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
Adding MfD for User:Kironide. (TW)
was going to delete own userpage but this is the improper process
Line 8: Line 8:
{{purgepage}}
{{purgepage}}
<!-- PLEASE ADD your discussion BELOW this line, creating a new dated section where necessary. -->
<!-- PLEASE ADD your discussion BELOW this line, creating a new dated section where necessary. -->

===[[2010-04-19]]===
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kironide}}


==={{#formatdate:2010-04-18}}{{anchor|2010-04-18|April 18, 2010|18 April 2010|2010 April 18}}===
==={{#formatdate:2010-04-18}}{{anchor|2010-04-18|April 18, 2010|18 April 2010|2010 April 18}}===

Revision as of 04:43, 19 April 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 15 15
TfD 0 0 0 8 8
MfD 0 0 0 0 9
FfD 0 0 1 6 7
RfD 0 0 9 51 60
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

2010-04-18

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Holden yo/PATH
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. Tim Song (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Holden yo/PATH

This is a copy of Port Authority Trans-Hudson. Copies are not allowed in userspace per WP:UP#COPIES. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 18 April 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:Pprasadnair
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. Peter 14:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Pprasadnair

As worded by 117.204.81.158, "vanity page, why should an encyclopedia host it?" This is merely a technical listing; this doesn't repersent my opinion in the matter. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:19, 18 April 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 Lordi
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. Tim Song (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Lordi

"WikiProject" with only 1 (one) edit by the sole participant, who has a grand total of 14 edits, the last in December 2009. Rd232 talk 14:50, 18 April 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.

2010-04-17

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dakota Pauls
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. Peter 14:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Dakota Pauls

As per Wikipedia:NOT#WEBSPACE. Nymf hideliho! 01:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Many users display information about themselves on their user pages, and our user pages guideline allows a fair amount of latitude there, provided the material is not "likely to bring the project into disrepute" and also not "excessive unrelated content" or "extensive self-promotional material" – none of which applies to the material on this user page, a single paragraph plus an info box. It is fairly common for users to choose to style their user pages as articles (Aeidein, Aero Kaizer, Allenj172, ... Zliljoemz). I don't know of a policy or guideline discouraging that, and more than a few of those users are consistently productive and constructive editors (e.g. Cabrosa, Coocooforcocopuffs, Gameyoung18, Headdymann, Isadora1234, Meow, Saksjn, Scubeesnax, Sogospelman). If user pages styled like articles are deemed undesirable, the solution should be to add a {{user page}} tag, not to have the page deleted.  --Lambiam 13:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The user is not even active. If you look at the edit history, it consists mostly of an IP editing it. The last edit (outside of the userspace) by the account itself is done about 4 months ago. Looks to me like it is done merely to promote, and that is my issue with it. Nymf hideliho! 15:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Largely per Lambiam - Formatting a user page like an article isn't unusual, and is not AFAIK, discouraged. User doesn't have a lot of edits, but has some. It might be a closer call if there were no edits other than to the user page. I concur that adding the user page template would be a good idea - in fact, I'll do so.--SPhilbrickT 14:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a reasonably short user page of a marginally notable person, per Aero K. I can't see the problem with it. If there are no more edits in another 8 months, then we can delete it. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is not a rquirement for a userpage to have information about the user in any case. The Order of Canada is actually sufficient <g>. As for "not even active" I regard edits made in April 2010 to be sufficient evidence of activity <g> and would be astonished if he showed activity in May 2010 already! Collect (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The OC and OBC titles are obviously a sham. 15 year olds aren't bestowed with such titles. I just wanted to point that out. My issue wasn't with the person being notable (which he isn't) anyway . Nymf hideliho! 12:44, 22 April 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:Articles for deletion/Olivia Feschuk (2nd nomination)
The following discussion is a record 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.

I've moved the redundant listing to the original's talk page (without leaving behind a redirect) and transferred the second nominator's message to the active listing. —David Levy 02:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivia Feschuk (2nd nomination)

This "2nd nomination" was created within seconds after the first nomination for deletion, apparently by an amazing coincidence. It serves no useful purpose and should never have been created to begin with. If the AfD debate results in Keep and the article is later renominated for deletion, the existence of this page will be extremely confusing.  --Lambiam 01:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.

