Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
Skip to active discussions
Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, consider adding {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.
Shortcut:
WP:MFD
Deletion discussions
Wikipedia deletion policy
Tools

Process – Log – Guide
– Images – Admins
Purge - edit
Centralized discussion
Treffpunkt.svg
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive • talk • edit • history • watch

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside the main namespace (also called the "article namespace") 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 (determined using the discussion as a guideline).

Contents


Introduction

The only currently-used namespaces in which pages are eligible for deletion here are:

  • Help:
  • Portal:
  • MediaWiki:
  • Wikipedia:
    • This includes WikiProjects, although it is usually preferable to either mark the Project as historical or change it to a task force of the parent Project, unless the Project is entirely undesirable.
  • User:
    • When a page in the User or User talk namespaces seems worthy of deletion, please explain your concerns using either a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} --~~~~  to their talk page. While this step is not required, it does assume 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}}. The same applies to personal userpages you want deleted; there is no need to list them here, simply tag them with {{db-userreq}}.
    • Also be aware of not biting new users -- sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • the various Talk: namespaces
  • userboxes, regardless of namespace.

The undeletion of pages deleted after having been discussed here, and debating whether discussions here have been properly closed, is the purview of Wikipedia:Deletion review, which operates in accordance with our undeletion policy.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

Prerequisites

Please bear in mind that:

  • Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy.
  • Nominating for deletion a proposed policy or guideline page that is still under discussion is generally frowned upon. 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.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for 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.
  • If a page is in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), simply move it and tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-reason}} using the reason: Redirect left after a cross-namespace move - G6 Housekeeping and notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.

How to list pages for deletion

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area.

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)

Edit PageName.

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

{{mfd}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd|PageName}}

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several related pages in an umbrella nomination.

or

{{subst:md1-inline|PageName}}
if you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page.
  • 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
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=PageName| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} --~~~~
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion and Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
Add a line to MfD.

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

{{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 nomination 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 elses 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:MFDWarning|PageName}} --~~~~

    to their talk page, 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 Portal, please make a note of your nomination here and consider using the portal guidelines in your nomination.

Closing instructions

Active discussions

Pages currently being considered are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

Purge server cache

2010-01-02

Portal:Artemis Fowl

Relisted at 03:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Editor involved seems to be still alive on WP. If Casliber has faith in the potential for the portal, so do I. Collect (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Victoriabenatar

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

Wikipedia:Fishes Wikipedians' notice board

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

  • Fry it; the only edit to this notice board since its initial creation in 2008 was related to its listing at MfD. 00:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. Never used, so no need to mark as historical. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

