Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IvoryMeerkat (talk | contribs) at 03:08, 28 February 2011 (Adding MfD for Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



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 Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
CfD 0 0 3 26 29
TfD 0 0 0 9 9
MfD 0 0 0 0 24
FfD 0 0 6 5 11
RfD 0 0 31 20 51
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

February 28, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan (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. The clear majority in the discussion favors keeping the page. To overcome this the delete position would need a strong argument that the page violates prior consensus, but the arguments offered did not achieve that. The fundamental argument for keeping is that the character is used by some as an "unofficial mascot", and even if those who use it are not the majority, project-space has numerous examples of pages based around specific sub-groups and minority positions. The deletion argument revolves around the content possibly bringing disrepute to the project, and the recent deletion of a related page is explicitly cited as precedent for deleting a page on that basis. However, unlike that earlier discussion, in this instance those opposing deletion have strongly challenged the claim of negative effect, and there are significant differences between the two pages. The other standing consensus most commonly appealed to for deletion is the WP:FAKEARTICLE guideline, but that guideline is focused on user pages, and there is no consensus that it provides a valid reason for deleting this page. A third position, favoring a move to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga, was expressed in a number of comments, but did not gain enough support to form a consensus and was rebutted by comments that pointed to use of the character outside of that project.

A few final notes on items that this close does not address or incorporate: First, the behavior of the nominator (discovered to be a block-evading sockpuppet) is not significant given the comments of other good-faith contributors who supported similar views, so the SPI finding did not affect the result. Second, this is not WP:FFD, and the keep result for this page should not be taken as community endorsement of any particular image of this character, or as an inhibitor to any nominations for the deletion of images that some may consider offensive or otherwise inappropriate for the project. Finally, this result does not reflect a community endorsement of the character per se. Some of those supporting the keep position for the page expressed their dislike for the character. Arguments for and against the use of this character and images of "her" in particular situations may continue in other venues. --RL0919 (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan

There's a couple of problems with this page.

First, it is masquerading as an article, which has confused a number of people. See the WP:FAKEARTICLE rationale.

Secondly, the utility of this page is dubious and the contentiousness of this page is obvious to those who have been following the controversies surrounding this particular attempt to make a mascot for Wikipedia. As has been pointed out, this is not the mascot of Wikipedia, so it's a bit strange that we would have a part of project-space devoted to this.

One possible solution to this issue might be to simply reorganize this as subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. This is a Wikiproject which has adopted this character as their mascot and, indeed, most of the instances of this character are associated with this group of fans.

Aside from the controversial nature of this page as it stands, the problem with keeping this page as a separate Wikipedia project is that it has historically encouraged problematic project content in the form of the recently deleted: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!‎. The particular issues surround the culture of moe in anime circles. Please read this section of the article. Now, I'm not going to take an explicit side in whether these criticisms are justified or not, but it seems to me that is pretty clear that this criticism will necessarily continue to play themselves out if this page is kept as a part of Wikipedia Project space and users are encouraged to "work" on Wikipe-tan for continued inclusion of images of her in project space and articles. If individual Wikipedia projects want to deal with individual images, I think this is fine, but this centralization of the character is problematic from the perspective of inclusiveness and, for example, the situations where certain depictions in the gallery of images are likely to drive good-faith contributors away who will see misogynistic or even lolicon implications in them.

I'm not recommending here a wholesale deletion of every instance of this character. I'm simply arguing that, as a part of "project space", this image should not have a dedicated page as it is too problematic and a distraction from WP:ENC.

IvoryMeerkat (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- G.A.Stalk 04:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In reference to the specific points raised by the nominator:

    • WP:FAKEARTICLE is a guideline for user pages—based, in large part, on the general principle that Wikipedia is not a host for users' personal materials—and is not directly applicable to project-space pages. Even if the guideline were applicable here, however, the nominator presents no evidence that the page could reasonably be mistaken for an article by the average reader; an isolated instance of confusion is hardly sufficient reason to delete an established page.
    • The alleged "contentiousness" of the page appears to be, in large part, a product of the nominator's dedication to removing all mention of it from Wikipedia; see, for example, this discussion, or this one. The page, and the associated imagery, has existed since 2006; certainly, if there were indeed some great controversy over its existence, it should have become apparent before now.
    • There is a wide variety of project-space pages devoted to concepts that are also not official mascots (or official anything else, for that matter); Category:Wikipedia culture contains hundreds of similar pages, many of them well-established and widely known. The long-standing consensus of the community is clearly that a lack of official "status" is not in and of itself reason to remove material from project space.
    • The fact that another—now deleted!—page was found to be problematic is hardly a reason to delete this one; each page must be considered on its own merits.
    Overall, so long as the community's position is to allow pages related to Wikipedia culture in project space, I see no reason why this one should be singled out for deletion; it documents a well-established aspect of said culture, and there is no evidence that its existence causes any substantive disruption.