2010-04-16

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Pokémon: The one for Pokémon news
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. Tim Song (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book:Pokémon: The one for Pokémon news

A user recently created the long titled version (originally Wikipedia:Books/Pokemon). I notice there is a lot of duplication (100%?) with Book:Pokémon so I wonder what is the best option here. Does this books have a different-enough scope to stay, or should it be merged/redirect with Book:Pokémon? Right now I'm leaning towards merging and redirecting to Book:Pokémon. WP Pokémon and the creator contacted. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Definitely merge (or just AfD). It does not look like the author has a clear scope in mind. It is either a duplication of existing entries or irrelevant ones, such as Game Boy articles or Experience point.—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  13:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The "one for Pokemon news" doesn't make any sense. It doesn't even have the newest games, HeartGold and SoulSilver, and Black and White. I say just outright delete it. It serves no purpose, and is not even a good search term. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
K, well I'll send to MfD so things are a bit more formal. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above was copy-pasted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Merging Book:Pokémon: The one for Pokémon news with Book:Pokémon Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As my post was copied, confirming my delete support. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  19:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could still use the one for pokemon news at the other book Hyperstar (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Philip1992[reply]

A book for news doesn't make any sense. We already have news on the portal. Books just don't seem like the place for news. Although, I don't know much about them, I am pretty sure they are about bringing together articles that are important to the subject for readers to have all in one list. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:37, 19 April 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:Wikid77/Morocco
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 consider the GFDL argument to be of great weight since a GFDL violation is tantamount to copyvio. Tim Song (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikid77/Morocco

A duplicate of the Morocco article, this belongs to the article namespace. This is largely inactive. I had twice requested the user earlier for deletion. Jay (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the page was created by a very active user, and was created to do some testing, which seemed to have been done. There no question the creation and use was legitimate, the only question is whether a page created for testing, and not edited for some time, should be removed. I realize the editor has been contacted, and has not yet responded, but I'd be inclined to ask again at the user talk page in case the other mention was missed, and see what the editor wants to do. If anyone is concerned that it might be mistaken for an actual article, would the user page template help alleviate that concern? I may be biased, as I just checked, and I have a copy of an article in my user space which I was using for testing. Ironically, my last edit to that page was within a few days of the last user edit to the page under discussion, although I believe I've made a few test edits which I haven't saved. (I just added the user page template to my own example.) I'm leaning toward keep, although if unedited for a couple years, would consider a different conclusion.--SPhilbrickT 15:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Jay already contacted Wikid77 twice and was ignored both times — once on 10:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC) and the second time on 22:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC) — I see no need to contact Wikid77 a third time.

    The userpage template would not alleviate the concern that this a GFDL copyright violation of Morocco. This userspace draft violates Wikipedia:Plagiarism, which states that:

    Plagiarism is the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit.

    By hosting this unattributed content in his/her userspace, Wikid77 is not providing adequate credit to those who wrote the Morocco article. Cunard (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, largely per Sphilbrick. I added {{userpage|logo=yes|noindex=yes}}. This should be sufficient. When no longer needed, the page can be blanked or redirected; there is no need for others to insist on deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion is preferable to blanking because it removes the GFDL infringement from the page history and prevents the undoing of the blanking. Content that violates WP:UP#Copies should be removed through deletion, not blanking. Cunard (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DEADLINE is inapplicable in this situation. The introduction of WP:DEADLINE states:

    Wikipedia is not working to a deadline. A small number of articles might make Wikipedia 1.0, but the vast majority will not and for the balance there is no deadline. There are various points of view on what this lack of a deadline means.

    Morocco is already an article in the mainspace and has already made Wikipedia 1.0. Wikid77 has not used this draft to build or expand upon Morocco, so "there is no deadline" is irrelevant. Cunard (talk) 08:01, 25 April 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 TransLink
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. Tim Song (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no movement at all on this project, even after the project came under deletion discussion over a year ago. As such the project should be deleted. Gerry (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No edits to the project page since the month it was created (Jan 2009), excepting one minor edit by a non-participant. No talk page activity at all. No list of participants, and the only user carrying their userbox is the editor who created the project. Normally I would recommend marking as historical for an inactive WikiProject, but it appears this project never got off the ground in the first place. --RL0919 (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, never really gotten off the ground since the last deletion discussion. Sb617 (Talk) 03:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I see that the project was created by an editor who has continued to edit in other areas, albeit sporadically. I would think the first step would be to check with the editor - there's a decent chance the editor will agree it was a failed attempt and want it removed, on the other hand, the prompt may encourage the editor to revitalize it. However, removing it without even notifying Matt037291 seems wrong. --SPhilbrickT 15:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent Matt a message about this. Also I would have love for this project to be up and running, but there must be active members (other than me), by all means if there is strong active support for this project I will be behind it. Gerry (talk) 16:08, 17 April 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.