2010-01-01

User:Delicious carbuncle/PCHS-NJROTC ban redux

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

  • Your way to disengage is to file a deletion discussion regarding a page of the person you're in conflict with? Seriously? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I did not interact whatsoever with DC until I noticed he recently created the page. I'm trying to get rid of this so that the heated debate will stay dead, and it won't come up in further issues regarding DC. In short, I prefer the issue be history; I'd rather the issue not be brought up beyond trivial mentions in disputes between DC and another user as I fear that it will revive the controversy for a never ending arguement. User:Delicious carbuncle is currently in a war with User:Neutralhomer, and the two users were both engaged in the AN/I drama. DC made this page "for his stalkers." I'd rather not be linked to DC and NH's drama at this time as the ongoing drama seems to have nothing to do with me. 20:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure that Neutralhomer's actions have much to do with anyone other than Neutralhomer. I am not in a war with Neutralhomer, although they clearly have a grudge against me, but that's a whole 'nother issue and is probably best just ignored here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Regardless, I'd just assume remain neutral stay out of your issues with User:Neutralhomer. Lets relax and disengage as the admins and non-admins alike suggested. It's a new year, let's put 2009 behind us. 22:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I'd just as soon stay out of my issues with Neutralhomer too, but I don't see how they are in any way relevant here. You may wish to look for a reason to delete this page that is based on policy. I don't intend to make any further comments here, so feel free to ignore that advice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
              • WP:User page? It's implied in my original basis for starting this discussion; I didn't point it out with a wikilink because I assumed anyone with experience at MfD would already be quite familiar with the policy just as it is commonly assumed that those working with WP:AIV should already be familiar with WP:Vandalism. Based on your edit summary when creating the page, I assumed that you created the page in attempt to demonize me for you own personal defense against NH, and I have indicated that I desire to stay out of your issues with NH. If that were the case, it'd be inappropriate use of your user space as it does not help the project. MfDs occur regularly where the helpfulness of pages in userspace is questioned. This is one of those MfDs. However, you have indicated your intent to rehash the ban discussion despite lack of support, making it a legitmate use of userspace by technicality, although probably a waste and will further make you appear obsessive. The horse is dead, move on. 23:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - The earlier topic ban discussion was not allowed to run its course due to the improper closure and archiving by non-admins. I had intended to start a new discussion today or tomorrow (when more editors were back from their holidays), and created that page to hold relevant material. Given the contentious attitude displayed toward the earlier proposal, I wanted to present the case as clearly as possible, so I began looking through PCHS-NJROTC's contribution history. I stopped looking very quickly. As of this moment, the page consists of two recent and relevant quotes made by PCHS-NJROTC which, with the recent unilateral "banning" of another editor, make very clear the need to topic ban them from vandalism related project activities. There is nothing improper, offensive, or against policy on the page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Userspace is not required to be "useful." It is, moreover, rather non-productive to seek deletion from userspace when one has an active conflict with the other user. It only serves to draw the conflict into the open even more. In the interests of no drama, forget about deletion. Collect (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, it was inactive, and I had hoped to keep it as such. 00:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Full disclosure: I made a single edit to the ANI thread in question, advising Delicious carbuncle to let the issue drop and end the unnecessary drama. Several other editors did the same. DC apparently ignored that advice, however, and created this page in his userspace. I firmly disagree with Collect's assertion that PCHS-NJROTC is prolonging drama by taking this page to MfD. DC prolonged the drama and deliberately avoided disengaging by creating this page for no purpose other than "blowing on the dog's nose." Deleting this page ought to put an end to this drama, once and for all. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Nehtefa/Portal:Imagination

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

  • What's the rationale for deletion? Gigs (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • (Speedy?) Delete Looks like a test page. Why not try {{g2}}? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I could try that, but I haven't had much luck with speedies lately, so I felt this was the safer route (lol). ArcAngel (talk) (review) 03:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Neptunerover/Theory About Everything

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

  • Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Also, it is kinda disgraceful for WP reputation to host such hopeless quackery, but that's just my personal opinion. --o 17:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack noted in Cyclopia's opinion. "hopeless quackery". All votes showing bias not based on actual rules should be discounted. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a hosting service, not even on a User Page. If the stuff is not OK for a main article (which it plainly is not) then it should go - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep User has actively edited in mainspace. Essay, clearly marked, is within normal userspace guidelines. No rule requires userspace to be only for articles which could be in mainspace (d'uh). Nor is there any rule I find which bars "speculative theorizing" (is there any other kind?) from userspace. Lacing a reason to delete, default to Keep. Collect (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a reason to delete as WP:NOTWEBHOST is policy: "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." This information isn't relevant to working on Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 00:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Look at MfDs -- the issue is whether the material is "compatible" with WP, which has generally been interpreted to mean that userspace has a different standard from mainspace as to what is allowed. Almost no essays are "necessary" - but that is not the issue to be discussed. Collect (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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

It pertains because it is not material related to Wikipedia in any way. It doesn't serve any purpose within the WP community, nor it helps editing or improvement of any article, nor it is a userspace draft of a possible real article. Therefore, it is something that you could bring on a personal web page. Since we are not a web host, that is, userspace is not a dump where you can post whatever you like, you are invited to bring that page outside Wikipedia. It is clearer now? --o 12:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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