    If there are concerns regarding some particular image listed on the page, then those are best addressed by way of discussing the image itself; deletion of the page would do nothing to stop use of the images (which are hosted on Commons) in any case. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the nitpicky argument that FAKEARTICLE is for "userspace" is ridiculous. There is more than just one isolated incident where this page is being treated as an article (see this and this. Your implied contention and the contention of others rudely commenting here that this is somehow only my problem is enough for me to cry foul on the WP:NPA front with your failure to comment on content rather than the contributor. There were enough people commenting that they disliked Wikipe-tan in general at the last MfD and even at Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan for this conversation to be considered something that should happen, I think. It would be nice to see someone in the echelons of Wikipedia power structure like yourself encouraging less personalization of the situation rather than more. Just to show I'm not the only one who finds problems with this character, Jimbo Wales according to the very page is not a fan, for example. You might ask him why. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:FAKEARTICLE: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used..." (emphasis mine). The assertion that the guideline applies to userspace is hardly "nitpicky" when the guideline explicitly states such!
    As for your other points, it is not at all a personal attack to point out that, prior to your concerted attempts to remove all references to this material—and this principle is quite relevant, given the spread, speed, and volume of your efforts—the page existed with for years with little or no controversy. It's hardly reasonable for you to create a controversy around the page and then argue that it is too "controversial" and must therefore be deleted.
    Jimmy's opinion, incidentally, is of limited relevance; but note that he did not suggest the page should be removed, merely that he personally was not a fan of it. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The principles of FAKEARTICLE clearly apply to more than userspace... otherwise creating fake articles in Wikipedia space would be an obvious way for people to skirt the rules. And as to your continued personalizations: Maybe you'd like to explain how little-ol me "creates" a controversy? I thought a consensus model dictated that one person's opinion is supposed to be weighted less than a group's opinion. Either there is a controversy or there isn't. Shooting the messenger is not very heroic. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is, for better or worse, not a democracy; the fact that a greater number of editors supports X than Y does not necessarily mean that X will be chosen over Y in a "consensus" discussion. It is quite common (if somewhat unfortunate, in my view) for a small group of vocal users, or even a single vocal user, to dominate a discussion and exercise disproportionate influence on its progress and outcome—particularly when that user produces such a quantity of commentary that others find it difficult to respond to it all. (If you're looking for specific examples, a perusal of arbitration cases from the past few years might prove of interest.) Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's a certainly damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't proposition if I've ever seen one. Wikipedia is not a democracy so that a small group of thoughtful editors can establish consensus despite being outnumbered. However, if they do this, then they run the risk of being accused of "dominating" the discussion and "exercising disproportionate influence". It really reads as if you would prefer that Wikipedia really was run as a democracy. If that's the case, might I recommend instead of pointing out personalities in these discussions you work to change the rather hare-brained rules codified at WP:CON? Your implied endorsement of the "IvoryMeerkat made a bad-faith nom" party line runs counter to behavioral guidance such as WP:AGF. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if you got to WP:ANI after removing images from articles regardless case by case consensus or the relevance of the images to the said articles, this can't help AGF. Adding the fact that you started a discussion here and another one on WT:ANIME both related to Wikipe-tan which could be perceived as a hostile attempt of two pronged attack aiming to over-run opposing editors which helps even less AGF. The finishing touch is how you managed to infer the argument "supporters of Wikipe-tan" = "lolicon" = maybe also "pedophile". Even if this not what you wrote, this is how your argument was perceived but opposing editors. So there is no surprise that they are tossing AGF to the sewers. --KrebMarkt (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose if your culture is that everyone who is accused of a crime is guilty, you'd have a point. It's really interesting that you think you've been able to determine my "aim" so poorly to be able to repeat false accusations that I made arguments that I did not make (some of which don't even make logical sense). What you are accusing me of is thoughtcrimes (even if you didn't actually say it, because other people think you have this or that motivation you are GUILTY!) If that's truly an acceptable cultural practice here, Wikipedia has no business being associated with the so-called "Free Culture" movement. Thankfully, it seems that the evidence is plain that the people who have opposed me, on the whole, have almost no real substance to their arguments and tend to resort to personal attacks almost immediately. It doesn't make their arguments any better. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is you have continually shown in your behavior (note: actions) things that make unable to assume good faith any more. You remove images for no reason to make a WP:POINT, you call us mysogenic pedophiles, and so on (Farix above displays the issues much better than I). I honestly can't see how anyone can count us as the 'bad guys' here, when when it's pretty clear what the truth is. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's any particular doubt that IvoryMeerkat believes that Wikipedia would be better if all images of Wikipe-tan were removed. That's not a particularly controversial stance: I share it, but I don't do much about it because I don't care much about it. All WP:AGF requires of you is that you assume that IvoryMeerkat is editing in a way that he believes will improve the encyclopedia, and I don't see any real reason to doubt that. That you disagree about the effect of his changes is a completely separate issue.—Kww(talk) 03:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think both side of this discussion will walk away with heightened trust and mutual respect. In the contrary, Some editors will only have ill feelings, grudges and distrusts toward others. IvoryMeerkat's actions regardless its reasons is making wikipedia community weaker, brittler and more divided. This is why i refuse to give him AGF. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason why I stated a bad faith nom was mostly this discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Wikipe-tan, other editors had told IvoryMeerkat that this should have been RFD'd and I saw that others were willing to help in getting this done so a consensus was forming before this AfD even took place but was cut short, that and his whole campaign against wikipe-tan on tarc's userpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus h christ, in how many venues are you going to complain about that fucking talk page thread? The nominator asked me for my opinion on proceeding on this matter, and I gave it, simple as that. There was no "whole campaign", the Evil Anti-Loli Cabal of Doom did not hold their annual meeting there. Just...stop. Tarc (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the reasoning at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!. Apart from being pointless, the troll is a diversion that wastes the community's time and drives away potential contributers.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page definitely does seem to violate WP:FAKEARTICLE. Some sort of template or message should be added to the top (similar to many userpages) to indicate this is not the case, unless the page can be otherwise changed to indicate this. Also, a concerted effort does need to be made to keep "inside" references to Wikipe-tan out of the article mainspace. If this can be achieved and agreed upon, then I'd feel this justifies a weak keep. Changing to neutral, I'm not sure it should be in the wikipedia space.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in mind that even if the page were moved, it would remain in the "Wikipedia:" namespace (albeit perhaps nested under some other page), with everything that entails; and that, as mentioned on the page, the image is used by a number of groups other than the Anime and manga WikiProject (including, at last count, the CVU, the Admin Coaching program, the Military history WikiProject, and Wikimedia Hong Kong). The proposal to move the page is based on an incorrect marginalization of the subject as being only "an anime thing"; it's rather more wide-spread than that. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Come now, I'm sure those four projects can make-do with keeping their illustrations without this particular page. Just because this page gets shunted or deleted does not mean it will be impossible for those projects to use images that are on commons or in file space. The proposal to move this page is based on the fact that the text, arguments, and gallery of images are almost entirely the work of the anime and manga group. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps the current page is indeed largely the work of that particular WikiProject; but their role in creating it is not a convincing reason, in and of itself, for requiring it to reside on a subpage of the project. In any case, as you yourself point out, moving the page would do nothing at all to prevent the use of the images elsewhere; your allegations about the images' "misogynistic or even lolicon implications" are therefore quite irrelevant to the question of where the page should be located. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that one project has a major stake in this page suggests a natural way to shunt this page away from being an independent entity. I'm not taking your strawman zero-sum game approach here. An alternative option to outright deletion might be to consign this back to a nother project. I do not think it is a good idea for this page to be kept at all, but I offer the idea of subsuming it into another project as an option for those who might want to try out an intermediate step before deletion. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If anyone's concerned about the WP:FAKEARTICLE argument, stick an essay or humour or custom-made box at the top of the article to make it status clear. In the mean time, keep as fostering community organisation and engagement. I realise there's a limit to how many such pages we can keep without causing confusion, but this particular one seems well known and well-liked among its segment of the Wikipedia community and wouldn't be one of the first to go.- DustFormsWords (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to someplace deep in the bowels of the anime Wikiproject and forget about her. She isn't Wikipedia's mascot, is very unlikely to ever become Wikipedia's mascot, and serves no useful purpose. That said, if the anime Wikiproject wants to keep her around for some reason, I can't see a policy-based reason to say that they can't.—Kww(talk) 06:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isn't in main namespace, so it won't show up in search while looking for other topic, unless you want to. Currently, there's no article in Main namespace link to this project either, so I don't see how one can mistaken it as normal article unless you're looking for it. Troll? Only trolls I known are people who hate this simply because it's anime-like character and want to get rid of it. L-Zwei (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Per Kirill's well reasoned statment. Also, I wish someone would remind the initiator of WP:POINT. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I added a template to the article that will hopefully help clear up at least some of the issues with WP:FAKEARTICLE.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga per nominator. I think the nominators argument is well put and I do not see it as being in bad faith. Also per Kww. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Wikipe-tan. It is an anime thing, not a wikipedia thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Wikipe-tan per nominator and above. --Kleinzach 09:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as this is obviously a bad faith nomination given IvoryMeerkat's previous comments.[1] and attempts to remove images of Wikipe-tan from WP:ANIME's project banner and from the Anime and manga portal.[2][3][4][5] IvoryMeerkat's war on everything related to Wikipe-tan needs to stop now. The page does not violate any Wikipedia policy and none of the images violate Wikipedia policy. And unlike Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!‎, there is nothing about the page that someone can misconstrue as insulting. IvoryMeerkat has also implied that other editors who defend Wikipe-tan are promoting pedophilia on Wikipeda, an offense that can result in an immediate and indefinite ban.[6][7][8] —Farix (t | c) 11:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Bad faith nom, I do not think a move is warrented as other projects use wikipe-tan as well (her image and through userboxes) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment looking at the article's history this is actully the Third AfD nomination, someone might want to fix this and link the past AfDs. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to anime-space as suggested by others above, if they want to salvage it. According to Wikipedia:Project namespace, this section of the project is "...a namespace consisting of pages with information or discussion about Wikipedia." What exactly does this comic character have to to with the Wikipedia itself? Other than something that a tiny group has latched onto as some sort of very, very unofficial mascot, not much that I can see. As the nom noted, if people want to use these images in individual articles then that is an editorial decision to decide appropriateness or not. Apparently self-creation and such is covered by WP:OI. But this centralized, project-level recognition just has to go. Wikipe-tan has nothing to do with the rest of us. I will also note that all "speedy keep" calls are without merit and should be discarded when it comes time to close this. People can object to objectionable content in good faith. Farix's screed is particularly odious as it attempts to impose the proverbial "chilling effect" by suggesting the nom be blocked. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, Farix is referring to the fact that those who promote pedophilia, as IvoryMeerkat has alleged some editors are doing, are banned—which is true enough—rather than suggesting that IvoryMeerkat himself would be banned for anything. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we're all reading something differently then. IvoryMeerkat has called out people for supporting lolicon like Wikpe-tan, he at no time said anything about pedos. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will also note that there is a working draft at User:Jinnai/Wikipe-tan of what appears to be an attempt at an actual article on this Wikipe-tan nonsense. So if anything, this problem is spreading and getting worse, not better. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a sub-page of the anime and manga project. It is they, not the entire Wikipedia community, who generally have an interest in Wikipe-tan, and Wikipe-tan is not representative of Wikipedia as a whole. While IvoryMeerkat has expressed opinions on Wikipe-tan, it does not automatically follow that this is a bad faith nomination. Now that other opinions of move and delete have been expressed, any "speedy keep" is out of the question. LadyofShalott 14:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with a move as long as it remains in the wikipedia namespace then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipe-tan is a freely licensed human character, which is actually pretty rare. That makes her useful for creating screenshots such as the one that IO created to illustrate the Visual Novel article. What's more, since she's an original character, she doesn't bring in the baggage that a character from an established work might. As pointed out by Kirill above, she's used by multiple projects, which makes the Wikipedia namespace more appropriate than a single project's. And it's not like the Wikipedia namespace is only used for policies and guidelines - if essays that many people disagree with can live there, why can't a page like this? — PyTom (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at current location. As Kirill mentioned, Wikipe-tan is also adopted by the Counter-Vandalism Unit, the Admin Coaching program, the Military history WikiProject, and Wikimedia Hong Kong. The last of which even printed her out to be used in Wikimedia HK functions and have someone dressed like her to attend. Like it or not, Wikipe-tan has extended beyond the Anime and Manga Wikiproject and is a sizable part of Wikipedia culture; and thus the page cannot be moved as a subpage of that Wikiproject, much less be deleted. The only real concern here, WP:FAKEARTICLE, can be (and is) dealt with with a header note. _dk (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. – Allen4names 18:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per LadyofShalott. Despite the multitude of keep votes here (and the somewhat random accusations of bad faith, etc.), this is not a big thing, certainly not big enough (in terms of representing the WP community, as the Lady pointed out) for a spot outside of a subpage of a project. She does not represent me and I find nothing cute about it. The "she's not a lolicon" argument is just distracting--that difference, between moe and lolicon, that the anime experts here say is so obvious, I don't see that. I don't doubt the good faith of at least some of the contributors to the page and (some of) its images, and that's one reason for me not to immediately call for deletion (i.e., right now I don't mind the history being preserved, for instance), but I certainly want lower visibility, and I really never want to hear the claim that she represents anything but a small but vocal minority of contributors. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move but Keep part of the wiki-history of not part of some wiki projects life. Denial mode that ever existed wont do. People can try to wash whiter than white all they will manage is to create bigger holes within the wikipedia community if one ever existed at all. I also accuse also the article nominator to be on a personal crusade trying to steamroll editors who don't share his view. Sorry you may consider Anime/Manga as "low culture" or "craps" and its editors as "scums" or "retards" but unfortunately for you we are still part of Wikipedia however much to your chagrin. So much for people preaching tolerance & diversity in Wikipedia... --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kirill's well-argued rationale. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's a part of wikipedia culture that's been around as long as I've been editing. Maybe not an official mascot but Jimmy Wales has referred to her as a "mascot" in at least one post. Half the nom's arguments are spurious and I see no harm in keeping her. As mentioned she goes beyond just the anime project to other wiki projects as well. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When he deleted the two images he did call Wikipe-tan a "community mascot". Although he himself does not like Wikipe-tan, he did acknowledge that the community considers her a mascot. Reach Out to the Truth 21:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is a valid part of Wikipedia and as she is currently used by some of the portals getting rid of her would be a bad idea. --Spazturtle (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see evidence that this page is controversial in the same manner that the other one was. Most of the complaints seem to be about the images. But deleting this page wouldn't cause the deletion of any of the images. Besides, I think the complaints are mostly wrong. Gothic Lolita is, despite its name, not about pedophilia, and that is the only connection to lolicon that I can see. The nominator has claimed that the images are misogynistic but I don't see any evidence of that either and at best it's only a few people's opinion and does not represent the wider community as is evident from this discussion so far. —Soap— 00:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She doesn't represent every Wikipedian, but neither do some essays and proposals in Wikipedia space. Individual images deemed to cause offense can be discussed individually on the talk page, but many illustrate Wikipedia functions. She's been seen at two Wikimedia HK and other events representing Wikipedia/Wikimedia. She's a significant part of this culture, even if some don't like her. I believe she's more than a subset of the Anime and manga wikiproject. TransUtopian (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for largely the same reasons put forward at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!. I think this sort of stuff is not really representative of Wikipedia and I am persuaded by arguments that say this has the potential to alienate particular groups of potential editors such as women. Also I think this is one occasion where WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a valid reason for deletion. Lovetinkle (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me have a shot. We do not support WP:IDONTLIKEIT for several reasons in article space, but mainly because we do not censor material and because we want to cover all knowledge. But this is not in article space. It is in project space and the only real criteria here is that is assists the whole WP project. If an editor does not like something in project space and stops editing as a result, then we should take notice. I think we need to take very seriously "that say this has the potential to alienate particular groups of potential editors such as women" as only 13% of editors are women. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • By using same logic, that mean WP:ILIKEIT will be valid reason to keep too. Since making survey to count how many people like it, hate it, drived away by it, or "will start editing more once he/she known about it" is time consuming, lets say that both essay nullified each other. L-Zwei (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Melodia, will you please just stop saying stuff like "cute anime girl" is if it were somehow a fact that she's cute? Kids are cute, my kids are the cutest kids in the world, and my kids in a bath tub, that's the cutest thing ever seen on earth--but they're in the bathroom in our house, not in public, not for others. I don't find this image cute at all, and at the very least you should try to respect others' opinions (others who may be different from you). If you want to think this image is cute, that's fine, but don't pretend that her supposed cuteness is a generally held opinion. L-Zwei's point about ILIKEIT is well taken: you're basically generalizing your own taste and you're telling me that I should find this cute (non-offensive, useful, important, etc.) as well. I don't, and obviously I'm not the only one. Respect it. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, my comment is for Bduke who claim IDONTLIKEIT is valid here. My point is, it isn't and neither does the ILIKEIT. In other word, lets cut all emotional or subjective stuff (be it negative like "distasteful" or positive like "cute") from this. L-Zwei (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well fine, yeesh. The point is the made to look cute, even if you don't find her as such. What she is NOT, however, is sexual in any way more than any of the pictures I've linked to previously. And that is what I'm trying to get at -- any comments of "disgust"/"loli"/"pedo"/etc should be rendered null because some people just don't like anime style and want to apply their hate in a fashion that would make others sympathize and say "ZOMG THOSE HORRID PEDOPHILES ARE SPEADING THEIR SHIT ACROSS WIKIPEDIA DELETE DELETE DELETE" which is more effective than "Eh, I don't like it, toss it". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You all need to take this more neutrally....you're getting heated up again. calm down, no caps, and no signs of desperation and keep using reasoning.Bread Ninja (talk)
  • Keep mostly per Kirill. I said delete on Think of Wikipe-tan, but I don't think this page has the problems the other one did. Captain panda 05:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipe-tan is currently used on several pages in both the article namespace and project namespace, so it is useful to have a page explaining what Wikipe-tan is. Even if this page were removed, all of the images of Wikipe-tan would still exist, and she would still be used on all of the other pages where she appears. If people think Wikipi-tan shouldn't be a part of Wikipedia, then the first step would be to try to generate consensus to remove Wikipe-tan from the places where she is used. However, it just makes no sense to remove a page explaining one aspect of Wikipedia while that aspect of Wikipedia is still in place. Calathan (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kirill. I also said delete on the junk Think of Wikipe-tan, but this one had no controversy until recently concocted; report Tarc for trolling and stomping all over AGF with his ad hominem bullshit; and run an SPI on IvoryMeerkat (5 week editor, less than 200 edits mostly focused on Wikipe-tan) per Geni.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - non-mainspace content that doesn't harm work on mainspace and is found to be of use to a group of editors, no reason to depart from collegiality and delete it. i've never heard of wikipe-tan and probably won't again (though the top google auto result suggestion of "Wikipe-tan Rule 34" is ahem...predictable), but apparently people use it as inspiration for whatever they are doing.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unconvincing argument. "First, it is masquerading as an article, which has confused a number of people. See the WP:FAKEARTICLE rationale." I don't see how a content guideline for the user namespace is relevant to the project namespace. If the Wikipe-tan page looks like an article, it's probably because that's the best way to present the information; anyone is welcome to reorganize and rewrite the page so it looks less like an article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move somewhere or Mark historical or Delete. Wikipe-tan has been around for many years and has achieved at least some popular recognition as an unofficial icon of Wikipedia; for that reason, and because this is part of our history, it wouldn't be my first choice to see this page deleted outright. But I agree with those who think it's immature and inappropriate for Wikipedia in the modern day. This sort of thing may have been fine back in 2006, but Wikipedia is a more important website now than it was then, and we should take our responsibilities more seriously. I don't think associating ourselves with a cartoon drawing of a prepubescent child really helps our image. Clearly, many people like this page and want it to be kept; all I ask is that if we keep it, we either move it to a different namespace or edit the page to make it abundantly clear that Wikipe-tan is NOT an official mascot in any way, shape or form, and that a considerable proportion of Wikipedians consider these images to be disreputable to Wikipedia and want nothing to do with them. Robofish (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As an anecdote: for my part, I've been aware of Wikipe-tan for some time, and I used to just consider it a cute and funny image like many people here still do; it made me think 'aww, look at the cute little cartoon anime girl'. It's only in recent years I've come to dislike it. I recall I once showed this page to my sister, who didn't think it was cute; she found it creepy and disturbing. That's when I started to have second thoughts myself. I now think this page this one of the more obvious examples of Wikipedia's very male (and teenage and nerdy) demographics; it probably doesn't help in our efforts to broaden our user base. Robofish (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole mascot thing is disputed (See above) so we can not just write off wikipe-tan as not being a mascot for wikipedia. "Considerable proportion of Wikipedians consider these images to be disreputable to Wikipedia and want nothing to do with them." I find no evidence that even supports that statement. As for wikipe-tan not being right for wikipedia, this is not just an encyclopedia it is also a community, wikipe-tan not only helps with the articles but is also a boost to the community. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is not April Fool's day yet. Seriously this is an important part of Wikipedia history. Deleting it is like deleting the American bald eagle because it is extinct. (it isn't quite gone yet) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I'm all for keeping the article, but the bald eagle comment is absolutely ludicrous. It's just a fictional character (at best). The bald eagle article would never be deleted, regardless of the status of the animal... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipe-tan's continued presence on the Wikipedia: namespace has allowed such grandiose and self-propagating claims here that she is a "mascot", "icon", or "part of our history", and allow for its infestation into article space. Even the appearance of recognizing a lolicon mascot degrades the dignity and challenges the conscience of Wikipedia. Quigley (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think people should not use the character as a mascot, then write an essay opposing that use. If you think it should be removed from the article space, try to gain consensus on talk pages. Deleting records of Wikipedia's history, especially those that some would say portray the project in a negative light, is a bad thing. Wikipe-tan is part of Wikipedia's history (indeed a rather contentious part). Preserving only the good parts of Wikipedia's history just makes it harder for those doing research to understand the culture of early Wikipedia. --Banana (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that she's not a lolicon any more than any other drawing of a cute young girl is, like, say, Dora the Explorer. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that many feel that it is nothing but; the continued naysaying from the Anime FanClub matters quite little. Tarc (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Calathan above, that deletion of what is fundamentally an information page, would be unhelpful at the present time given that Wikipe-tan is present in multiple areas of the project and is part of its history. Consensus could always develop to stop using Wikipe-tan, though that seems unlikely to happen at this time, and even if it did the page should probably still be kept to record that consensus and the history surrounding it. It should also be noted that the existing page makes clear in the opening sentence that it is not an official mascot. Personally, I think claims of Wikipe-tan being overly sexualised e.t.c. are overblown. It is unlikely that she is responsible for gender gap issues, and some specific evidence of trouble caused by her off Wikipedia would be more persuasive. CT Cooper · talk 22:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and run an SPI on the nominator (less than 200 edits mostly focused on wikipe-tan? legit? It seems unlikely). Wikipedia's backroom culture is hard enough for new editors to understand without deleting the pages that explain it.©Geni 23:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That some Wikipedia editors once worshiped a sexualized image of a prepubescent girl is a part of our history I'd rather see buried in the dirt, not provided with a neon signpost. Your ad hominem on the nominator carries little water, either. Tarc (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Argument by assertion. And it appears I was correct about the sockpupet thing
No history should be "buried in the dirt". Although we are all familiar with the culture of Wikipedia, there are others who would want to try and understand the project. We should not mislead them by only providing information on the positive points of the project. --Banana (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although i agree with certain comments toward delete (not all). I still dont think the problem lies within the page itself. however, i do believe we need to limit the usage of those images outside. She's an unofficial mascot, but holds some ground outside of this page. Which causes contradiction and disputes.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful documentation of an unofficial mascot. I do agree with some of the questions on usage outside of Wikipedia space, but that is a challenge for the Anime Wikiproject to find/create replacement free images, not a reason to delete the currently existing Wikipedia space page on the character. Full disclosure: I have previously commented on this case at both ANI and the anime wikiproject. N419BH 04:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipe-tan is a legitimate topic for a project page because she is the longstanding unofficial mascot. If you want this page to be deleted, please have an RfC reach consensus that the whole idea of Wikipe-tan should be removed from Wikipedia. Otherwise, deleting this page is pointless. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I am not understanding how Wikipe-tan drives away newcomers; in fact, I think it's the opposite. Like with any cartoon character, it tries to lighten up the mood. –MuZemike 07:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think you all give Wikipe-tan too much credit. Besides, is that the type of crowd we want to draw in?Bread Ninja (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, people who try to lighten up the mood, versus people who thrive on infighting and acrimony... So, what is the type of crowd you'd rather draw in?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the people who are trying to lighten up the mood will try to bring more people who will attempt to try to lighten up the mood. But that's the problem, theres nothing wrong with Wikipedia if it wasn't lighten up. the people who try to make a joke out of things are the ones saying there's a problem and therefore act upon it. but that's not the case, in stead of fixing real problems, like incivility and vandalism, you people choose to attract more fun people to play around with. Instead of trying to encourage accuracy and finding information to improve articles or make their own, you guys call out these meaningless articles that serve no real purpose. I really don't see h problem keeping this one, but at the same time i don't think we should use this article to attract more editors. and for what? just to do more fun activities? You should be more worried about stub articles out there that are in danger of being deleted, or articles that could easily be merged, or just general improvement. not worry about meaningless pages that don't serve a direct purpose. Obviously, you didn't even bother seeing it my view as you only added to types of people and one of them obviously isn't the answer. but neither is the first one from what i had in mind. I think you know what type of crowd i'm saying we should attract but you refuse to give that option in your answer. Regardless, many have joined for an obvious reason. Honestly, the anime and manga does well getting new editors on it's own without wikipe-tan.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the high regard, but I'm not remotely psychic, you'll have to read your own mind and do your own soapboxing without me.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has joke pages, I would say that even if wikipe-tan is gone people who would want to lighten up the mood would still join. Also "This is not an encyclopedia article", this was moved to the mainspace long ago to avoid problems with the article status. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well i think they should be userfied, but the difference is we wouldn't be the ones encouraging it.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has many places to be serious. I don't think that those who like Wikipe-tan are inherently editors who use Wikipedia as a social or joke site. TransUtopian (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, missing the point. those who want to lighten up the site and want to attract users with this page which does fine on its own. wikipedia is meant to be serious by the very goal of wikipedia. those who wanted to lighten up wiki shouldn't.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry but you are wrong, wikipedia is ment to be serious yes about Articles but when it comes to the community and things in the namespace it is meant to be friendly and inviting, not cold serious and bland. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which images are you referring to? And do you have an opinion of the article itself, which is being nominated, instead of just some of the pictures in the article? Dream Focus 16:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you seriously want to explore my reasons why this garbage wants incinerating? Lets just address the first paragraph: "in which she is dressed like a stereotypical gym teacher" - you must have gone to a very wierd school indeed, if you don't think that is complete rubbish. The whole page is, to put it kindly, imature self-indulgence - the images themselves are born of a disturbed mind, but we are not discussing them. Quite frankly, Dream Focus, a few of us here are writing a serious encyclopedia: little girls smiling coyly in provacative attire are not really suited to that aim. If you wish me to continue my school of thought that won't be a problem, but I would advise against it. Please don't challenge my delete vote again. Giacomo Returned 22:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need for anyone to do so its a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and clear that you hate everything about this article, there is no changing your mind or reasoning to be had here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Wikipe-tan_coaching.png This image is used on a Wikipedia page about coaching Wikipedia Administrators. Wikipedia:Admin coaching Its been there for three years now. [9]. Other images have been used for just as long. I don't find any of this provocative at all, and if you are getting aroused by it, you need to see someone about that. And by a serious encyclopedia, would that include articles on fictional characters from comic books, cartoons, and video games? I don't see any difference with this article and any of those. And if you don't understand someone's presented rationale of course you should challenge/discuss it. You seem to have done that above in many places so its odd you would say that. Dream Focus 03:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lets just stop here, enough personal attacks and comments have been made on the whole ordeal reguarding wikipe-tan as it is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Remove this from Wikipedia and the planet too. One of the images shows this child with an adult body in a swimsuit. It says "as an adult", but really, same face. And others in a French maid's costume, not to mention Jumping Wikipe-tan.svg. There's nothing fun or cute about this. It is clearly mixing children and sex. I think a better mascot for Wikipedia would be a bunny or an owl or something instead of child porn, or whatever this is supposed to be. It's gross. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images were done by different people at different times. If you have a problem with a specific image, nominate it. Do you have a problem with the article itself, or the majority of the images? Dream Focus 16:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least substantially reword. The image is not particularly good example, and there are understandable concerns about her dress. But this is not a deletion discussion about the images (I'll be nomming some of them individually myself I think). Rather I think the page should go because of the representation of Wikipe-tan as a Mascot, which is not even slightly true, and the suggestion of endorsement by Jimbo (which he denies). At the very least this is more of relevance within the Anime WikiProject. In addition some of the images on there are actually concerning and it would be best to, at the very least, remove them --Errant (chat!) 12:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your arguement is to get rid of wikipe-tan because she is an unofficial mascot? Like the images I do not think that discussion should be had here, I feel a discussion over at WP:Village pump about her mascot statues would be better (Wikipe-tan is already a mascot in some areas of wikipedia). Having a page that explains how wikipe-tan relates to the wikipedia community and talk of outside notability on the page to me are things against deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - bad-faith assumptions on the part of nominator (my 15-year-old daughter, an otaku, likes Wikipe-tan a lot more than I do, and thinks some people just don't understand cultures outside their own narrow prejudices). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point that OrangeMike has made. It seems like that some of the reasons that support deletion show some sort of a lack of cultural sensitivity. –MuZemike 20:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you realize that argument is highly subjective and could be easily counterattacked.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment lets not make our comments rely solely on "oh my daughter likes it, my daughter doesn't like it". It's a shame that this discussion really isn't getting anywhere related to the accusations. and bad-faith isn't ar eal official term in wikipeida where you guys can say say it so freely. assuming good faith means assuming good intentions, bad intentions is very subjective here in wikipedia.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I assume good intentions on those who want it deleted, that they believe they're operating in the best interests of Wikipedia. However, I believe it's a difference in cultural perception that makes some see it as drawn child porn or of a similar nature, such as Anna Frodesiak's comment. Our comments shouldn't be based solely on subjective perceptions, but like some intensely dislike it here, I sent the link to the page to female friends, and all the reactions were positive. The page informs people about a character used in multiple Wikiprojects and essays. TransUtopian (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, it's beyond obvious that this is an attempt at a FAKE article, even if it's not in User Space. It's a clear attempt to make this character appear as if it is a notable part of the world of anime, and really should have a Wikipedia article, and that's the ultimate logic behind WP:FAKEARTICLE. Second, it definitely has no place in the Wikipedia:Project namespace, at any level. It's not an essay at all, because it has no message and expresses no opinion. It's not a guideline, proposal, process page or noticeboard. It's certainly not humour. It's of no use whatsoever to Wikipedia or to its editors, except as some sort of Wikipe-tan fan page to play with or rally around in some tedious inter-project feud or bizarrely even a real world morality dispute, none of which is a valid use of project space, or has any relevance at all to our wider mission. Compare this page even to one of the more vacuous uses of project space, something like WP:Barnstar, and the difference in intent and utility, even as a historical document, is still screamingly obvious. Keeping it in project space is a clear violation of WP:NOTHOST, which applies to all areas, not just User Space. If WP:FAKEARTICLE has to be changed to make it clear that it also aplies to groups abusing project space against the spirit of WP:NOT, so be it. Wikilawyering aside, the policy outcome of this Mfd is clear, all that's needed is a closer with the sense and the balls to say so. MickMacNee (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kiril, and maybe could the nominator spend some time doing something useful instead of trying to get stuff deleted and engaging in personal attacks? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator got itself indef'd. Was that useful enough? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the nominator has been blocked for being a sockpuppet, I doubt they'll be doing anything useful any time soon. ;)
      Actually, given the nominator's sock-and-blocked status, could this MfD be closed? (that's not a request, but a question) There are some calls for deletion, but invariably it'll be kept, and I'm wondering if we're just dragging things out. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • well there's no point keeping it. but....i do see where the ones wanting delete are coming from. I personally think there's alot of bias reasons on here, and for that reason, we should just avoid this page at all costs.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just my opinion but I am for an early close here based on recent developents and this being a bad faith nom. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not going to happen. The debate has already advance far, far beyond whatever it was that Mr. Sock had to say on the matter, and many valid points from both sides have taken hold. "Even roses can spring for shit" as my great-grandmother used to say. Though she was on the sauce alot. Tarc (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jesus Christ everyone calm down - Holy crap, everyone take a step back for a second. This is a discussion about the existence of an imaginary animated character outside of the article space on an online encyclopedia. Everyone needs to just chill out. Seriously. People who want this deleted are not racists or oblivious or evil or cruel. People who want this kept are not pedophiles or misogynists or planning the destruction of the encyclopedia. The outcome of this discussion, in the end, does not matter one bit. Everyone needs to just relax, stop throwing around accusations, and just take it easy. Thank you. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Kirill's arguments above. And I'm in no way a fan of Wikipe-tan -- I think the character is silly in a bad way -- but I also don't see the harm. This entire dispute reminds me of how the original WP:BJAODN was deleted because certain Wikipedians thought having a little fun was a bad thing & somehow made Wikipedia look bad. -- llywrch (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia shouldn't be seen as a joke, it's a serious encyclopedia. Wikipetan can be a mascot of anime portal, but it can't be on wikipedia main mainspace for guidelines and rules. (WP:) Userpd (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Humour? A tarty, cheap little Lolita? Appealing to the dregs of society - That may summarise your work - it does not mine. Giacomo Returned 22:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can't all be as refined as you and Gallagher in our sense of humour.--Milowent • talkblp-r 22:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The humour statment was in responce to Userpd's argument.©Geni 23:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I think it's hysterically funny - don't you? A 9 year old girl wearing a French maids uniform, kitten ears, and on her hands and knees with a cat's tail on her arse - I can't remember the last time I laughed more. Truly the mascot wikipedia is in need of. Giacomo Returned 23:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please stick to the article here, the whole mascot debate as I pointed out can be sorted out at the village pump. Images of wikipe-tan are used in anime/manga articles where no free content images can be found, the image of her has been adoped for use in other pages over time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Giano your attempts to sexualise the images have been noted. They are not however based on anything resembleing an objective judgement.©Geni 23:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the community chooses not to have wikipe-tan as a mascot that still shouldnt be a reason for deletion, images (While not all of them and this has been discussed time and time again) are used in articles to improve them, wikipe-tan also has outside wikipedia notability as well as being in diffrent projects in some way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me be clear by my argument about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That page starts with "The following are a list of arguments that can commonly be seen in deletion discussions for templates, images, categories, stub types, redirects and especially articles which should generally be avoided, or at least, supplemented with some more arguments". It says it is about arguments for deleting stuff in article space and related to articles. This is MfD, not AfD, or TfD or CfD, This page is in project space. The issue should be whether it helps or hinders our goals. I find it disturbing that so few people are actually addressing the arguments that this discourages women editors. Only 13% of editors are women. If some women find this creepy or disturbing, we should take that very seriously. Have some of you young editors asked your sisters about this? Since we only have 13% women editors, we are not getting the female viewpoint here. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is when it's presumed by a male - I assume you are a male Bugs? Be careful with that carrot! Giacomo Returned 23:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Bduke is male, then it's presuming to speak for women. If Bduke is female, then it obviously hasn't been driven away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am male and I am not presuming anything. I am noting that we have a problem with the number of women editors. I am then noting that one male editor said his sister found Wikitan greepy and a woman editor found it disturbing. I then noted that these were not being taken seriously. I have 50 years experience in universities. When I started the science research labs were full of men and the undergraduate population was not much better. Women academics were very few indeed. It has been totally turned around by people treating the issue seriously and removing attitudes and practices that put women off as students or academics. We need to do the same, starting with deleting this or at least moving it elsewhere. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and two people have said their daughters loved her, and another claimed a positive response from female friends. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the low percentage of women here unusual, or does it square with male/female participation ratios in other similar kinds of projects? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • give current population demographics and the global distribution of women including in clutures with highly differing ideas as to what they consider acceptable I don't think that asking "does page X disscourage women" is a road we want to go down.©Geni 23:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to say? Giacomo Returned 23:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As usual, there's compromise wording for a debated phrase: "sometimes been informally regarded as an unofficial..." I think it's silly to think of the image as a mascot, but it is part of Wikipedia culture. Even those who think it should not be, I think will nonetheless admit that it has indeed been so. Personally, I take what is probably an overly straight-laced view to what our demeanor should be on-wiki, but this is within the permissible. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak "Move somewhere or Mark historical", largely per Robofish's reasons, but in spite of myself, I oppose deletion. I think it's safe to mark her as historical or move her to under a wikiproject; she is not an official anything and does not represent the 'pedia, but she is supported mostly by members of certain wikiprojects, who ought to be free to use moe images in their own projects' space if they wish.