2010-04-15

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Peter 09:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Findbox

Not really the most efficient way to add userboxes to your userpage. Probably better just to add the userbox directly. WOSlinker (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Extremely inefficient. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm a bit surprised that one would proposed deletion for something like this without even attempting a conversation with the original editor. I realize that jumping to a deletion request may make sense in many cases, but in this case, why would it hurt to start a discussion with the editor? What if the editor is aware that the template isn't the most efficient way to add a userbox, but believes it is an efficient way to find userboxes? Or maybe the editor agrees that it isn't efficient, but thinks there is some clever code in it useful for other things and neglected to save it elsewhere? And maybe you can respond to both of these points, but are you absolutely sure there is nothing the editor can say that would cause you to rethink the decision? I've looked at three MFD's today, all of which would be better handled by a note to the original editor, explaining why it seems like the page is no longer useful, explaining that one is considering an MFD, but wanted some feedback from the editor first. Yes, it would delay the deletion as much as a few weeks, but that is a trivial downside compared to an editor finding something they created nominated for deletion without any discussion. (I do understand that in one example, someone did make that attempt and that is a better model, but I'd still push a little harder to ensure that the editor is aware of the possibility before actually proposing for deletion.)--SPhilbrickT 15:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The original editor is no longer active and the template is hadly used anyway, so little point in trying to make it better. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Editor was around in February 2010 - we can surely afford to wait. Efficiency is not really a reason for deletion in itself. Collect (talk) 12:40, 22 April 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:Hellobeautifulmusic/Hello Beautiful Music
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. Tim Song (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hellobeautifulmusic/Hello Beautiful Music

Abandoned userspace draft, Hello Beautiful incorporates all relevant points. Requested for deletion by article subject at OTRS Ticket:2010041410031548. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 15 April 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:J.MENSAH
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. Tim Song (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:J.MENSAH

User page obviously being used as a personal webhost. This user has not made an edit to any article since March 2009 [1] and has since only updated main User page and two subpages. User has been continuously editing it without logging in [2] resulting in quite a list of IP addresses [3]. The two subpages were previously used for the same reason but were redirected to the main page by the user. eo (talk) 18:20, 15 April 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:Vmware intern Apr 2010
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. Tim Song (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vmware intern Apr 2010

VMware intern using their user page to blog about their work projects. Wikipedia is not a blogging service. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-I'm usually very hesitant to delete a new user's user page, but I think both the contents of this page (the user's only contributions) and the username make it clear that this user has no intention of making any real contribution to the encyclopedia. I'd not object, though, if the user were to replace this with a more proper user page and cease using Wikipedia as a web host.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. This is a very blatant case, with no encyclopedia edits at all, just user-space blogging. --RL0919 (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Delete I'm happy to see that the user was notified that the blogging is not an acceptable use of the space, however, it has only been a couple days since that notice. I'd like to wait a couple weeks, just to see if the editor does change behavior, or ignores the request and continues to blog. Less leeway than other situations, as there is no evidence of productive edits to main space.--SPhilbrickT 16:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there anything here egregious enough that blanking would not solve it? Collect (talk) 12:46, 22 April 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:List of 100 art materials every encyclopedia should have
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. Though the MFD tag was missing from the page for almost the entire duration of the discussion, having been removed by User:RichardMcCoy, I'm not going to bother relisting this when there is enough participation to determine consensus. However, due to the procedural problem, I've no problem if someone wishes to relist this fairly soon. Tim Song (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of 100 art materials every encyclopedia should have

However laudable this list may be, Wikipedia is not a webhost. Even were it to be changed to focus on Wikipedia it is redundant to the mainspace article List of artistic mediums.