  • Weak delete per nomination. --Mark PEA (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: I've swayed to week keep on the basis that if this article gets deleted, User:Neptunerover will create a fuss and might possibly go around deleting other essays on users' spaces to ensure the WP:NOTWEBHOST is consistently enforced. --Mark PEA (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
You are seriously saying that we should avoid taking appropriate action because the miscreant might retaliate?!?! Seriously?! We simply need to point out to NeptuneRover that he should not personally delete such material but instead refer them to MfD. If he turns into an active patroller of inappropriate material then that is a good outcome. SteveBaker (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I did consider that it could lead to a useful scenario. However this user's eccentricities and cherry picking of WP rules lead me to think that he may instead just nominate practically every userpage essay that he comes across as WP:NOTWEBHOST. In the end, everybody's time is wasted. (I should note that I'm not appealing to popularity in that I think the article should be kept because there is so much other useless crap on userpages. I'm saying that this user could cause a lot of time-wasting if this article gets deleted, which overall is probably negative for Wikipedia. I'm fine if you disagree with that). --Mark PEA (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. It would not make Wikipedia look bad because it's not an article. While Wikipedia is not a soapbox, there is nothing wrong with making a self-evident argument. An exchange of ideas sometimes useful for thinking outside the box, and when people ask questions about these things on the Reference desk, it's possible to find ideas (and even inspiration) to edit and improve certain articles with reliable sources. ~(TCU) 03:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, here is a citation. Einstein himself submitted articles and theories to a science foundation without citations. Today we know where these ideas go–directly into the trash bin. ~(TCU) 03:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • keep. It's a little weird and a little long, but not utterly outrageous in length. Also it might aid collaboration by giving other editors a better sense of where this editor is coming from. There's a limit somewhere, but I don't think this page has quite gotten there. --Trovatore (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. If Neptunerover really created these pages for "practice" (as he claims on the new contribs help page), he could reduce the amount of content, and improve his disclaimers explaining what the pages are for. The fact that this has come this far, shows that he is unwilling to do this, so deletion is the best resolution. I don't believe all this was created just for practice. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Please indicate the required timeline for user practice page content reduction as well as the content requirements for such pages. --Neptunerover (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


  • Keep Agree with Trovatore. I see no incompatibility with the aims of Wikipedia here. It's nonsense, but it's harmless nonsense. There are worse examples of user essays - some in project space. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Summary Dismissal Request.

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


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

  • Please define "web host" as it pertains to the page in question. Note: Unreferenced material should be deemed inadmissible for purposes of this proposed deletion action. --Neptunerover (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
For the benefit of anyone puzzling over the repeated statement about "unreferenced material", Neptunerover has looked at 10 different Wikipedia articles about web hosting (so he does know what it means), and has noted that all have "unreferenced material" section topper boxes, and is proposing deleting some of this content here, presumably in retaliation for this deletion proposal. I have advised him against it. I (and others) have also advised him on how to deal with his userpage situation (he has posted several consecutive sections on the new contribs help page), but he has stated he doesn't want our opinions, and also doesn't want to post anything on the deletion proposer's talk page page prior to opening an admin incident report complaint against him, even though this is a requirement (which is a point Neptunerover himself raised). Better cooperation and laying off pseudo-lawyer stalling tactics would probably have gained him more support; sorry if that sounds harsh. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
How am I not being cooperative? Please explain. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Neutral. That sounds like rather POINTy behavior. I think Neptunerover would benefit from reading these pages: WP:POINT, WP:LAWYER, WP:CIVIL, WP:NOT, WP:FREE. As for his question: A webhost is a website or service that make content publicly available on the internet. Wikipedia does not make all content submitted to it available just because it was submitted, so it is not a webhost. No I do not have a citation for that. If you don't believe me, then go get a copy of the Encyclopædia Britannica and look it up. -- @873, i.e. 19:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I understand Internet. But what is web host? I am limited to Wikispace, and without outside references, the loops go nowhere. Are you reading me?--Neptunerover (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me? "This page in a nutshell: If you disagree with a proposal, practice, or policy in Wikipedia, disruptively applying it is probably the least effective way of discrediting it – and such behavior may get you blocked." Who here disagrees with what? What rules am I disagreeing with, tell me please? Who here has been disruptive? I am merely defensive when necessary. I in fact agree with all the rules, which is why I find this action so curious. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bottom line: This user is using Wikipedia to promote his particular brand of Time Cube-like pseudo-science - and we don't allow that kind of thing. He has pushed this pseudo-science on the Science reference desk in the form of a long diatribe with no real question at the end of it and he is also promoting it in this sub-page. This is not content that would ever be notable enough (or true enough, or referenced enough or...anything-enough) to become a Wikipedia article and it's very clear that it's not sandbox editing or anything like that. NeptuneRover is using this page as a place to push his ideas of how cosmology works. That is without doubt: "content that is unrelated to Wikipedia" and that makes it a clear breach of WP:NOTWEBHOST. If he claims that this sub-page was merely an effort to learn editing techniques in a sandbox-like environment - then it's purpose is done and he should have no objection to us deleting the content. Claiming otherwise is an insult to our intelligence. The fact that NeptuneRover claims not to understand what a web host is (he claims not to understand quite a lot of things that he does not wish to address) is quite irrelevant. Failure to understand a Wikipedia rule is no defense against removal of inappropriate pages. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your own brand of pseudo-science. SteveBaker (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment I really don't think whether or not it's pseudoscience has anything to do with the question. I know of no policies or guidelines that preferentially delete pseudoscience. Nor are MfD discussions the right forum, in general, to decide what's pseudoscience and what's not. (I'm talking about the general case here, of course; as to the specific case I thought my remark about aiding collaboration by helping other editors understand this one's point of departure, was rather sly.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment Wikipedia:User page says: "In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute". Maybe "disrepute" is a strong word here but scientifically minded readers may think less of Wikipedia or its editors if they see things like this. It's userspace but people may wonder whether such things also find their way into articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, perhaps we should come up with a whole encyclopedia of contingency plans. Good idea. --Neptunerover (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