    Now, Tan creeps me right the hell out. I find her distasteful in the extreme, and from a purely IDONTLIKEIT perspective, I'd like to see her gone. But deleting a projectspace page on her isn't the way to go about that; deprecation of Tan as any sort of mascot, or clarification of the page's status as historical, etc, is best carried out on a talk page, perhaps via an RfC, not by wholesale deleting the (somewhat) informational page and trying to pretend she never existed. By all means let's mark up or move the page about her so that it's clear that she doesn't represent the community as a monolithic entity; anything further than that is going to require community input in an actual discussion, not in a deletion !vote. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per DGG's reasoning. --MeekSaffron (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For those intrested I made a section over at village pump Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Wikipe-tan as a mascot? reguarding wikipe-tan's status as a mascot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as no valid arguments have been made for deletion. Wikipe-tan is an unofficial mascot of Wikipedia (even Jimbo, while stating that he doesn't personally care for the character, admits she is just that). She is in use by multiple WikiProjects, most of which have little to nothing to do with anime or manga. She has been used and covered in multiple reliable sources as given in the article. This article is certainly not a fake article, and, as it's in the project namespace, can't be mistaken for one anyway. The talk page of the article also clearly indicates the page is not a regular article such as you would find in mainspace. As for those advocating removing the images, that's a discussion for Commons, not here. All of the images are hosted over there, so any decision here won't mean a lick over there. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This article is certainly not a fake article, and, as it's in the project namespace, can't be mistaken for one anyway." Well, it would be hard for most regular Wikipedians to mistake it if paying attention to the namespace. However, before the addtion of the "not an article" banner, I think it would have been very easy for a random person who's not a Wikipedia editor to mistake this for a real article. By your logic, no article draft in userspace could be confused for an article, because it's in the userspace namespace! LadyofShalott 04:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break
  • Keep, I see no reason to delete this page. It's not trying to masquerade as anything official and is doing no harm, but if anyone thinks that it is laid out too similarly to an article they are free to discuss reorganising it on the talk page. If anyone has any problems with any specific images (for the record, I don't have any such issues), then the correct course of action is to discuss those images not delete the page they are being shown on. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - being personally offended by something? Not a reason to delete. Think of the women/children? Ditto. Argument ad erotica? Absurd - the images are innocuous by any reasonable standard. Exxolon (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - extremely terrible personification, HOWEVER, it is widely used in WMF and should therefore be kept. Kayau Voting IS evil 15:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep A commonly used image to depict Wikipedia culture that has found its place within the community. Those arguing it is child porn have not successfully convinced others or myself. The nominator has also been permblocked as a sock.
  • The current tally(more or less) =
  • Removed as sign of good will
Any reason to keep this irrationally divisive discussion continuing?AerobicFox (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:AFD which says "Do not add tally boxes to the deletion page."Edison (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep that in mind for the future. However, that is neither a policy nor a guideline, but a general recommendation for etiquette, and not justification to strike out others comments. If you have a problem with this then please contact me on my talk page.AerobicFox (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing this, rather than contain all this drama, will very possibly just create more of it. At this point, given that there's certainly no 100% obvious consensus, it really can't hurt to let it wrap up, given that both sides have given at least some reasonable arguments. The fact that the nominator is a sock is at this point unrelated, since others have also voted delete.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well there's almost a 70% consensus for keep, and I think both sides have basically stated all that they are going to say. If you want to let it stay open for a few more days until responses have died down then that's fine also.AerobicFox (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonnotable anime/hentai/lollicon, irrelevant to Wikipedia. Possibly offensive to many editors: a cartoon little girl in a French maid costume, etc. Edison (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only offensive to those with dirty minds. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The French maid uniform is still in use in many conservative institutions just like how the supposedly sexy "school girl" outfit is still used in Catholic schools. Not allowing a picture of a child with a very conservative and adorable French maid outfit would be like not allowing a picture of a child in a school girl uniform. The outfit in question is very conservative, with only her hands and face showing skin; and it has been modified to include a large bow in the back which is a Japanese fashion convention.
    • People like to play dress up with little children, in the Victorian era they would dress up boys and girls in outfits with excessive frills and curls. I suspect Wikipetan's choice of cutfit to be derived from Wikipedia's theme of cleaning(giving the admin the mop). While I accept concerns that this could be offensive to some(and I believe a minority), please do not try to sexualize an adorable and innocently created image in the eyes of those who genuinely just enjoy cute-looking things.AerobicFox (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, I have a dirty mind & I'm not offended by Wikipe-tan. I don't even find her titillating. Maybe if she looked more like a real person I might, but saying there is a sexual subcontext to the image is about as silly as that certain country banning Daffy Duck as sexually offensive because he didn't wear pants (or was it Mickey Mouse? That rodent needs a pair of pants too) & had three minors of an undefined relationship living with him. (Was he their illegitimate father? Or a sexual predator maintaining his victims under his own roof? If you find Wikipe-tan offensive, you know the answer to those questions.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meido. For those unfamiliar with it "meido" is a Japanese cognate to describe a maid in Japan. They wear dresses inspired from the French maid uniform, but as its description here states "Compare to French Maid, the Hotter And Sexier origin of this trope." and that meido is "among the very few Moe Moe[Moe basically means cute] items that attract both Japanese and Westerners.". It is commonly used in a variety of Japanese media, almost always without any sexual connotations at all, and often with conservative connotations. Wikipetan's dress was chosen because Wikipedia is about maintenance and cleaning, her meido was never viewed by her originators as sexual, but as a common trope used in anime.(more so than the French maid which is fairly rare in anime).AerobicFox (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No predatory child molesting pervert would "Ever" find the hentai/manga/anime/lolicon of a little girl in a French Maid costume stimulating. Uh-huh, understood. Accepting that assertion, where are the multiple independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the image which are required to satisfy WP:N? Without that, the page must be deleted, despite the fact that so many editors "like" it. Edison (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't a "predatory child molesting pervert" find most of our images of children "stimulating"? What a pedophile finds stimulating is not a good metric to determine if something is sexual or not.AerobicFox (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see anything offensive about this page, and I don't see a clear reason why removing it would benefit the project. I outgrew my anime phase a few years back but I don't have anything against those who appreciate such things. As a vegetarian I don't appreciate Wikipedia:Bacon Challenge and similar pages–but I just ignore them instead of trying to get them deleted. I would humbly advise those who dislike this page to adopt a similar strategy. (and by the way: whoa, I never guessed the nom's true identity) Qrsdogg (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2011 (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.