See also Wikipedia:List of 100 art techniques every English encyclopedia should have Nancy talk 15:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this, Nancy.
I'm not sure I understand why this has been proposed for deletion. Please keep it and remove the deletion banner.
It is focused on Wikipedia. The rational is here. Additionally, art materials are different than artistic mediums.
I'd be happy to have any suggestions to contextualize it in a way that was more clear. Thanks,--Richard McCoy (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This list, and the other one mentioned is intended to be along the same lines as Wikipedia:Vital articles. I believe that this was listed for deletion under the assumption that it was attempting to be a mainspace index of some sort. This is not the case. The list is the beginnings of an attempt by the art-museum community to see what articles in their area of expertise are a) missing and b) bad. Witty Lama 16:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about moving it to a subpage within the relevent Wikiproject? Nancy talk 16:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list seems to be intended as an incentive for museum people to join Wikipedia in it's encyclopedic aim. Therefore I don't understand why Wikipedia:NOTWEBHOST shall be the reason for deletion. Could Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums be the appropriate subpage incubator until the results move to the mainspace? --ThT (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cited WP:NOTWEBHOST based on the title of the page which suggests its scope is way beyond Wikipedia. Nancy talk 16:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the title could be improved. Knowing the intention of the The Wikipedia Lists of 100 Project I'd suggest to WP:AGF, reconsider the WP:MFD and help the museum people to enjoy a welcoming atmosphere of collaboration. --ThT (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it should remain and be built upon...Modernist (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the title of the article, merged the three lists into one, and added an introduction to explain the purpose of the article. See the new page at: Wikipedia:List of 100 Art concepts Wikipedia should have Witty Lama 20:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Honestly, people: think about what's important and what isn't. The page violates no policy and is part of an attempt to help the encyclopedia and its readers by getting ideas from museum experts. If it did violate a policy, I'd favor keeping it under WP:IAR since it is glaringly obvious that deleting it would hurt the encyclopedia. This deletion effort makes WP look bad. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No policy violation shown - the list gives its own rationale for existence (showing redlinks), and appears properly used for that purpose. Collect (talk) 12:49, 22 April 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.

2010-04-14

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AvidUser/Alpha Dogs, Inc. Post Production
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. Tim Song (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:AvidUser/Alpha Dogs, Inc. Post Production

Declined G11 speedy - spammy draft about a non-notable company by a spamnameblocked user. ukexpat (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Creator has in fact been blocked... – ukexpat (talk) 15:52, 14 April 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:GoRight/Raul654
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was blank. Tim Song (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoRight/Raul654

Relisted on 01:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC).

This page has been here for about a year. To my knowledge, no rfc, arb, or any other kind of DR has been filed. The user which this sub-page is under is banned. Since there is no pending rfc, I propose we delete it, as it falls under an attack page, in lieu of "collecting perceived faults", or the like. As this user is banned, I see no other reason to keep it here, being that they are never going to come back, and this DR is never going to be filed.

If they are unbanned, then undeletion can be considered. The sister page in Raul's userspace is also going to be nominated for the same reasons. — Dædαlus Contribs 06:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why let an attack page remain?— Dædαlus Contribs 09:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better for it to "remain", blanked, never looked at, never indexed, never hurting, than to take a delicate issue that has been otherwise let go and throw it on a community discussion page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relisting of this debate is even more inappropriate that its initial listing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 14 April 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:NYCRecords/NYC Records
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. Tim Song (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:NYCRecords/NYC Records

Userspace draft, however it was created with self-promotion in mind. Article creator is now permanently blocked, and even tried to go the RfC route to free up "NYC Records" so they could put this draft there. Therefore I feel that to have this draft remain is to condone their attempted self-promotion, so I have sent it here to Mfd to get a consensus on it.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:25, 14 April 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:No angry mastodons just madmen
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. Tim Song (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No angry mastodons just madmen