2009-12-31

User:Cjneversleeps/Corrections.com

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

  • Delete Hasn't been edited in over a year. x3 20:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Since the user is active, what is the his/her position on this? 00:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Looked at wrong user's contribs
  • Delete as User:Cjneversleeps is inactive since 2008. 00:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Amazingly enough, users have returned after such a hiatus, so the issue is whether the page should be deleted, and has very little to do with the editor being absent a year. The page is suitable for userspace, hence has no actual reason for deletion (I find no rule at all suggesting that absence for any specified period is a reason for deleting userpages). Nor is userspace required to have "reliable sources" or the like. In short, absent a reason grounded in guideline or policy for deletion, default to Keep. Collect (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Inactive user, and it can be recreated/undeleted if the user comes back and wants it.--MrRadioGuy P T C E 02:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. We don't keep these things indefinitely; if user comes back we can undelete. -- @072, i.e. 00:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

2009-12-30

Portal:Southern Ontario

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

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

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

User talk:Clearbourne

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

  • Keep I changed it back into a normal user talk page and added {{welcome}}. I don't think there are any reasons to delete remaining. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Willoughby. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep as not showing any deviation from WP normal practice now. Collect (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep as a legitimate user talkpage in its current state. 01:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep conditions no longer apply. Warn the user that he shouldn't do that again. -- @074, i.e. 00:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User:CFlive/Clive Fencott

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

  • Fix Page has not been transcluded in any sense of the word. It has, however, been substituted (i.e. it looks like a cut-and-paste move to me (that diff is between two different pages to show how a history merge might appear)). Note that this course of action would necessarily revert two edits by User:ArcAngel to the userspace sandbox (one of which was to add the {{mfd}}, the other of which can be redone). -- @083, i.e. 00:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Clearbourne