February 27, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Van Halen
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. --RL0919 (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Van Halen

Only 9 members (it was 11, but two were indef-blocked). Absolutely no discussion relevant to the project ever occurred on the talk page. Nothing at all worth keeping; project has been dormant since 2009 at least. No articles were ever assessed or anything.

If deleted, also remove the following pages:

And all the relevant categories. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:09, 27 February 2011 (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:Samweavertalksalot/Andrew Edgar
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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Samweavertalksalot/Andrew Edgar

This is a userspace copy of an article that was speedily deleted under criterion A7 on 19 April 2010. On 21 April 2010 Samweavertalksalot (talk · contribs) requested it's undeletion, and it was userfied the same day. In the 10 months since then it has received no edits, indeed the request for undeletion was the user's third and final contribution to Wikipedia. As a stale userspace draft of a BLP I think the time has come to delete this. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2011 (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 World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians
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 consensus of the discussion is that this is a useful page for the project, and the arguments offered for deletion are primarily article-focused criteria (e.g., WP:CRYSTAL) that are of less concern for project-space pages. --RL0919 (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians

This page needs deletion for multiple reasons. The big red disclaimer on top is a dead giveaway. Also WP:CRYSTAL. Also many of the people on this list are there with no source at all or with only a Yahoo! group as a source. Also, please read this discussion. Also, the link at the bottom is to an even worse page, in user space. It ought to go too, but first things first. Without THIS page, THAT page becomes less problematic. A project subpage is more likely to mislead the unwary than a user subpage. And asking to delete an editor's subpage is likely to be more disruptive than trying to delete a project subpage, especially where two editors from the project who tend to disagree both agree on the topic. David in DC (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • David in DC, since I'm still learning about Wikipedia, I personally was not aware of the word "MfD" so I looked it up. To quote WP:MFD, it says, "Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:
WikiProjects and their subpages: It is usually preferable to either mark the Project as inactive or change it to a task force of the parent Project, unless the Project is entirely undesirable." I don't know if you are trying to mark the entire project undesirable, are you? If not, then it suggests that your bold [10] attempt is detrimental in following the guidelines set forth in WP:MFD. As a matter of fact, this WP:MFD should be removed, or however this works. Rest assured, I will check on this.
Yes, as I have told you only yesterday morning [11], I will assist other editors to make sure that as many people as possible that are listed are properly cited. Regarding WP:CRYSTAL, we do not presume either way: whether someone is still living or has died without fanfare. That may be why the big red disclaimer is on the top (I haven't checked to see who put it there) -- it is just to remind editors not to move living supercentenarians into the list of living supercentenarians until there has been a citation of them reaching their 110th birthday per known policy.
Even if statistics show that a 110-year-old supercentenarian only has about a 50% chance to live to his/her next birthday, other than providing a citation of the person's existence no matter how old the citation is, we cannot assume that the person is still living or has died without fanfare. That is not in violation of WP:CRYSTAL as we are not talking about a future event that has not actually occurred. I myself learned this in the past year when I was surprised to see an American case of someone who was last noted at age of 107 finally re-appearing in the media as she approached her 113rd birthday, I believe. Outside Wikipeida, I had questioned whether this person was still living, but it made me learn that not every person is in the media every year. That, however, does not detract from the fact that they are still notable for reaching supercentenarian status.
Finally, to better understand your position, David in DC, what is your vested interest in this WikiProject? I don't believe I have observed you providing any material content to the Project other than making note of pages that need to be improved and/or stating that they are not on par with Wikipedia guidelines? CalvinTy 02:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would like to know the answer to that question.
Question for David in DC: What constructive activity have you contributed to this project as distinct from destructive activity?
Specifically, which names have you added to the list that fit your criteria? Which persons have you researched? Who have you verified that fits Wikipedia policy?
What academic or practical qualifications do you have in the field of human longevity? Would you please provide examples of any research that you have conducted in this area?
In short, can you show demonstratively any expertise or knowledge you have on the subject? Cam46136 (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136[reply]
  • Keep - It is a WikiProject issue and doing an end run around that project's consensus mechanism to delete one of its subpages would harm that WikiProject. The WikiProject page has been around since 10 April 2010. Also,the Arbcom case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity just closed on 17 February 2011 and Arbcom didn't seem to have a problem with the page. With the close of the recent Arbcom case, it is more important to let that Wikiproject work on its consensus developing mechanism than to use the heavy hand of MfD in an attempt to force it into one direction or another. Moreover, deleting the page will not set policy for the WikiProject and that WikiProject still will be able to keep track of people whom are potential future supercentenarians. The page seems to be a useful tool for that project. The page is in Wikipedia space, not article space, and I don't see any valid reason presented to delete it. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikiprojects do not set their own rules to determine which of their subpages can and cannot be deleted. They have to play by the same rules as Wikipedia as a whole. Reyk YO! 09:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not an article. It's a WikiProject page. It helps the WikiProject so we know what to look for in the news and sources. The project aims to continue to list all sourced supercentenarians. If someone has a 109th birthday, they are not yet a supercentenarian. But, with them on a list, as their 110th birthday approaches, we know what to look for in the news and find sources for a 110th birthday. Either that or that person goes unnoticed until they announce their 112th birthday or something. Deleting the subpage would harm the project. -— AMK152 (t • c) 05:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep - I know that there is dispute over whether reaching 110 years of age confers automatic notability, but that is not a dispute for this discussion. And certainly at least some of these very old people will be notable simply through weight of sources. It's quite reasonable for a Wikiproject to maintain non-mainspace pages to help keep track of and organize material like this. Reyk YO! 09:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replies My answer to Calvin (and Cam) about what I've done on Wikipedia can be found here. I replied when Calvin asked. Cam, if your questions are not rhetorical, you should look there. As to looking for advice about improving the project, I started this thread more than a week ago. As to discussion within the project about this, please see here. As to an "end run", this is actually the opposite. Everyone who's commented there thinks this page should be dealt with. But rather than just get rid of it, per the three out of four editors who bothered to discuss it, I brought it here to seek input from experienced Wikipedia editors. As to project pages, the rules apply to project pages, too. As to the guidance about what's "usually preferable," this project page is as unusual as all get-out. But reading everything above, I'm now convinced that bd2412 has the proper answer. Userfy. Calvin, Cam, Reyk, AMK, any volunteers? I note that AMK already hosts a similar subpage about the youngsters among centenarians. It seems to me that this page is almost the same as that one, except for the relative youth of its subjects. They belong together. David in DC (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a project member and think it should be deleted. If the consensus on the project is that it should go, then what do regulars here think? Is there any reason it should stay? Is there any problem with David's suggestion to userfy? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is clear agreement in the WikiProject World's Oldest People project that the subpage should be deleted, then post a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for an uninvolved administrator to close the project discussion about the Future supercentenarians subpage using {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}} archival templates. That would be a much better approach than MfD and that should have been tried first. If there is an impass at the WikiProject as to whether to keep or delete the subpage, then post at MfD. If there is disagreement with an admin closed discussion on the WikiProject talk page, that could be raised at WP:DRV. It does not make any sense for non-involved editors here at MfD to force a WikiProject to keep a subpage for which the project consensus itself concludes it has no use. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears to date that there is no clear consensus to delete this particular subpage of the WikiProject. I show that only two has indicated "delete" (David in DC & Itsmejudith). Itsmejudith did not explain her rationale for "delete" other than "I think it should be deleted". I realized another thing that I have a question about -- what constitutes an editor to be considered a "project member" of a WikiProject? I actually don't know the answer but I'm going to guess that once anyone edited any subpage of the WikiProject, they automatically becomes a project member? CalvinTy 20:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As part of a project, we need to keep track on the oldest people in the world. If we delete this page, the process on finding supercentenerians and putting on the List of living supercentenarians page will be more labor intense (researching unverified cases). Also, we won't know who to expect to be turning 110 without this list. I agree with AMK152 that this is a WikiProject page, not an article.--HoHHo56Oy (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After I have asked the questions and made my comments, I also have read about Userfy. From what I understand, Userfy means that the content of the future supercentenarians subpage would be moved to a specific user's userspace?? How does that solve anything? I imagine that even userspace are still required to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, right? As David in DC said earlier, "And asking to delete an editor's subpage is likely to be more disruptive than trying to delete a project subpage". That makes sense so Userfy would not be the correct move here. Furthermore, Uzma Gamal said it perfectly for me, "Arbcom didn't seem to have a problem with the page. With the close of the recent Arbcom case, it is more important to let that Wikiproject work on its consensus developing mechanism than to use the heavy hand of MfD in an attempt to force it into one direction or another. Moreover, deleting the page will not set policy for the WikiProject and that WikiProject still will be able to keep track of people whom are potential future supercentenarians. The page seems to be a useful tool for that project. The page is in Wikipedia space, not article space, and I don't see any valid reason presented to delete it. How would deleting this project page further that goal?" Considering what Uzma Gamal stated and how Userfy does not seem to help anything other than "sweeping the issue under the rug by moving to an userspace", I recommend that we keep this subpage & allow the ArbCom recommendation to bear fruit for the project members to improve the subpage. CalvinTy 20:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a working page, not an article. If anything it aids in the accuracy and verification of any material placed in an article. Arguments for its deletion are akin to saying that someone’s comments here do not fit Wikipedia’s policies and should be deleted. It’s a nonsense. Cam46136 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136[reply]
  • Keep This article is in the state of building. It will never be abandoned. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quandary: ArbCom tells the 17 of us on the project (Calvin, all you need do is add your name as lucky #18 on the project main page to join) to seek guidance from more experienced editors.
(1) On the day after the ArbCom case closes, a topic-banned editor posts news of census data about city populations on his talk page. I think posting any kind of census data, so close to the imposition of the ban, worrisome. I ask for enforcement (in the form of admonishment only) and am batted away by experienced editors who close with no action, although the closer says

I concur that this request is not immediately actionable because [topic-banned editor]'s comment was not unquestionably related to Longevity (from which he is topic-banned). But it is clear why the filing party could argue that the comment did constitute a topic-ban violation, and I would accordingly caution [topic-banned editor] against attempting to evade his topic-ban by means of a comment on an unrelated venue (such as his talk page). Editors who are topic-banned often find that leniency is rarely showed by administrators in complaints about ban evasion, and [topic-banned editor] must be especially careful that he is never participating in a discussion relating to longevity. That aside, this complaint is not actionable, and so I will with this edit close this thread. AGK [•] 17:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(2) ArbCom specifically declines to opine on the content-realted issue of whether tables about longevity hosted by the Gerontology Research Group on www.grg.org are reliable sources. Urges the project to seek advice from uninvolved, RS-savvy editors at WP:RSN. I do. There are a few desultory comments and then one of the experienced editors notes the lack of interest by other experienced editors by commenting on the metaphorical sound of crickets chirping. To fill the void, project members and others fill the void. That makes me oh-for-two in engaging the assistance of these becoming-to-seem-mythical editors ArbCom imagines are eager to help.

(3) An editor with whom I often disagree notes just how far out-of-compliance with the rules this subpage festooned with a big red disclaimer seems to be. WP:DISCLAIM, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N. The bizzare notion that our rules, policies and guidelines don't apply to project subpages sounds to me like the ultimate WP:FORK problem, kind of a meta-FORK.*

Over the next couple of days, Calvin offers a differing opinion and a previously-totally-uninvolved editor comes on the scene to agree with my project colleague's initial post. Not sure about whether this is the mythic experienced, uninvolved editor of ArbCom's dreams, I seek additional reality check here. The thrust of the uninvolved, experienced editors' comments here (factoring out project members and others who've been editing pages covered by the WOP WikiProject is, "solve it amongst yourselves." Oh-for-three.