Attack page. Durova412 20:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Against who? It's a poorly written essay, but I don't see any attacks going on. Maybe a veiled reference to the author of wp:No angry mastodons, but that's about it. If you just object to that, remove it. I don't really get the point of the essay (are they saying to ignore troublemakers? That's often a good idea, and even if you disagree with it, this is an essay). Maybe it should be moved to user space. Buddy431 (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reference isn't veiled; the other author is named specifically and the principal thrust of the essay is to assert that author is mentally unsound. Durova412 21:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attack? Is it veiled, confused or just weird? There seem to be reasonable opinions interspersed, but I don't immediately see the point of making veiled reference Durova. Why make references to past disputes? If there is a useful point to be made, then it needs to be made clearer. If not, then it is "negative information related to others without very good reason", cf WP:UP#POLEMIC, and should be deleted. Is there a history of antagonism between these two Wikid77 (talk · contribs) and Durova (talk · contribs)? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: No valid reason provided for deletion. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as revised. I didn't realize the author of the prior essay would be so offended by the wording, so I replaced the original phrase with generalized wording as:
"Some Wikipedia users have become entangled in personal disputes and have spent months in arbitration to settle user conflicts."
It was not my intention to launch an attack on the original author, so the generalized wording is sufficient to warn people that they should be ready for fight or flight around other users, because some users can become hostile. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Today's edit to a thread that had been dormant for four years looked quite odd,[4] plus rerating the essay's importance from "low" to "top"[5] seemed odd at first, then the essay itself appeared to be structurally a personal attack. Several of the incidents that inspired the original no angry mastodons essay involved users who were later sitebanned, but it would be against the spirit of it to use usernames or readily identifiable traits. I wondered why this person had taken such a negative interest in me for a year. When in doubt, please ask. Userfication would be appreciated. Durova412 00:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not an attack page, and no substantive reason for deletion given. A lot of it may be (is) totally wrong, but that is not grounds for deletion either. More to the point, were one to ignore the essay, one would not be associated as being one of the impetuses for the essay - silence is golden. Collect (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reads like an alternative POV - not angry, not attacking, just expressing a different opinion.--SPhilbrickT 16:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is more than just two apes
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. Tim Song (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is more than just two apes

These indecipherable parables are only linked from each other and are the only contributions from the author. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems sort of wikipedia-related. Attempt to get some meaning behind behaviours. Probably should userfy as the work and opinion of a single author of disputed relevance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The purpose of this policy is to forbid deceptive or misleading use of multiple accounts and to explain where editors may legitimately use a second (alternate) account." The usage here is neither "deceptive" nor "misleading." It is not used to convey an appearance of support from any other user. It is not used for "disruptive edits". The project space statement specifically does not include essays. Thus, as far as I can tell, this would be an ideal space for permitted use of an alternative account, and a violation of no policy, Collect (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Throw the shorter one in userspace, I guess. I think that's often a good representation of Wikipedia. It could be modified a bit to better meet good essay standards. Incidentally, strictly speaking, the man in the ape suit is an ape. Just sayin'. Buddy431 (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a number of people do see the relevance to WP, and since it is related to WP as far as those people are concerned, would that not obviate your concern? I would, moreover, state that metaphors which are explained as you suggest lose their effectiveness. Collect (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Plain speaking is far more effective for communication than clever metaphors. If the clever metaphors are really clever, then keep them, but it doesn't hurt to explain more simply further on. I have read it a few time and it is too clever for me. I do not see any meaning it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- consider the apes as WP editors, the man in the ape suit as someone above mere plebian editors. Consider how WP defines "consensus" and so on. Fill in further blanks on your own <g>. I suspect most readers could figure this one out <g>. Collect (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that, but I completely missed any point it was actually trying to make (if indeed it is trying to make one). Is it saying that this is a good thing? a bad thing? if the latter, it doesn't give any indication about how we should avoid it. At the minute all I can see is it saying "this happens", which doesn't help anyone. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are essays required to recommend courses of action? I think the point it's making is that Wikipedians often seem like apes throwing feces at each other and arguing about trivial things. I mean, what we call our Airplane Aeroplane Fixed-wing aircraft article isn't exactly Serious Business, yet there was plenty of proverbial poop being thrown. Buddy432 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the question here is, are all essays with some link to Wikipedia welcome in projectspace? These two have received essentially no visitors, are linked from nowhere except each other, and would likely have remained that way indefinitely. Were they attatched to a user in some standing they'd probably get userfied. But put out anonymously? Is there a line there at all, and if so what would one have to write to get under it? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If no one else will take them, and they aren't allowed to remain in wikipedia project space, I'll take the long one in my User Space. Maybe if I ever have time and the will, I'll work on it a bit to make it a bit clearer, etc. (user:buddy431) 130.126.222.146 (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support userfying this to your userspace so that you can work on it. Delete the second "essay" as lacking substance. Cunard (talk) 08:08, 16 April 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.