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

  • Delete: Originally thought that it was a draft article for a television show, but it's some sort of non-notable role-playing thing. Unless being awful is notable? (shudders and refuses to read any more) -- 00:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete This falls squarely under WP:UP#NOT #8, "other non-encyclopedia-related material." That guideline also applies WP:NOTWEBHOST to userpages thus: "Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website. Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian." This userpage is being treated as a personal website of sorts and is certainly not about Clearbourne "as a Wikipedian." Finally, this appears to be a record of some sort of role-playing game; it therefore may be violation of WP:UP#NOT #5 ("personal information of other persons without their consent") and #11 ("games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to 'entertainment' rather than 'writing an encyclopedia', particularly if they involve people who are not active participants in the project"). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - per A Stop at Willoughby. It violates WP:UP#NOT #8, and it can also be a webhost. The policy/guideline is at WP:NOTWEBHOST. at ≈ 01:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Burn it in the fire (Delete) per nom.-- 01:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Shred and destroy (delete) User is here only for the purpose of self promotion; WP is not a webhost. 00:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Mollica93

Per WP:NOTWEBHOST. User is apparently using his userpage to host information about offline contests of video games. It's been going on for a while. See past iterations [1][2]. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

  • Keep - The existence of the userboxes have nothing to do with consensus on the existence of what they declare. If an user wants to call himself "WP Latin First Member", however silly it sounds, why not let him/her do that? --o 12:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I agree with the hierarchial issue here but the problem has been addressed, why is it neccessary to delete them, i'll let the concensus decide. 95jb14 (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC).
  • Delete, userboxes serve no purpose as the "office" they describe no longer exists (obviating the first) and never should have existed at all (obviating the second). +Angr 19:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Userfy per Wikipedia:Userbox migration to the userspace of whoever is interested in taking them. Current guidelines are that userboxes should rarely be placed in Template: space, mostly for indicating language skills. However, users are given a good deal of leeway in terms of having userboxes in the User: space. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete because Wikipedia is communism. @harej 05:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete both as useless, or userfy upon request per WP:UBM. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrestling fan pages

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

  • Comment: See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ilikeapie. Peacock (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete User:KOolAiDMAnV1, User:DVG991, and User:09nick. All three Both users are/were using Wikipedia as a free webhost, and Wikipedia is not a webhost. Keep User:09nick as it now complies with policy. Keep all others as they now consist solely of {{CheckedSockpuppet}}. Add {{Sockpuppeteer}} to User:Ilikeapie and keep it blanked otherwise. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: No Way should my userpage be deleted, I created four pages which have now expanded and improved on several, a userpage is just a userpage and my userpage is MY own buisness!--09nick (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can I just ask one question: Why should my userpage be deleted because it shows various wrestling matches, yes I am a fan of WWE but just because of that doesn't mean I don't help Wikipedia from time to time, and by the way User:A Stop at Willoughby I'm not using Wikipedia as a free webhost, and how is my userpage any different from anyone elses? It shows information about the user and how they can build the encyclopedia: I like wrestling is the main point and will expand on wrestling related articles. If this is effecting anyone at Wikipedia I apologize for the misleading and that I am a proud user of Wikipedia.org.--09nick (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • 'Delete all and salt. We await 09nick's contributions to the (article) namespace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Understanding I know understand, if I delete everything notepad related to my userpage, will I be excluded from this affair?--09nick (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

2009-12-29

User:A cutts

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

  • Weakish keep or subpagify either way, throw {{Userspace draft}} on there to prevent indexing (which I've done). – 20:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete This looks like an opinion piece of sorts. These types of essays belong in blog posts, not on Wikipedia. The user has no mainspace edits, has not edited since May, and shows no indication that he is planning on moving this to the mainspace. Violates WP:UP#NOT #2 (extensive discussion unrelated to Wikipedia) and #4 (extensive personal opinions unrelated to Wikipedia), and arguably #6 (promotion) given the subsection on the "Project For Awesome". A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete it reads like an op-ed piece. It appears that the editor's only goal was to create such a page. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 05:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep No rules against OR in userspace - this is not mainspace, and does not have to meet article requirements. Not a blog, hence not deletable as one. Mark as noindex? Fine. But not deletable per se. Collect (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