  • Improvement #1: I agree that per WP:DISCLAIM, there is no need for a disclaimer on the top of the page. I removed that, and I tried to provide a better opening statement that shows the purpose of having a working list of potential (or pending) supercentenarians. CalvinTy 01:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improvement #2: A couple of days ago, I felt that this page needed a References section so I began to do the process. I felt I made a good start after my edit. Unfortunately, another project member apparently undid all of my efforts. I have inquired into why the member did so here. I see that David in DC recently has been able to add references at a much faster pace than I originally did. I appreciate David in DC's efforts here, even with his proactive stance of removing Yahoo Group WOP citations since, if nothing else, the Yahoo Group WOP is a closed membership. I do understand the logic of not allowing the citation because "Mr. John Q. Public" would not be able to see the citation. I will look into those citations that had pointed to the Yahoo Group WOP, and as a member, I'll see if those messages point to an outside source for citation use. CalvinTy 01:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some points/questions (and hopefully my last contribution on this topic):

    1. A Wikipedia:WikiProject "is a project to manage a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia. It is composed of a collection of pages and a group of editors who use those pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work. It is not a place to write encyclopedia articles directly, but a resource to help coordinate and organize the writing and editing of those articles."
    2. "It is not a place to write encyclopedia articles directly". Is the subpage under discussion here an article or not? Even the user contributions above disagree. It certainly looks like a duck. In fact it looks like an extension of List of living supercentenarians except that instead of living verified/pending/unverified, but "reliably" cited, supercentenarians we have a collection of "might be a supercentenarians but without a "reliable" citation, or none at all, and even though we have no proof that they're even alive for a couple of years we'll keep them on the list, just in case" and "not yet even claimed to be a supercentenarian, with or without a reliable citation and there might not even be any evidence for years that they are still actually alive, but we'll keep them on the list just in case". Is that even encyclopedic?
    3. "...a resource to help coordinate and organize the writing and editing of those articles." Merely adding, mostly without discussion, names to a list which seems to have virtually no parameters "to keep track of people whom are potential future supercentenarians" and without which it would "be more labor intense (researching unverified cases)" doesn't seem much like coordinating and organising to me, more like listcruft, especially given the paucity of citations. Is it even the purpose of wiki to keep an eye out for something in case it might eventually be worthy of including in an actual article? Surely the Yahoo WOP has something like this anyway, if not it should, so why should wiki be used as extension of of a messageboard/forum/usergroup when it is specifically not for that purpose? If it is indeed "useful" there's no particular reason it has to be here (in fact that are many reasons it should not), certainly not in it's current state. And if supercentenarian claimants are discovered without using this list, as I suspect they have been, why is it so vital anyway?
    4. Is Yahoo Groups WOP a reliable source or not? Are user groups, forums and messageboards reliable or not? There must be a definitive answer somewhere, if not perhaps it's time to have one established, surely it's overdue for some decision to be made.
    5. The ArbCom recommendation that this Project seek the advice of experienced editors seems to have been totally ignored. In fact any input at all seems to have been totally disregarded by many of the members of this project.
    6. ""WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms." How would deleting this project page further that goal?" If the majority of the members of this group persist in showing no inclination whatsoever in accepting any advice from any user with regard to any attempt at bringing this project inline with basic wiki principles then deletion would seem to be the only solution. "Deleting the subpage would harm the project" I seriously doubt that, there is nothing that is actually useful here that could not be done elsewhere, as could most of the fluff. "This article (sic) will never be abandoned" is hardly indicative of any willingness to listen to anyone outside the project.
    7. Deletion of this subpage is not the only solution. It could easily be userfied, a link on the main project page would be the same number of clicks would make it just as easy to find. Or, this subpage could easily be tidied up to comply with wiki policies/guidelines, once those have been clearly identified.
    8. Finally, to clear up any misapprehensions, I have never been a member of this project; I have never even looked at Yahoo Groups WOP; I have been interested in longevity for over 35 years, but I have many other interests which I see as more important; the first article I contributed to on wiki, nearly 4 years ago, was longevity related; I have removed a number of longevity-related articles from my watchlist because they persisted in retaining wiki-inappropriate content, and didn't miss them. Given all that, the existence or otherwise of this project really won't make any difference to me, unless I am again threatened with being topic banned from longevity articles (the instigator of my recent involvement), or the workings of this project adversely affect the few remaining longevity articles that I consider still to be worthwhile.

Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Especially in light of this series of edits. No edit summaries, no discussion, just wholesale revision, including cites to the gosh-darned Yahoo! group again. Yoo-hoo, more experienced wikipedia editors! Without edit warring, and without you, WTF?!David in DC (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's one with an edit summary. Of course the edit summary confirms the unwillingness to follow the WikiProject Notability and sourcing guidance. And Calvin has sought dialogue about this on Nick's page, to no avail. Yoo-hoo, elusive, ArbCom-prophesied more experienced wikipedia editors! Without edit warring, and without you, WTF?! David in DC (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to DerbyCountyinNZ
2. The "write encyclopedia articles directly" phrase refers to the fact that any WikiProject shouldn't use their collection of pages to actually create encyclopedia articles in that space. Rather, if some content is ready to be included in a Wikipedia article, that's where the content should go to, e.g. List of living supercentenarians. The subpage is not a Wikipedia article. The "Future supercentenarians" subpage was likely created because it allows multiple editors to identify potential supercentenarian claims; having those names on the list allows editors to find citations and/or evidence whether a particular name is still living or not. Like I have commented before, a.) we shouldn't assume either way -- whether a claimant is still living or have died without fanfare, and b.) a potential (or future) supercentenarian claim does not necessarily mean we will easily find a citation right off the bat confirming that their heart is still beating.  :-)
3. A valid discussion here. Yes, at Yahoo Groups WOP, we aim to collect all potential claims of ages 108+. However, this is a membership-required group. Wikipedia serves as a wider audience for other Wikipedia editors to provide input about those claims that our members may not be aware of. However, in its current state, the subpage certainly needs a citation for each entry to avoid making it look like listcruft. Hopefully, in time, when most -- if not all -- of the entries have citations, then I believe this MfD is no longer necessary as all concerns would have been addressed.
5. Please be careful here. I cannot locate the appropriate Wiki guideline but using the word "many" implies something that isn't there; other than NickOrnstein not collaborating with project members with his wholesale edits, I think we are trying to listen but defending our position at the same time. Heck, the ArbCom recommendation was made only less than two weeks ago; at RSN, there just seems to be a lack of uninvolved experienced editors to provide neutral advice as David in DC has mentioned.
6. Again, please be careful here. You stated, "majority of the members". That's implying something that's just simply untrue. Yes, again, as you quoted NickOrnstein, he appears to have difficulty in being willing to listen for advice. However, that's not representative of the majority of project members, I believe.
7. "this subpage could easily be tidied up to comply with wiki policies/guidelines, once those have been clearly identified." That's precisely what I'm hoping what we (project members) plan to do without continuing with this MfD. CalvinTy 13:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion seems now to be at an impasse. User:Reyk above says that the WikiProject doesn't have the right to decide whether the page stays or goes. However, on WP:RSN we have just been advised that the WikiProject does have that right. Could anyone direct us towards policy on WikiProject subpages? thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It is a valuable resource that helps maintain the integrity of Wikipedia entries. It is useful and informative to those interested. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "some people" referred to above do not "...constantly have issues regarding articles or projects concerning the oldest people in the world." It's the multifarious articles, lists, project pages, project talk pages, project subpages, and project subpage talk pages that have the problems. The problems are akin to the massive resistance that is a sad legacy of my home state of Virginia. Focus on the edits, not the editors. L.E. summed up the real problem(s) better than I could ever hope to. And then blithely reiterated them. David in DC (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2011 (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.

February 26, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Audiobooks
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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Audiobooks

Inactive since 2008, this project has only one member. JJ98 (Talk) 22:27, 26 February 2011 (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 King George's Fields
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. Long in active and too narrow of a scope to sustain a project. --RL0919 (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject King George's Fields

Sub page:

Project was completely untouched from August 2007 until April 2010, when it was tagged inactive. This project clearly isn't going anywhere and has nothing worth keeping — it only ever had two members and <15 articles, which is too small for even a task force, and none of the talk page discussion is worth keeping. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, precedent. I reman neutral in this deletion discussion, but precedent is used strangely in this august organ. We have a precedent for ignoring precedent, and we have a precedent for paying heed to it. The real use of precedent here is as a paradox :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notion of precedence, especially to what it says about the threshold of what is worth archiving, is unclear here. Would TenPoundHammer find this pages less problematic if the {{inactive}} template were more obvious? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the subject is highly focused, with few articles. I don't think it worth a WikiProject. There seem to be few sources, and I suspect that the current articles contain about everything there is to say without straying too far into WP:NOTDIRECTORY. That said, I still think having this discussion is way out of proportion to the problem of leaving it tagged {{inactive}}. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag with template:dormant or template:inactive. There is no nothing to be gained by deleting this. Arguments about overspecialisation are not valid. It all depends on what level editors want to work on. All a wikiproject is is a nexus and discussion point. Hypothetically, some editors could want to work on these articles but be uninterested in English collaborations per se. Deleting this is not going to magically make them interested in a broader wikiproject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just out of curiosity, is there a particular reason that MfD is being utilized for this? It may simply be my way of thinking, and I understand that there are likely many more participants here than there would be elsewhere, but this doesn't seem to be an optimal solution to me. Why not create an established process (or enhance an existing one) in order to deal with WikiProjects as a whole? Isn't this (at least partially) what the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council is for?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • SmokeyJoe: Please look at the number of inactive projects on WP (here for example). Only a small percentage of inactive projects, for specific reasons, have been sent to Mfd. I understand you are against the pragmatic approach that I and some other editors follow, but we should all endeavour to be objective. Inactive WP refers to identifying "projects . . substantively [un]changed for several months". Here we have been dealing with projects inactive over many years. See also the deletion criteria in the guideline. Deletion can be "appropriate for completely inactive projects which have no substantive history and serve no residual purpose even without activity". --Kleinzach 23:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are a great many inactive projects. My fear, that I try to counter, is that people will start to flood MfD with great numbers of them. Dams break starting with a trickle. Flooding MfD would be a bad thing, and the alternative is to leave them sitting inactive as they are.
Several nominations have concerned WikiProjects where not only do I think there is no advantage in deleting and waste of time in discussing, but I think it is good to leave them waiting for someone to revive them. This made me think that the nominators, and !voters agreeing with them, even if they were being objective, were not using good criteria.
Deletion can be "appropriate for completely inactive projects which have no substantive history and serve no residual purpose even without activity", I agree. But this is a required condition, not a sufficient condition.
If nominators were to explicitly state a valid reason for deletion, I would be pleased. Reasons for deletion might include: Project focused on a non-notable subject; project focused on something unrelated to mainspace or the project; Project was focused on pages that were elsewhere deleted (like a tentative CSD:G8); Project material is substantially inaccurate or misleading; project is so out of date as to be misleading, and there is no suitable redirect target; project is a poor quality parallel effort better covered by another one (delete and redirect). Project was substantially not a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia.
“Few participants, no current activity”, alone, to me, is definitely not a reason for deletion, and where single-editor simple actions, such as tag, redirect to parent project or userfy (good for single author WikiProjects) have seemingly been overlooked, I feel the need to educate.
Note that I have not opposed this nomination and am even close to agreeing. I have asked some questions as I would like to better understand TenPoundHammer’s thinking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that “Few participants, no current activity” is not a reason for deletion, so I have not nominated any projects on these grounds alone. The ones I brought here have all been defunct for matter of years not months, and their scope is so narrow that reviving them, as opposed to reinvigorating their parent genre projects, would not be positive for the encyclopedia. --Kleinzach 02:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The duration of defunctness doesn’t impress me, if the project aims are to cover continuing pages that could use improvement.
“scope is so narrow that reviving them, … would not be positive for the encyclopedia”. If you really think so, then it is a good nomination.
This WikiProject here has limited scope, and revival might lead to pushing WP:NOR too far. I have not said “keep”, although I don’t see the harm in archiving.
There have been a number of other discussions. If you would like me to reconsider a set of them, tell me on my talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2011 (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:Rahul raj mr
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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rahul raj mr

Also nominated:

Wikipedia is not facebook/a resume service. Users have not made any edits outside these pages and have not edited since 2009. MER-C 02:52, 26 February 2011 (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:WikiWolfcub
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 Nomination withdrawn, I did not realize how new the creator was Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiWolfcub

This WikiFauna is redundant to the WikiPuppy. Even its userboxes are copied from the WikiPuppy's. If the creator wants, maybe we should userfy it for him since he seems to identify himself as a WikiWolfCub. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, the WikiWolfcub is definitely not the same as a WikiPuppy! I'd really appreciate it if you didn't delete. Please can you hang on, on this one?
The main thing as far as I can see about the WikiPuppy is that it doesn't contribute much - but this Wolfcub has moved the Dartmoor Pony from start class to a 'good' C class almost single-handedly, is currently in some pretty technical debate about getting the Exmoor Pony page to dispel a commonly-held myth while retaining the ancient history of the breed, and under my commons username I've donated a mass of images to help expand current / create future articles (and not happy, therefore, about being labeled 'same as WikiPuppy' in anyone's mind!) ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, this made me laugh. A duel over minutia, in a subcategory of a category that provides pre-packaged "species" for human Wikipedia editors to self-identify with, purportedly to provide some educational and reflective merit connected with building the encyclopedia. However, it appears that, if the fauna is spurious or facetious, then it should be deleted. See, for example, Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiBishop#Wikipedia:WikiBishop and Wikipedia talk:Fauna. Although there appears to be a guidline standard to apply, I cannot bring myself to argue that WikiWolfcub is distinct enough from WikiPuppy that it should be kept. This nomination has got to be a record as the most miscellaneous matter posted at MfD. To be an official record, this MfD will have to last the entire seven days and be properly closed (keep, delete, etc.). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks fine to me. Of course, new ideas copy from old ones - and then get edited. This is clearly labelled as "humor" per guidelines; it serves to unite a community in productive editing. I see no more reason to delete this than WP:SPIDER, WP:TINC, or any of the rest. If it helps people join up and edit...what they hey? If you're concerned with a specific, click 'edit'. What's the policy/guideline reason for deletion? A new user, doing good things, and - as a sideline - has a little bit of a light-hearted moment. Note: I'm involved, 'coz I have mentored the user. But also, as a principle, I abhore userboxen. Despite that, I still think this nom is a bit of a waste of time. If you absolutely insist, then sure, I suppose it could be moved to user-space. Would that, really, make a qualitative difference to Wikipedia? Whereas, if myself and ThatPeskyCommoner were not messing around here in MfD, we'd actually be editing articles and improving this project. Chzz  ►  07:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, just because it is humor, we keep every page? In reality, all the WikiFauna pages violate WP:MYSPACE, but I definitely do not intend on getting rid of all of them. I actually enjoyed the WikiFauna pages—I found them humorous, and I even have the WikiGryphon on my userpage. However, I don't like the fact that they are just exploding into massive numbers of redundant copies or "bad" WikiFauna (i.e. the WikiKraken, the wikipedian who makes hoaxes).
    • You can also see the MfD noms of the WikiToyol and the WikiElephas, where I mentioned my opinions before. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2011 (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.