2010-04-13

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wprh
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. Tim Song (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User wprh

Relisted on 07:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC).

Wikipedia:WikiProject Russian History was merged back into WP:RUSSIA a year or so ago, and hence I don't think there is any purpose to this template? I know it doesn't matter either way if kept or deleted, but not sure what previous cases have decided such as this. Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 14:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from TFD by Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:55, 23 April 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 talk:Jrcla2/College football coach templates
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was user requested deletion in own userspace, deleted Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

User talk:Jrcla2/College football coach templates

Please delete this Jrcla2 (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)]]==== I made it, now I want it gone. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old business

2010-04-11

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:FrankPaulGambino (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. Tim Song (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:FrankPaulGambino

MfDs for this userpage:

It's useless, and irrelevant, hoaxy information. It has no use under WP:USER, and nor is it an appropriate article. Previous userpage was also XfDd. Ironholds (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as borderline innapropriate-article-made-in-userspace-to-avoid-deletion sort of thing. You get the gist of what I mean. ALI nom nom 00:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Meaghan :) ≈ 02:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does not appear on its face to violate BLP (material is simple opinion in general) and userspace is not mainspace. No link to any prior XfD is given, hence has to be ignored. And there is absolutely no requirement that userspace be an "appropriate article" for WP - it does not appear, in fact, to be a mainspace article. I grant that the myspace and twitter mentions can be removed. Checking -- if hoax, it is more utile to remove the mentions of this person (who may well be quite eccentric) from other articles on WP first. Collect (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the page in question: "Frank Paul Gambino was proclaimed to be God by John J. Gotti, John said “if you are not God there is no God.” Paul has the ability to draw blue prints into the future, he is the Grand Architect of the Gambino Family, whose name is taboo due to National Security reasons." It's a hoax. And while these pages are not addressed in policy, you can't say it's appropriate. ALI nom nom 13:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you honestly saying you can't go to the URL bar and remove the bracketed "2nd nomination"? Is that so much effort that the alternative is to throw the previous MfD aside? And my point about its status as an article was because he has repeatedly posted this text in the mainspace. Sorry I didn't make myself clear. Ironholds (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • A "speedy deletion as a Copyvio" when it is clearly not a copyvio (I checked all sorts of phrases to see if it was a copyvio, by the way, and found it not to be a copyvio) has not all that much weight for me <g>. And MfD has nothing to do with mainspace criteria. The userspace page was not given any real consideration before deletion. Collect (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually it does; if a userpage is being used as a drafting space for an article, that is acceptable. Ironholds (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • And "sufficient unto the day" ... there is no requirement than userspace only be used for drafting articles. The point remains that the speedy deletion as copyvio was quite improper. Collect (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The point remains that the statement was made to dissuade any comments that it was being used to draft an article (and to point out its previous deletions in the mainspace), this is not a debate of the propriety of the previous MfD, and the userpage guidelines prohibit "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (For example in the latter case, because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.)" Ironholds (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. The creator is now indefinitely-blocked, so there is no reason to keep this page. Cunard (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cunard, user indefblocked, no relevant content. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the editor has attempted some edits to main space, I didn' see any that survived, so doesn't really qualify as a contributing editor. The page is quite odd, which shouldn't be a reason for deletion, but I think this goes over the border of what is acceptable. --SPhilbrickT 16:26, 17 April 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.

