially be harmful, it should be deleted. Equazcion (talk) 12:46, 24 Dec 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, but mark as humour and as an essay, plus clean up in order to avoid WP:BEANS. Look, it's partly funny, and we have a lot worse allowed on Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would you suggest cleaning it up to avoid BEANS? As far as I can tell, the entire page is fundamentally BEANSy. Unless the page is basically blanked it would still be that way. Equazcion (talk) 17:12, 24 Dec 2009 (UTC)
  • KEEP - First, it's a joke. Second, it does not contradict WP:UP at all. It's a joke. Naluboutes,NalubotesAeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris 18:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWeak Keep and mark with {{humor}}. It's Wikipedia related, and it's in the userspace, no need to censor peoples' userspace except to enforce policies such as WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:Attack page. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just want to address all the "it's a joke" comments: Marking something bad as "a joke" doesn't make it okay. If someone makes an attack page (for example) and marks it as humor, that doesn't suddenly absolve it of any violation. Secondly, and more importantly, despite the intention, the page contains real information, not "joke" information. When you advertise actual methods for damaging something, saying "just kidding" doesn't negate the harm done. You've still advertised information that could help someone inclined to cause damage. Equazcion (talk) 01:56, 2 Jan 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree it's very immature. It is indeed promoting vandalism to a certain extent. However, as far as promoting malicious activity, it's not much worse than a particular page in someone's userspace I once read title "RfA for fun and profit" or something to that effect. I'm not big on the censorship of userspace. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the two remotely compare with each other. The possibility that someone could get the idea to post a bad-faith RfA nomination is not only low but the damage it would cause would be minuscule; it would affect a single page that has continuous high attention, and would quickly and easily be taken care of. This on the other hand provides instructions for contributing to an already-overwhelming problem across the entire encyclopedia. Equazcion (talk) 02:58, 2 Jan 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Pages that provide ideas to vandals about the most "destructive" forms of vandalism (User:TheGreenMartian/TGM's Vandalism Tools (it's a joke)#Type IV Vandalism) do not belong on Wikipedia. This "joke" page does not improve the wiki. While some may find it very humorous, the negatives (teaching vandals malicious forms of harming Wikipedia) far outweigh the positives (giving people a laugh). Cunard (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sorry about this. I really am. I thought it was pretty funny and all, but it's giving people ideas. It gave me a few ideas. The thing is, I won't take the advice, whereas a vandla will. Marking it as a joke is very unlikely to change a vandal's opinion. Sorry, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 16:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page clearly violates WP:DENY. The Thing Editor Review 03:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, it's funny, but it is also far too instructive. WP:BEANS and WP:DENY are essays, not guidelines, so I won't say this page "violates" them, but they do give cogent explanations of why a page like this is a bad idea. --RL0919 (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=336106054"