February 25, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Rapid transit
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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Rapid transit

Dead portal. Says "Inactive" and DYK has not been updated in six months. Highspeedrailguy (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Badminton - The Wikipedia Reference Guide
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 Userfied CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book:Badminton - The Wikipedia Reference Guide

This is simply an alphabetical listing of all Badminton-related articles. There's no organization to speak of. The books could probably be re-created as Book:Badminton (which would give a general overview of Badminton, Book:Badminton Tournaments (which would contain the main articles on tournaments), (Book:Tournament Foobar, which would contain say Indonesia Open (badminton), and all editions of the cup (2001 Indonesia Open (badminton), 2002 Indonesia Open (badminton), ...), Book:Badminton Players, .... Basically books that are more than a mere listing of everything badminton-related. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Like actual books, Wikipedia books are useless if they are just carelessly assembled lists of whatever happens to be available. There are numerous accepted methods of organization for books. "Everything in alphabetical order" is not generally one of them. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I want to know everything about badminton - and that's the way how I can do it. And nearly every encyclopedia is sorted alphabetically, sometimes also using first names as sorting criterium (see Garry Sharpe-Young's Rockdetector books. (Nevertheless I like more the last names way.) --Florentyna (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion is for me every time the last way out. Better it would be, to make the book better. For instance by grouping the tournaments together (all All England tournaments together, all Olympics together and so on) or by improving the sorting of the persons (last name first). Especially, since the book from Pat Davis (Encyclopaedia of Badminton, Hale, England 1987, ISBN 0709027966) there is no newer encyclopaedia about badminton available. So here is the only place to get such an encyclopaedia. By the way, in the mentioned book there is used the same way of mixing tournaments and people together and everything is sorted alphabetically. I don't think, that everything in wikipedia must be so revolutionary like requested. A 1000 years old concept of alphabetically sorting seems for me not so bad. --Florentyna (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • But alphabetical sorting isn't how we do the books. It's not like the articles will disappear if the Books are deleted; they can always be restarted by someone else (even you!) in a more appropriate fashion that fits the way we do the books. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 07:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, every help is welcome. And off course, it is free to everybody for editing and improving.--Florentyna (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Featured Articles
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 in their current form, but the discussion shows openness to books of featured articles that are of manageable size and organized in some fashion other than just an alphabetical listing. --RL0919 (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book:Featured Articles

This was created a while ago and have not since been updated to remove delisted articles, nor add newly listed articles. They also are utterly random, their only organization is by alphabetical placement. Finally, they are unusable as printable books, as they are between 75 and 100 articles, meaning that they are likely over 800 pages in a printed book form, and thus would be split in half automatically if sent to print. Long and short of it is that this is easily replaceable by just reading Wikipedia:Featured articles and selecting the articles you're interested in. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:40, 25 February 2011 (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:WikiAtheism
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 userfied by creator. —Animum (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiAtheism

Unneeded wiki-meta creatures/games/whatever occupying Wikipedia namespace. See the related discussion Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:WikiElephas, which covers some of this too. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:13, 25 February 2011 (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.

February 24, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gekk00/Aidan Brown (Body Scientist)
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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gekk00/Aidan Brown (Body Scientist)

WP:SPAM hidden in user space to avoid deletion See edit summary at creation. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- The articles Aidan Brown (Body Scientist) and Aidan Brown were also recently deleted by speedy criteria. From what I can find, there are no sources online for this. I don't think it will ever become an article. --E♴ (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2011 (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 Global Economics
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 and mark as historic. I will add an introduction and links as suggested by Metropolitan90. I declare an interest: as a fairly inexperienced New Page Patroller, I made the first post to AN/I that there might be a problem here, and I learned a lot from this saga. JohnCD (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Global Economics

This project has been inactive since 2008, no activity since. JJ98 (Talk) 18:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's true, but the table in the article is perhaps worth keeping because it helps keep track of the articles that came out of the project (many of which weren't suitable for an encyclopedia and some of which still exist). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and mark as historic This was a classic example of just about the worst way to use Wikipedia as a class assignment. The background to this is in the AN/I archives. It is also linked from this lengthy feature in The Signpost (May 9, 2008) and in the talk pages of several of the articles that were created by this project. It generated a lot of useful advice and examples that can of benefit to any schools/universities embarking on a class project or assignment at Wikipedia and especially to their students. Voceditenore (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and mark as historic/inactive as is standard procedure for inactive projects. It's easier to reboot an old project than to build it up from scratch again. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and mark as historic. I recommend adding links to the ANI discussion and Signpost article, and changing the introduction to indicate that this page describes a university project which resulted in many of the submissions being deleted. Basically, it would be something we could point people toward if they asked what could go wrong with assigning students to write Wikipedia articles without providing them with guidance or advising them to adhere to encyclopedia standards. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per my reasoning above. I'm also convinced that the page is worth preserving as a reminder of what can go wrong with this type of project. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "a classic example of just about the worst way to use Wikipedia as a class assignment" (above) sums this up. I don't agree with the logic of putting a small (easily removed) tag on the thing. I don't think that's a solution. The best way to deal with it is surely to delete it. --Kleinzach 05:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and mark as historic - I think Voceditenore sums up well the reasons it would be useful to keep this as a record of what the project/class did. I also like Metropolitan90's suggestion of adding relevant links and introduction to clarify just what this was and what happened. Thanks to Voceditenore for the notification of this discussion. LadyofShalott 20:00, 2 March 2011 (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 Compositions
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Compositions

Fragments of a project dating back to 2004. Nothing worth keeping. (We currently have a task force called Compositions that belongs to the Classical music project, but apparently unconnected to the former project.) --Kleinzach 00:21, 24 February 2011 (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.

February 23, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LadyHawk89/LiquidApps Sandbox
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:LadyHawk89/LiquidApps Sandbox

Old, old user space draft that shows no sign of being worked on. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2011 (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.

February 22, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Izzy007/Record
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Izzy007/Record

WP:STALEDRAFT of Fender Musical Instruments wikiproject which was deleted via MFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:54, 22 February 2011 (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/Portal:IOS
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:IOS

Malformed portal. This portal contains lot of red links. JJ98 (Talk) 20:34, 22 February 2011 (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:Malcolm/Userboxes/Butt
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Malcolm/Userboxes/Butt

Yeah ... no. Absolutely useless and offensive template ... and it actually links to buttocks instead of some funny meme. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you did not notify the !owner of the userbox (and the encompassing userspace) that you nominated it for deletion. Also, the userbox was userfied per a previous TfD CharonX/talk 23:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would someone want to have pictures of trains on his userpage (no offense meant)? Userspace is the place to be a bit more casual, whether that means to make some weird userbox or to put up some images of trains. Live and let live, there's enough drama to go round as is. CharonX/talk 23:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useless? Probably. Offensive? I kinda fail to see why. Would you have preferred if it linked to some kind of funny meme? Bottom-line, it is in userspace, and I fail to see a point to cause drama by deleting an user's userbox. CharonX/talk 23:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- I see no reason to reopen this when it has already been closed at Tfd. Also, I don't think this counts as "useless", when two users (counting the creator) have it on their userpages. While thats a small number, it's probably more than a lot of other userboxes. --E♴ (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what is and is not offensive can be so subjective. I cannot see how this can be construed as offensive, there is no profanity nor objectionable imagery. It does not seek to belittle, demean or disparage people or particular groups of people. Useless? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it's detrimental to this project. Lovetinkle (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Useless" is true of 98% of all userspace - especially userboxes. But it is not a reason for deletion. Collect (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's humorous. I don't find it offensive at all. There's many humorous userboxes of this type. -- œ™ 19:15, 27 February 2011 (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:Mttpierson/FunnelBrain
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mttpierson/FunnelBrain

The mainspace article corresponding to this draft was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FunnelBrain. Userspace is not for indefinite storage of deleted content. User has not edited since September 2009 and has made no edits outside this topic. MER-C 05:43, 22 February 2011 (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:DayDreamer2010
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:DayDreamer2010

WP:FAKEARTICLE unedited since February 2010. Wikipedia is not facebook. User has not made any edits outside this page. MER-C 05:31, 22 February 2011 (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:Mark A Cherpak
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mark A Cherpak

Autobiographical WP:FAKEARTICLE unedited since July 2010. Wikipedia is not facebook. User has not made any edits outside this page. MER-C 05:30, 22 February 2011 (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:Prominator96
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prominator96

Wikipedia is not a free web host. This page constitutes the user's only edit in October 2009. (See also La Llorona.) MER-C 05:28, 22 February 2011 (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:Ahancyrus456
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 primary userpages are not normally deleted, this is not userpage material per WP:UP#NOT, would not be acceptable as an article, and was the user's only ever edit. JohnCD (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ahancyrus456

Using a userpage as a SOAPBOX and also contained a blacklisted link in this early revision of the page. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The "blacklisted link" in a former version ceases to be a reason for deletion. Not stale as it has been worked on in last six months. As for asserting "soapbox" , I fail to see it as a problem here. Lastly, deleting primary userpages should be done rarely at most, and for actual significant concerns. Collect (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Creating this page in October is the user's only edit, and it really does not appear to have been created for the purpose of being a "legitimate" userpage. No reason to keep. Kansan (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page, which frequently addresses the reader as "you", in written in a promotional manner. It violates WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTWEBHOST. I note that the last sentence of this page is: "In summary, the reality is that there are reputable multi degree advertising and marketing possibilities and free of charge demo provides of acai goods" (mine emphasized). The products being promoted are sold by the company Acai. Cunard (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2011 (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.

February 21, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marlo0921/Palace Proclamation
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marlo0921/Palace Proclamation

Article userfied over a year ago and untouched since. Appears to describe a story written by the author of the entry. No encyclopedic value. Hairhorn (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2011 (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 Department of Fun/Assessment
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 this was well-intentioned, it is so clearly inappropriate that I see no point archiving it as a how-not-to example. JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Department of Fun/Assessment

Assessment page created for project that does not assess articles (and has no mainspace articles within its scope). See Wikipedia talk:Department of Fun#Rating articles related to the Department of Fun for background. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2011 (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:Bar-abban/Forward 50
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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bar-abban/Forward 50

Per WP:STALEDRAFT. The editor who saved this never actually worked on it, and turned out to be the sockpuppet of a banned editor, so it's unlikely any work will every be done on this. Jayjg (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2011 (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:Garoadwarrior/Georgia State Route 209
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Garoadwarrior/Georgia State Route 209

WP:STALEDRAFT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:36, 21 February 2011 (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:Gethyn Jones
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gethyn Jones

This user page was created and abandoned nearly 4 years ago and the author's only other edit since was to add an external link to his website on BBC Radio Solent. The page doesn't contain anything relevant to Wikipedia and violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. Barret (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2011 (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:Akawoa/Saint Knight's Tale
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Akawoa/Saint Knight's Tale

Abandon user space draft. Editor hasn't edited since 2009 —Farix (t | c) 15:45, 21 February 2011 (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:Courageo/Lipsum
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Courageo/Lipsum

This is a user space draft of an article which was twice created by the user Courageo in August 2008 and deleted both times, once as promotion and once as a copyright infringement. The page has not been edited since 26 August 2008. It is likely that this userspace draft is, at least in part, a copyright infringement, and whether it is or not it falls under the provisions of WP:STALEDRAFT, which makes it clear that user-space is not to be used for long-term archiving of deleted articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2011 (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:Studio23
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 (and userboxes are dealt with at MfD, not TfD, whatever their namespace; see the instructions at the top of the MfD page). BencherliteTalk 01:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Studio23

A userbox which is not in English. Apparently, this is Filipino for "This user is watching the program [TV channel?] Studio 23." Few users of English Wikipedia would view this channel. Currently unused, and if wanted, it should be userfied. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2011 (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.

February 20, 2011

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jessiahw

User page that reads like a combination of mainspace article and a resume. Users uploads were mainly of their own work. They appear to have been inactive since 2006. The first paragraph I think sums up their entire reason for coming to Wikipedia - "a struggling artist who is waiting for his time to shine" and "Having a dream of including his name in either the Guinness World Record or any published Encyclopedia , Wikipedia has finally fulfilled not only that fantasy..." Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2011 (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:Socceroos
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Socceroos

Unused, old template. Maybe a userbox? (Nominating at MfD, as this is my gut feeling.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2011 (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:Survivorgame
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Survivorgame

Per WP:WEBHOST. Editor using their user page to hold results tables of fan created fantasy seasons of Survivor (TV series). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2011 (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:WikiElephas
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 was no support for "keep" except implicit support from the author (Aris riyanto), and it came down to a question of delete v userfy. However, apart from the numerically greater number of "deletes", the two "userfies" gave little reason, beyond "why not?", whereas the "deletes" did give several reasons. (Incidentally, several comments seem to indicate that this was deletion discussion for all of the pages listed by Aris riyanto, but in fact only Wikipedia:WikiElephas was under consideration. Either Aris riyanto or anyone else is, of course, free to nominate any or all the others for deletion, but so far nobody has.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiElephas

Another example of the explosion of wikifauna articles. There is no way to identify this sort of fauna, except for the fact that they seem to stamp out "people who steal other people's articles". Tis feels rather myspacy. Guerillero | My Talk 03:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't see how incidents such as "[they] work together with WikiPolice to catch WikiToyol who steal somebody ideas on wikipedia world" happen on Wikipedia. Would you explain? Cunard (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude, I think WikiAges · WikiAngel · WikiElephas · WikiCat · WikiCyclops · WikiDragon · WikiFallen · WikiGiant · WikiGoon · WikiGremlin · WikiGryphon · WikiHobbit · WikiImp · WikiJaguar · WikiKing · WikiKnight · WikiKomodo · WikiKraken · WikiMercenary · WikiMinnow · WikiMule · WikiOtter · WikiPlatypus · WikiPolice · WikiPrincess · WikiPuppy · WikiReaper · WikiSloth · WikiToyol · WikiTrout · WikiVampire · WikiWeasel · WikiWhale · WikiWitch · WikiWizard · WikiWolfcub · WikiZombie has to be deleted too. Aris riyanto (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er... you want the weasel word guidelines to be deleted? ;-) Kayau Voting IS evil 14:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is no problem like another wikifauna article. Aris riyanto (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it came down to it, I would vote on the following:
What do you think is the 'criteria for inclusion' of Wikifauna articles? (BTW, I don't think polic is fauna.) Kayau Voting IS evil 15:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, any fauna that are negative should be deleted, since nobody would identify themselves as such except in jest. This covers the goon, king, komodo, kraken, mule, reaper, toyol, vampire, witch, and zombie. Additionally, any fauna that are redundant copies or near-copies of another should be removed. This would cover the wolf cub (puppy), the cyclops (ogre), gremlin (imp), and komodo (dragon). The only other one I would want removed is the princess, but that is because I just think it is too silly. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The delete list looks reasonable --Guerillero | My Talk 00:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking the guiding principle should be whether the characterisation contributes to an understanding of editing styles. There is some scope for negative characterisations, like WikiPrincess. If someone can recognise elements of a WikiPrincess in themselves, then it may helpfully lead to an improvement in their approach to contributing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'I am willing to delete this article, if a similar article was also deleted.' Aris riyanto (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX? Kayau Voting IS evil 15:31, 24 February 2011 (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:WikiToyol
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 was very little support for "keep", and it came down to a question of delete v userfy. However, apart from the numerically greater number of "deletes", the two "userfies" gave little reason, beyond "why not?", whereas the "deletes" did give several reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiToyol

A member of the recent proliferation of fauna pages. A wikitoyol "steals peoples ideas"; however, we don't own the ideas we put into wikipedia per WP:OWN. These pages started out as describing how people normaly edit,ie the Gryphon on my userpage, now they have become myspacey. Guerillero | My Talk 03:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hey bung, wikipedia adalah bebas, setiap orang boleh menyumbangkan idenya,,, apakah kamu pikir wikipedia adalah milikmu seorang?Aris riyanto (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of above comment from Malay to English:
Acather96 (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

di sini adalah lelucon wikipedia a.k.a humor, maka pantaslah jika tidak sesuai dengan konten wikipedia, sila coba Anda lihat pada WikiFauna lain apakah seperti itu juga? Menurut saya isi konten artikel ini "TIDAK ADA MASALAH", tidak ngaco, bukan vandalisme. Lalu , masalahnya di mana? Aris riyanto (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate of the above comment.

The problem here is that the page has little relevance to Wikipedia or Wikipedia editing. Some of the Wikifauna are relevant and some are not. From WP:OTHERSTUFF: People may not have noticed and nominated for deletion those pages to which you refer.

(Google Translate of my comment) Cunard (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think wikipedia:WikiToyol aint relevant? Aris riyanto (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how it is related to Wikipedia editing. Would you explain how it is related?