2010-04-10

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Page vandalized
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. If someone actually wants this, contact me to have it userfied. Tim Song (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Page vandalized

Not really suitable content for a userbox. Makes more sense to undo the vandalism rather than just to add a userbox onto a page. WOSlinker (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No one has picked this up in over two years. Do you see any use for this? If you (or any of those supporting retention) can find a good reason to keep this template and adopt this template so that it can become useful, I will withdraw my delete. Cunard (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I'm not thinking of a good use for this, someone might, and I don't see the harm. --SPhilbrickT 16:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For over two years (since October 2007), this orphaned template has been unused and forgotten. I do not view this as harmless; if editors began placing this template in the mainspace, it would be disruptive. Editors who know how to place a template on a page should know how to revert any vandalism that occurs. I cannot see how keeping something no one wants is helpful (no one in this discuss has volunteered to have this moved to his/her userspace; no one has explained how this could be humorous), so I support deletion. Cunard (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cunard, totally useless. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:35, 23 April 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:Academia idiomas murcia
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. Tim Song (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Academia idiomas murcia

Shared account as stated on the user page, per WP:NOSHARE. Anna Lincoln 16:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User already blocked, maybe this MfD is superfluous :-/ Anna Lincoln 17:12, 10 April 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:Dekhruel/Ancestors Revenge
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 Tim Song (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dekhruel/Ancestors Revenge

awkwardly written article about non-notable band. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 19:29, 10 April 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.

2010-04-09

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Atmoz/third
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. Tim Song (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atmoz/third

Nazi symbols are inappropriate for user boxes and Atmoz seems to not care CTJF83 chat 19:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway per WP:OTHERSTUFF CTJF83 has a userbox with a skull in it saying more people should be killed. Which I have to say without any humor I personally find extremely distasteful. Unlike the joke userbox currently under consideration. Polargeo (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it is a matter of opinion interpreting WP:UPNOT but I simply don't find the swastika as a symbol offensive in any way and this use seems to be well within our usual leeway given to Userpages. It is all a matter of context. If I saw someone walking down my street dressed in black and carrying a flag with it on shouting "immigrants go home" then I would be disturbed, but it would not be the actual symbol which disturbed me it would be the intent behind the display of the symbol that would disturb me. Also just randomly using the symbol as a fashion icon would disturb me, less than the previous example though. In this case it would disturb me because I would suspect bad intentions and at best I would suspect ignorance of the history and implications. However, in the case of the userbox in question there are clearly no negative intentions and therefore I have little empathy with the view of users who simply find the symbol offensive per se. This view runs against the general spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED and sets a bad precedent. Polargeo (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
External links are required to comply with WP:NPOV? Better get to work getting rid of AllMusic links... Badger Drink (talk) 20:14, 10 April 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 The Flaming Lips (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject The Flaming Lips

Stillborn Wikiproject. Only ever had 10 members. Two had no edits other than adding their name to the project; two haven't edited since 2007; one hasn't edited since 2008; one hasn't edited since December 2009. That's not very good numbers at all. The project accomplished absolutely nothing ever, and there is no relevant discussion of any kind on the talkpage except bot assessments.

What do we gain from keeping around a Wikiproject for "historical purposes" if it never did anything? I know we don't gain or lose any space from deleting a whole project, but there's just nothing worth keeping here. All of the articles pertaining to the band are sufficiently covered by the wider scope of the alternative music WikiProject. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:27, 9 April 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.

2010-04-08

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Imagi-King/Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story
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. Tim Song (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Imagi-King/Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story

As an article, this was userfied at AfD, brought back and deleted at AfD2, brought back again, deleted G4 and salted. This userspace copy was nominated for deletion G4, and the nomination contested; I agreed on 22 March to decline the speedy and allow two weeks for it to be improved and taken to DRV, failing which I would bring it here. Nothing has been done; userspace is "not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content." JohnCD (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The differences between the article when it was listed for 1st Afd and then 2nd were considerable. Less substantial were the differences between the 2nd and 3rd, though arguably far more so in terms of establishing notability, as the links to Hot Press and TG4 were added in that period. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - obviously attack pages in user space should be deleted, as should copyright violations and so on, but a draft article about a possibly non-notable film is ok. If after a few months there hasn't been much improvement, it can be deleted then. PhilKnight (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this page is being used as part of a DRV and deletion at this time would involve a real annoyance. Further, 2 weeks isn't unreasonable. If we need to block the user for moving the draft back into mainspace multiple times, do that. Not a reason to delete a draft though. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it's not as if this has only had two weeks - it has had over six months, first userfied last August, and has been in and out of mainspace and through AfD ever since. It is now at DRV, and looks likely to be relisted for yet another AfD. If it is kept there, fine; if it is turned down for the third time , I think it will come under the clause in WP:UP that says userspace is "not intended to indefinitely archive... previously deleted content." JohnCD (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article's mainspace version has been restored and relisted at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story (4th nomination)), so the userspace draft is no longer necessary. If the topic really is notable it will be kept at the new AfD. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And what if not? Since when do userspace drafts have to pass notability? --GRuban (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The trouble is that the userspace version has changed little in a fairly long time, so can hardly be classed as a draft any more. The only way it could possibly be of any use would be if the mainspace article was deleted and the film gained notability at a later date. Given the unlikelihood of this I can't really see what good keeping a userspace version of a deleted article would do. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that for the user to decide, rather than us? If he thinks it's not useful any more, he can ask for it to be deleted. We shouldn't make that decision for him. --GRuban (talk) 20:18, 18 April 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:Theilert/VM-konkurranse
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 the remaining two pages. Tim Song (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Theilert/VM-konkurranse

Also, from 2009 WC:

User:Theilert/OL-konkurranse

Also, from 2010 Olympics:

Wikipedia is not a web host. These pages (not even written in English) belong to an internal contest in host's workplace. They guessed placements in the 2009 World Ski Championships, and the winners got some money. This has nothing to do with building an encyclopaedia. Geschichte (talk) 13:20, 8 April 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.

2010-04-07

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

The result of the discussion was userfy. The discussion below reflects a general consensus that this portal is too narrow to be viable, but that a Portal:Blues would be perfectly acceptable. There's some support for a direct move, but that argument has been rebutted by Cunard. It is one of those times when one wishes in vain that WP:AI accepts portals as well, but failing that, userfication seems to be the best choice here. Tim Song (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Blues harmonica

I don't think there is all too much to cover in this portal, and it covers more about the instrument itself rather than content relating to it. Speedy was declined as there was some work being done on it then--I have not seen anything for a week, and it is still underpopulated to me.  fetchcomms☛ 01:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please don't delete us. We are still working on it. We are having a harder time figuring out wiki than we thought we would. There is a lot of ground to cover just in blues harmonica and the information is scattered all over the web. Nacoran (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overly narrow portal; just how many articles would fit here anyway? Best to lump 'em in the blues portal. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restart as an overall blues portal since there doesn't seem to be one for just blues. I still don't like portals, but if we insist on having them, they should be as wide scope as possible. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are dozens of famous blues harp players. We've already added links to a lot of them. We also want to link to harmonica content, how to's on techniques and ways to customize harmonicas and harmonica amplification. We are just having a problem with how to lay out the pages. I posted a sound sample to one of our links and it was promptly deleted. We are working on longer format articles, but since we got deleted when we tried to add information in a piecemeal way we are trying to develop a more substantial update. 67.248.189.190 (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to expand scope per A Stop at Willoughby. --SPhilbrickT 19:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm fine with a renaming to general blues, but I think there's a misunderstanding--portals are meant to show off already featured content on Wikipedia, like featured articles, etc., not on restoration, how-tos, customization, etc. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and that sort of content should be in the blues harmonica article if it were encyclopedic. And one other note, it seems that this portal's creators are a group, although at this time none of them seem to have placed and actual !vote here.  fetchcomms☛ 00:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fetchcomms- I'm one of the people working on the portal. I thought I made that clear. I'm for keeping it, although I'm still figuring out this whole wiki editing thing. Over the years mostly I've just edited a couple grammar mistakes I've seen while browsing Wikipedia. This is my first attempt at something more substantial. Yes, there are a group of us. We are part of an active harmonica forum that focuses on blues, although diatonic harmonica is probably more important to our focus than specifically blues. Is there a more formal vote or does posting here count? There is various information on Wikipedia about harmonica and a lot of blues harmonica players. I've tried to link it as I get it. I have more to put up, but this deletion hanging over our head is really putting a dent in our group moral.67.248.160.52 (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My only issue is that this portal is not broad enough in scope. A portal, as I said, is used to showcase already featured content--how many blues harmonica articles are either FA, GA, etc.? I'm fine for making a one big blues article, because there are many more articles fitting in that category. However, the portal is right now mainly about the blues harmonica itself--that should go into the article about blues harmonicas, not this portal. Take for example, this one, which I have worked on. It focuses on various bits of recognized content relating to the subject, not just talking about various aspects of his life.  fetchcomms☛ 17:07, 15 April 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=356922242"