(Google Translate of my comment) Cunard (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apakah anda merasa dirugikan? Apakah wikipedia dirugikan? saya rasa TIDAK! Aris riyanto (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Google Translate of the above comment)

The most other sorts of wikifauna highlight broad editing patterns that can be seen throughout the community. We are a collaborative encyclopedia. No one owns their ideas here. Its all for the community. By this sort of fauna can't exist. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can contribute, edit, add or modify here, but dont delete someone's idea if you dont feel aggrieved, because it makes someone stopping contribute in wikipedia. Aris riyanto (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'I am willing to delete this article, if a similar article was also deleted.' Aris riyanto (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Possible keep - I've just had a thought, Aris - did you mean, by 'stealing other peole's ideas', that the WikiToyol is a user who just copy and pastes stuff from other sources and creates a load of stubs? One who blatantly does copyright violations and plagiarism and little else? If so, then maybe that should be made clear on the page, so other people don;t get confused about what's meant here. If that's what Aris meant, then they certainly do exist (I expect we've all come across such articles!) If that's not what you meant, then I;d go for the userfy option. (Adding: if that is what's meant, and that's OK to keep for that reason, then I'd happily help edit that fauna to reflect the fact and make it clear, if that helps at all :o) ... infact, I shall go over to it now and see if I can bring it into line with the 'recognised editing style' along those lines. Even if it's not what was originally intended, it does reflect that particular tpye of 'editing'.)ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes may be:-). I write the article to convey the existing rules on wikipedia by not too serious way. Aris riyanto (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not suited for project namespace. --Kleinzach 09:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Following ThatPeskyCommoner (talk · contribs)'s changes, the page is now more relevant to Wikipedia editing. However, I continue to support deletion (instead of userfication or retention) because of the page's content. The page now beings with: "WikiToyol is a Wikipedian who steals ideas and claims them as his own, often revealing a small hoard of stolen gems in a short space of time. On occasion he will make some effort to attempt to disguise his theft."

    The changes have, in my opinion, strengthened the reasons for deletion. If someone were to call a fellow editor—new or established—a WikiToyol, one who violates the copyright policy and plagiarizes, animosity would likely result. A new user would be bitten, and an established user would feel maligned. Because Wikipedia:WikiToyol can now be used to slight others, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2011 (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

February 19, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chasetwomey/Zoro Tools
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. Userspace drafts are noindexed, this is not promotional enough to be speedy-deleted as an advertisement, and we do not need to to make notability judgements on new drafts in userspace. JohnCD (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chasetwomey/Zoro Tools

There's no way this will ever reach main space. There have been no news stories written about this company, no mentions in books, not even any mention on blogs. Google hits are all adverts, profiles, job ads or mirror sites. There's no point leaving this here, it simply functions as a rather ineffective advert. Fences&Windows 04:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. This is spam. Corvus cornixtalk 06:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Applying the same criteria to a user subpage clearly marked as a draft as we would to an article page is highly unfair. The page is unindexed, does not contain any blatantly promotional material, and has been around for less than two days. I find this attempt to eradicate the article represents a total failure to assume good faith.--KorruskiTalk 14:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has been noindexed since its creation. A broadly informative article with tone issues that need to be worked on is precisely why we have userspace drafts. This was tagged for speedy within 3 minutes of its creation when its draft status is clearly not in dispute. -- ۩ Mask 14:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. WP:BITE --E♴ (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Treatment of the user is indeed bitey: I see a usertalk page full of obnoxious templates and not a single message from a human explaining the actual problem. But similarly, even given AGF towards the user, as they're new we shouldn't expect them to know about notability. And if Fences' finding is correct that no adequate sourcing exists about this company, then there's no reason to accept an insufficiently sourced article into mainspace followed by having another deletion discussion about it. What should happen is someone should chat politely with the user about notability and ask what sorts of sources s/he intends to use in the article, with the request that they either give some reasonable evidence that such sourcing at least exists, or else that they be understanding if the draft is deleted at the end of this MFD. They are of course welcome to recreate the draft afterwards, if suitable sourcing is located. NOTWEBHOST applies to all user content whether indexed or not. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the criterion for keeping advertising in user space? Corvus cornixtalk 06:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not 'grandstanding', thanks. I am saying that making a decision on what cannot/will not be a notable article before it is even in mainspace, and within a few days of its creation, is not in any way in accordance with policy. I am not sure why you think that my request to assume good faith is a 'vaguewave' but since I obviously need to clarify: when one editor is noisily saying 'this is spam' and 'this is advertising' it is perfectly reasonable to request that they assume good faith. That is what the policy is there for. Is the context in which I am applying WP:AGF clear now, or do you still consider this to be a vaguewave?--KorruskiTalk 18:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spam is not just in articlespace. Spam is routinely removed from User space all the time. None of you is addressing how this is anything other than spam, you're just tossing around AGF and BITE. What about assuming good faith towards those of us who don't want to allow spam to be the be-all and end-all of User space. Where does it say that people can keep spam in their User space? Corvus cornixtalk 21:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corvus, I can't think what to say on the subject of the spam except what I've said twice on the AN/I discussion and at least once here: I see no evidence of spam, merely a highly incomplete attempt at a factual article. You can disagree with me on that if you like, but your suggestion that I am 'not addressing how this is anything other than spam' is clearly failing to actually listen to what I've said. For your part, you still don't seem to have offered any evidence for why this is blatant spam.--KorruskiTalk 23:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must be living in a parallel universe, one in which advertising in User space isn't spam, and one where an unsourced accusation that someone is a porn star is not an attack. Has Wikipedia changed its rules and not told me? I am confused. There used to be rules. Now it's the Wild Wild West, where everything goes. Corvus cornixtalk 07:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. I'll try this one last time, and then I'm going to give up and focus on something else for the sake of my sanity. Instead of repeating ad nauseum that 'this is spam and we delete spam', can you explain how you know that this is spam/advertising and not a legitimate but doomed attempt to create an article? It's not at all certain in my view, so let's just assume some good faith instead of rushing to alienate yet another new editor.--KorruskiTalk 08:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No indication of what makes this company unique or notable. No indication of reliable sources. No history of the company to indicate why it is different from other companies which do the same thing. Nothing but the name of the CEO, the company's website, and a bald statement of what it is. Corvus cornixtalk 18:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. This would be A7 in mainspace. I'd suggest it go to the incubator, but it is a hopeless case. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Keep Not a very strong case for calling it commercial spam, so I discount that one. Excessively puffed? Nope. WP:BITE? yep. Clear case. Ged UK has it right on this one for sure. If it gets orphaned for six months, then simple delete. Collect (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2011 (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:Joachimlevy
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 16:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joachimlevy

This user page is masquerading as an article. The subject doens't appear to be notable. (I declined a speedy as G11) SmartSE (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2011 (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.

February 18, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aaabbccz/Tajin Rogers
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, smacks of G6, G2, G1 and maybe some socks thrown in Skier Dude (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aaabbccz/Tajin Rogers

Non neatural M62 motorway (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Puzzlement When did 'non-natural' become a ground for deletion - and in userspace at that? I presume Aaabbccz has a reason for this subpage, and possibly there is an explanation to be found at User talk:Aaabbccz. I think it could well be that this subpage needs deleting as simple maintenance, unless Aaabbccz really wants it. It's not spam, it's not an attack, I doubt that it's a copyvio - those are the main reasons for deleting in userspace. Peridon (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think that was, either... Peridon (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I add that this page can be found through a Google search. That this page could cast the subject, Tajin Rogers, in a negative light because of the repeating sentences that the subject is smart—indicating self-centeredness and immaturity—is an additional rationale for deletion. Cunard (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add here a comment I made to Metropolitan90: "I think we may not find out what he/she thinks about that MfD. The user appeared on Feb 12th, edited quite expertly (including RfD, AfD, and SPI) for six hours and hasn't been seen since - unless the user has reverted to IP editing or was a sock for some reason. Oddly, the editing finished with an SPI started, a signature in the evidence space but no evidence. (I accuse the gardener in the library with a sock...)" Peridon (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Sandbox Which it certainly appears to be at this point. Editor appears to be trying to be a valued contributor, and is new with this name. No "bite" as user certainly appears to be one previously around. Collect (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the talk page I cited above? The contents of the page in question here were created by another user and userfied by Aaabbccz - that's not what I think of as 'sandbox'. Peridon (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2011 (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:Mr.Katana/EAS
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. BencherliteTalk 01:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr.Katana/EAS

Per WP:WEBHOST. This has no chance of ever becoming an article. Quibik (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • That this page is written in a non-English language on the English Wikipedia, that it is unsourced so moving it to the Czech Wikipedia is untenable, and that it has had no improvements for the past three months means that it violates WP:UP#COPIES and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Cunard's fine summary. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:46, 1 March 2011 (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 Pete Rock
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 16:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pete Rock

Project started and died in 2007. No proper participants list, but it seems to have only had one or two members. No discussions, only circulars. --Kleinzach 05:54, 18 February 2011 (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.

February 17, 2011

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 16:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Weldongee/Lorenzo Von Matterhorn

This "userspace draft" is not a draft at all, but rather an archived copy of known hoax article about a character from the tv show How I Met Your Mother. The original was created by the show as a publicity stunt and upon discovery it was deleted, recreated and deleted again, several times.[12] There is no chance of this content being moved to mainspace, and thus no reason to preserve a "draft" of it. RL0919 (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2011 (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.

February 15, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rajah2770
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. I will advise this new user of our userpage policy. JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rajah2770

Passes WP:FAKEARTICLE, this is a completely inappropriate usage of userspace. I thought about PRODding this, but I feel the tag would have been removed.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • See Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. This is a new user making substantial good faith contributions. Writing a bio for his userpage is not so obviously unreasonable. Calmly and gently, we should explain that details biographies are sometimes read as attempts at, and so we say that new users must keep them very brief. On the other hand, it is very good to have users describe themselves in detail as it declares all sorts of possible Wikipedia:Conflict of interests. The userspage needs editing only to make it brief. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how 19 edits to articles in 9 days is substantial. I'm sorry, but why should new editors be singled out of the guidelines? Where do we draw the line on WP:FAKEARTICLE? If the page used the proper infobox (Infobox user instead of Infobox person), and there as "limited autobiographical content" (which there isn't now), then this MFD wouldn't exist.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    19 decentish edits for a newcomer is a good start, and is far better than is normally associated with a sudden fully fleshed autobiography. This user has got a wrong idea of what belongs on a userpage, but I think MfD is a bit bitey for a first conversation. What I am hoping for is that Rajah engages us here, and agrees to tone down his userpage to something more in keeping with his level of editing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clearly this is WP:FAKEARTICLE. --Kleinzach 00:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per SmokeyJoe. There does not appear to have been any attempt to explain the problem to the user (beyond the Mfd notice). It is possible that, were he aware of the problem, he would modify the page to fit policy. --E♴ (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove the stub templates and add a notice there stating that this is not a real article. If someone wants to introduce himself in WP format, why not? Kayau Voting IS evil 14:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The more time I've been spending at MfD recently, the more disgusted I've been getting with users' actions towards newcomers. ArcAngel, why didn't you drop a note on his talk page asking him about the page and telling him about Wikipedia's policies? I know you meant well, but slapping on a deletion tag and telling them in highly bureaucratic terms to come to a deletion discussion doesn't exactly scream "welcome to Wikipedia"... no wonder we have so many troubles getting new members. Anyways, I feel as long as he removes the stub templates and puts something at the top of their page notifying that this is a user page, I have no objections. Nomader (Talk) 20:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment You're right, I did mean well - but I now realize I went about it the wrong way. I have now informed the editor of what changes need to be made to conform to the guidelines.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page does, however, need to be seriously cut back. I looked at doing it, but it is not trivial. So many sections, each slightly reasonable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2011 (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:WoodyNelson
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 16:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:WoodyNelson

Creation of this somewhat spammy user page was this users first edit, nearly four years ago. They made two more edits two months ago that were the creation of a page that was also spam and a copyvio. For some reason this seems to attract the occasional vandalism, including apparent BLP violations. Anyway, the main reason for deletion is that this is self-promotion that has sat here for nearly four years. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2011 (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 Crowded House
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. Inactivity alone is not sufficient for deletion of a WikiProject. Ruslik_Zero 16:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Crowded House

Project alive in 2007-2008. Once had 13 members. No activity for 3 years. No substantial discussions. --Kleinzach 06:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Put it out of its misery --UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nonstarter Wikiproject with no activity whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. None of the above reasons are good reasons to delete. The page is already properly tagged inactive. There is no misery there. Project was not a non-starter, there was activity. More importantly, there is potential for activity. There are many associated articles that might be improved with new drive, new drive that is far less likely if the WikiProject structure is tossed. What's going on here, I guess, is that a nationally popular band had some revival, spurring this project, but it petered out. Deleting these things therefore amplifies a bias towards current popularly. As the encyclopedia works best taking a historical, ideally timeless approach, this bias is the opposite of what we want. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Related articles are far more likely to be developed by the Rock and Australian Music projects, which have greater critical mass and more accessibility. --Kleinzach 08:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page is tagged as historical, so I see no reason to delete it. If editors were interested, in the future, in resurrecting this project, they would have to start from scratch if it were deleted. Per SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), I believe the benefits of keeping this page tagged as historical outweigh any downsides. Cunard (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2011 (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 GWAR
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 16:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject GWAR

Projected started and stopped in 2006. 5 members, none of whom seem to have written anything on the talk page. Nothing worth saving. --Kleinzach 07:05, 15 February 2011 (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 Lenny Kravitz
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 16:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Lenny Kravitz

Project started in 2008. Only one member. No discussions. --Kleinzach 01:18, 15 February 2011 (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 Steely Dan (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. Ruslik_Zero 17:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Steely Dan

Project started in 2006 with 7 members that soon died. Someone suggested turning it into task force but that never happened. No significant discussions. One previous MFD in 2009. Arguably nothing worth keeping. --Kleinzach 00:55, 15 February 2011 (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.

February 14, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aliceelisabethmay/JBA Consulting
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 keep opinions are based on the idea that something might yet be done with this. However this author has not edited for nearly a year, and Derekhawley (talk) has now posted his version at JBA Consulting. There is no reason to keep this. JohnCD (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aliceelisabethmay/JBA Consulting

This a copy of a deleted article, to which no additional information was added since it's creation. It is a fake article and staledraft. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The nominated page has remained a stale draft since its creation at 11:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC). That the page is unreferenced and that the creator, a single-purpose account, has not edited since 3 March 2010 strengthens the reasons for deletion per WP:NOTWEBHOST.

    Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) states that "someone is becoming active on this topic at WP:FFU" and that someone has created User:Derekhawley/Enter your new article name here. I do not see how this is relevant to the fact that this page is a stale draft that violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Derekhawley (talk · contribs) has neither used the content on this page nor expressed an interest in using the content on this page.

    UnicornTapestry (talk · contribs) states that "we don't know what the user has in mind for the article". I agree, there is no evidence that the user plans to return and bring the page up to Wikipedia's verifiability standards.

    Because over 11 months have passed since this page was created, and because it is an abandoned stale draft, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2011 (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/Portal:Family Guy/In the 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. Since JJ98 is the only editor with non-trivial edits to the entire portal in over two years, there doesn't seem to be a necessity of waiting for other "active at the portal" opinions--they may not exist. — Scientizzle 16:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Family Guy/In the news

Very out of date since 2007. No new information since. JJ98 (Talk) 08:02, 14 February 2011 (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 Porcupine Tree
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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Porcupine Tree

Project started in 2008 that attracted 10 members but soon died. Only one posting by members on the discussion page. Arguably nothing worth keeping. --Kleinzach 02:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, nothing worth preserving here — no discussions, minimal activity. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and optionally archive. The articles under "Under the scope" are a non-trivial navigation aid for editors interested in the project's focus. Talk page is small, but not minimal, and not negligible. WikiProject pages can be useful for WikiProject lurkers and drivers-by, and keeping these pages available has no suggested downside. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could the list of articles be turned into a navbox? I think it's highly unlikely anyone ever has, or ever would, find it on that page. The downside is that the Music project is replete with dead sub projects, which looks bad and discourage editors from going to the small number of genre projects that remain reasonably active. Also if you look at the project talk page, you'll see that it is all circulars from non-members. --Kleinzach 08:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could turn turn the information into a navbox, but if it is old and unused, you are doing work for nothing and making a false impression that it is active, so I don't think it is a good idea. The information might also be out of date, or wrong. Drive-by conversion to a navbox wold make a poor situation worse. If the project is, like this one, very specific and inactive, better to tag it as inactive. If the project is redundant, better to convert it to a redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There already is navbox for all PT-related articles.—indopug (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, interested editors can work on PT as part of WP:PROGROCK.—indopug (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:13, 28 February 2011 (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:Snowed
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 16:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Snowed

Unused userbox. I have no clue what it means to be "snowed". — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 15:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joseph Landrut & Lena Bucanan

attempt to use userpage as dating site, forum, and personal webpage to host his pseudo-science WuhWuzDat 04:52, 14 February 2011 (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.

February 13, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Phil Harmonica/Scratch
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 opposition to restoring if user returns - Skier Dude (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phil Harmonica/Scratch

Stale draft of a blank portal. Can easily be recreated if user returns. AdmrBoltz 07:24, 13 February 2011 (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:Alieneks/Simon Carreño
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) 03:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alieneks/Simon Carreño

This whole series of userspace articles is an attempt to promote personal projects by spoofing wikipedia pages. There is little chance these "games" will ever become notable; the editor has been told this isn't appropriate but hasn't removed it. Kuguar03 (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the umbrella nomination didn't work, here are the others:

Though it's possible there's more I missed; it's actually a pretty impressive display of self-promotion :) Kuguar03 (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2011 (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:7rakir/Instagib
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 15:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:7rakir/Instagib

Fake wikipedia page for promotional purposes, created by a SPA Kuguar03 (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2011 (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:Wiki-Web-Contributor/Lone Wolf 3
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 15:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wiki-Web-Contributor/Lone Wolf 3

Fake wikipedia page for promotional purposes, created by a SPA Kuguar03 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2011 (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.

February 12, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:15lsoucy/Vandalize here!
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's obvious consensus here and 15lsoucy is graciously on-board. Based on the precedent at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NerdyScienceDude/Vandalism space (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Thing That Should Not Be/vandalbox, Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Access_Denied/vandalbox and this discussion, I will also be WP:BOLD and delete the other such pages so identified (User:Wiknerd/User page design/Decor/Vandalbox, User:SupaStarGirl/Vandalbox, User:Sethdoe92/Vandalbox, User:Karrmann/Vandalbox; these pages are generally very stale with few edits as well.) — Scientizzle 15:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:15lsoucy/Vandalize here!

See the other vandalbox deletions:

Here are many more:

--Perseus8235 15:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As one whose userpage has been vandalised a few times (which I take as a sign I'm getting to the right people sometimes...), I was wondering if vandals really enjoy vandalising a page that invites them to do it? It's a bit like the old joke "What's the best way of being cruel to a masochist? "Be kind to him." In fact, this page hasn't been vandalised at all. Nor have any of the others above, except that there is a peculiar situation regarding the one in User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me's space - this page was not created by that user. It appears to have been created by User:Lollipop-3 (a blocked suspected sockpuppet - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Lollipop-3) and Can't sleep, clown will eat me hasn't edited since 1 April 2008. The creation of the page might have been an act of vandalism, although Lollipop-3 was more into social networking than actual serious vandalising from what I can see. Peridon (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't support vandalism. — Train2104 (talk •
  • Comment. Feel free to get rid of it if you like, as it was completely tongue-in-cheek, and at least the one person who edited the page thought it was amusing. No vandalism support was intended. --15lsoucy salve.opus.nomen

contribs • count) 16:21, 27 February 2011 (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.

February 9, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jordankyser
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 Remove Solar System content. Ruslik_Zero 15:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jordankyser

Very long copypaste of Solar System in user talk space. I would go ahead and blank it myself, but I wanted to see if there was consensus first. Also this is (technically) a copyvio of Solar System, as it doesn't give attribution to the article. c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 01:14, 9 February 2011 (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.

January 31, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AkosSzoboszlay/Expressways in Santa Clara County
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 user continues to work on this page, which was created less than three months ago. Ruslik_Zero 17:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:AkosSzoboszlay/Expressways in Santa Clara County

Conoming User:The Bushranger/Santa Clara --Admrboltz (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FAKEARTICLE: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content..." See: Expressways in Santa Clara County (CSD'ed as G4) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Clara County Expressway System. The "article" is extremely POVish and is part of the user's fringe theories as detailed on his personal page linked to from his userpage. Admrboltz (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will relocate after final proofing, by Wednesday, Feb. 2, 2011. I was on vacation and before that Christmas held me up finishing my input. AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete anyway. I see no way this can be turned into a viable article despite the creator's promises. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement by Admrboltz that this is "user's fringe theories" is contradicted by the historical fact that all city councils repealed all bicycle prohibitions. In addition, shoulders with bike lane standards, in addition to sidewalks, are required along these roads. One cannot claim action taken by 100% of city councils is "fringe." AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ten Pound Hammer. The primary author of the original articles, and the owner of the sandbox has a WP:COI as the officer of an advocacy group on the issue, and the author of several of the sources. I can't remember the exact policy, guideline or essay (but I will look it up later), but one of them says that if a subject is notable, someone else will write or start the article. Please add User:The Bushranger/Santa Clara to this nomination as well. It is an untouched sandbox of the first deleted article. The user page initially nominated above is a version of the second deleted article. Imzadi 1979 → 21:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being an officer of an advocacy group -- which I stated on my User page -- does not disqualify me from writing for Wikipedia. After the city councils voted as us advocates requested, it becomes historical fact and is no longer an advocacy issue, nor is it controversial. For example, after a public vote on a ballot measure, are the vote results and the implementation of that vote suitable for censorship in Wikipedia by those who disagreed with the vote result, and lost? Furthermore, I can put all this information onto a web site which already exists. It's not that we need a "free web host," but rather, that Wikipedia is a nice forum for information.AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you wish to continue to push a specific point of view, please do so on your own website. It is a conflict of interest though to cite your own writings and organization on a page you're writing. From the COI policy: "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest. " You are adding material from your organization's website with furthers that organization's interests. From the Self-cititing section of the No Original Research Policy, "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality and conflict of interest policies." Your organization's website has not been considered a reliable publication. From the COI page again, "It is not recommended that you write an article about yourself. If you are notable, someone else will notice you and write the article." You are a participant in the disputes about the expressways. You should not be writing the article content on those disputes. Imzadi 1979 → 22:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a follow up, the editor appears to be a single-purpose account in looking through his contributions, which extend only to this sandbox, the previously deleted articles, his user page with few contributions to other articles. This only furthers my lack of a good feeling about neutrality in his editing. If this subject is truly notable, others will be willing to write the article, and find significant secondary sources, like newspapers, magazines or TV reports. Most of the sources used are primary sources (meeting minutes, statutes, legal opinions, county documents, or articles written by Mr. Szoboslay) and only one press source from a reputable news outlet. And yes, you do have a benefit as an officer of the group to writing the article. Unchecked, the article can reflect viewpoints and given such weight that enhances the reputation of your organization, whether or not that enhancement is deserved or not. Imzadi 1979 → 02:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Dough4872 03:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd forgotten I'd copied that page to my userspace. No need to worry about it, I'll db-author it. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many references to City or County documents are made. This should have been sufficient to meet Wikipedia's criteria of citing sources. However, I wanted anybody to also see them if they want to, for whatever reason, without the hassle of going there in person or writing a letter for a document request. Where the referenced items were not posted by the City or County to the internet, I scanned and uploaded them to the internet, and provided a link to those documents in the reference, appending this to the normal referencing citation. This is going beyond what Wikipedia requires. For performing this added service, I am accused of citing my organization's web site, which is where these documents are located on the Internet. AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you're accused of citing your organization's webpage where you use the group itself as a source, and not merely a hosting service. The fact that it is an advocacy group though does color the fact that you're hosting the work of others, but that's a secondary issue not in discussion here. A second issue though is that the article, as composed, may not meet the general notability guidelines in that it does not have "significant coverage in secondary sources". City, county and advocacy group documents are all primary sources. Newspapers, magazines, tv, radio are all secondary sources, because they are one step removed from the subject.Imzadi 1979 → 02:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For about five years, there was a Wikipedia web page about these eight roads that only mentioned facilities for motor vehicles on these roads, and their history, and had photos of traffic lanes and motor vehicles. Without deleting anything, I added the history of non-motorist users of these roads, and added photos of bicyclists and pedestrians and their facilities. Apparently, this ticked off some who seem to think that roads are only for motor vehicles, and wanted no mention of, nor photos of, bicyclists and pedestrians using these roads. This will not change the fact that these non-motorists will continue to use these roads. However, when the information about them is censored, it will be appear that they do not exist for the readers of that Wikipedia page. Which is what the censors want, for some reason. (In the past, it was for political purposes, to make it easier to prohibit non-motorists, but that side has consistently lost in the votes that occurred.) The evidence that this is what is really occurring is that all photos of bicyclists and pedestrians using these roads, and photos of their facilities, were censored off of Wikipedia (last year). The censors can make all sorts of phony claims why the text should be deleted, but not one claim why the photos of non-motorists should be deleted from an existing Wikipedia page that already had photos of motor vehicles using these exact same roads. AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not censoring anything. I am demanding that the article conform to Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view, conflicts of interest, notability, reliable sources and verification. The last does not require that a source be online, just that it exist somewhere and be available to verify the claims and information in an article. I don't know what your claims of removing the photos are. They're all available on Wikimedia Commons. Commons is a centralized location to host photos and other media that are available to all language variants of Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wikisource, etc. Once the photos were moved to Commons, they'd be deleted from the English Wikipedia, but they are still available. (This deletion prevents the possibility that information on the photo, or the photo itself are updated locally and the updates are not made available to all of the sister websites.) Imzadi 1979 → 02:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was actually referring to photos in the article itself (not the Commons) that were deleted by somebody (not you). All photos containing a bicyclist, pedestrian, bike lane, sidewalk or bus stop were deleted from the article. The photos that only showed motor vehicles were kept. AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, the claim of not being notable is shown false by the fact that there is one Wikipedia pages for each of these roads (see links in section List of Roads). These were not deleted, probably because there is no mention of non-motorists. The page that describes all of these roads, adding common features, history, future (approved plans), and administration information, cannot be less notable than one individual road among this group of roads. In other words, it is not consistent to claim these individual roads are all notable by keeping their individual Wikipedia pages, while claiming these exact same roads are not notable just because information was added about non-motorists and non-motorists facilities. AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notability concerns are not on the individual roads, but on the notion that they are a system. The article at issue is on this purported system, not the individual roads. Imzadi 1979 → 02:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no disagreement with your point here; that's why I changed the title, and modified the contents, to reflect that. The former title was actually selected by someone else about 5 years ago. AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • This "article" has a long way to go to satisfy those concerns. None of which you have addressed in your sandbox. There are myriad problems that were pointed out along the way on style, formatting, content, sources, neutrality and verifiability. The most egregious example File:SanTomasExpy-$149-ticket.png and it's caption: "San Tomas Expy; Bicyclist was given a $149 ticket for momentarily getting off the bicycle, thus violating the "Pedestrians prohibited" signs, according to police. Photo from 2006." Unless I'm assuming wrong: 1) as the photographer, you were the bicyclist. 2) You were the recipient of that "alleged" ticket because we don't see another person int the photo. 3) We have no way to verify that he was writing a ticket or the fine attached to the ticket. He could have been logging a warning, or issuing a written warning. 4) Whole sections of the article are undue weight. These are mostly the sections related to your advocacy, which is a WP:COI. Once all of the issues are excised from the article, there will not be enough left to survive a merger discussion, except that most of the mergeable content is already in California County Routes in zone G. Having said that, we've both said enough. We should both stop talking and let the others weigh in. Imzadi 1979 → 06:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you'd like, I can scan the ticket, upload to Commons, and place a link to it. It's no longer advocacy because sidewalks were approved along both sides of San Tomas Expressway in 2009 by the County Board of Supervisors, and are in the process of being built. A half mile is already complete. The bicycle prohibition was repealed in 1991. It's actually history, at this point. The photo was from 2006. I added this photo because there were local people that also expressed doubt that police would ticket people for bicycling or walking along a shoulder that meets bike lane standards, along a 45 mph arterial road. They did, and I get several tickets, and know of other people who were also ticketed. AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Was clearly nowhere near "indefinite" so that reason is out. Editor is working on page, and that is one of the specific encouraged uses of userspace. Collect (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - My initial reaction was to iVote delete. However, on review, I changed my mind. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Clara County Expressway System was closed 14 December 2010. The closer at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Clara County Expressway System noted, "There appears to be POV problems on both side of the debate from what I can see, as well as possible sockpuppetry on both sides." The basis for the AfD deletion was "a subject which does not meet notability/NPOV criteria." A new article was G4ed on 21 December 2010. The above listed MfD page was created on 23 December 2010. The date being 1 February 2011 does not make that "indefinite", so that reason is out. Also, the material is currently being worked on and is related to encyclopedia editing. Per "What may I have in my user pages?," you may have "Drafts, especially where you want discussion or other users' opinions first, for example due to conflict of interest or major proposed changes." Per Wikipedia:FAKEARTICLE, "short term hosting of potentially valid articles under development or in active use is usually acceptable." As far as i can tell, AkosSzoboszlay has never been blocked. The user space draft seems a good way for AkosSzoboszlay to generate talk page discussion or obtain other users' opinions to overcome the issues noted at AfD. Keep and relist at MfD on or after May 1, 2011 if not moved to article space. AkosSzoboszlay: Between now and May 1, 2011 (three months from now), you may want to post a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review asking for a consensus to recreate the article based on the draft you have been working on. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Users are explicitly allowed to work on articles in their user space. This is an article that is actively being worked on, with the explicit goal of bringing it up to standards and being moved to the main space. If the article has sat here without substantial improvement next February, by all means delete it as a stale draft. Mr Gamal is right when he quotes our policy on userspace: "short term hosting of potentially valid articles under development or in active use is usually acceptable.". That's exactly what this is. Buddy431 (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: By User-Editor. AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: actively being worked on, therefore invoking WP:STALEDRAFT is wrong (the guideline is also stupid, but that's another story). Whether the current draft is acceptable as an article is not the point. We have a user in good standing attempting to write an article on maybe a notable subject. It was deleted at AfD, but that is no reason that they should not be able to work on it in their userspace. -Atmoz (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2011 (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=416315138"