2009-12-28

User:BQZip01/FBS Trademarked logos

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

  • If it's a non-free gallery, then it can be speedied under WP:U3. If there is not a copyright issue, then I am not sure I understand your point. 08:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, to be honest, I wasn't aware there was a CSD option. I looked, but didn't find a good option, so I went with a MfD (which is the XfD that came up in the TWINKLE list). If you wish to take it via WP:U3, please feel free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
      • No worries, but having looked at about a dozen of these I did not find any marked as non-free. Those that are will be taken care of by the bots in time I imagine. Is there some other reason you feel the page ought to be deleted? 08:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, when I tried to add images to my userpage (in my case they were radio station logos) as part a system I was working on to check if images were PNG, I was told that images of any kind like that were not allowed under the rules. Having a picture on the userpage (as some do) was allowed though. If they wish to list the images, I think they should be in a [[:Image:NAMEHERE.jpg]] format. That is the reason I brought this here, I am under the impression that having a page full of images like this isn't allowed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Sorry to hear that. I can't find anything in WP:UP#NOT that tells me why your radio-logo-page was nuked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Neutralhomer, if the radio station logo you tried to include in your userspace was non-free, then of course it would not be allowed. However, if it was a freely-licensed image, there should have been no problems. Which was it, free or non-free? As I'll state below, regarding the current nomination, so long as the images are free, there is no issue with having a gallery page like this one. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Since it is in userspace and not an article, a general delete is not warranted. Each of these logos needs to be checked. Those that are not free need to be removed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep These are indeed trademarked images, but they are ineligible for copyright. I would not post them here if they were copyrightable. Furthermore, this is not a "show off" page, but a repository for ease of use. Additioanlly, I did not upload most of these.  talk 08:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep possibly speedily. [WP:Clearly not allowed] is not yet a free-standing policy, it needs to be followed by "because it violates <something>". The nom may think their own experience was analogous, but they haven't provided a diff to that discussion and I got dizzy trying to work back through their edit and talk history. Non-free images in user space are a problem, but PD images organized for easy reference, I can't figure out what the problem would be. Franamax (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    Perhaps strangely, I oppose a speedy keep. Let's hear the full gamut of opinion on the subject before closure.  talk 07:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep A gallery of public domain images in userspace is obviously permissible and a case for neither U3 nor MfD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    • In the interest of symmetry, I must point out that [WP:Obviously permissible] also has not gained status as a separate policy. Franamax (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This is true. How about this: "Obviously permissible, per not being prohibited by WP:IUP and per common sense." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep So long as the images are free, there is no issue with having a userspace gallery of images, such as this one. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: Trademark is not copyright. --Carnildo (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: PD and PD-text trademarked logos may or may not be a good idea on Wikipedia user pages, but there is no policy or guideline against the use seen on this page. Deletion of this page would first require alterations to existing policy and guidelines to restrict/prevent the usage of trademarked PD images on user pages. CrazyPaco (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Any logo which should be deleted under WP guidelines and policies should be marked for deletion by itself. Userspace can utilize any images properly on WP and which are not violative of copyright etc. Trademark law refers to use of a logo as a trademark (d'uh) and does not furnish a valid reason to delete the page in userspace. And, as usual, lacking a WP policy or guideline based valid reason for deletion, default to Keep. Collect (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:SOSUMI. 01:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

My take on it is no, don't know, and probably no. However seeing as it was 5 years ago I think we can reasonably delete this page per WP:DENY. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • (1). Yes, assuming a worthwhile purpose, objections notwithstanding. (2). Yes, but probably speaks to the question of purpose. (3). It is not clear that this is an evidence page. It looks like a talk page, for discussion and resolution of issues in real time, which is proper, and it is proper to keep the records.
    Blank as a sufficient response to WP:DENY concerns, possibly tag as historical, if anyone can be imagined to care. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, you're correct that it looks like a talk page, but it was not "for discussion and resolution of issues in real time." All the communication you see on the page originally occurred at User talk:33451 and was copy-pasted from User talk:33451/2004 Archive. The only thing that happened on this page since the cut-and-paste was a collection of evidence that 33451 had socked. I think this qualifies as an evidence page.
I also don't think blanking is the right course of action. Why do you think copy-pasting someone's talk page archives into your userspace is acceptable? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think that the copy of an entire talk page violates WP:UP#NOT/10. I don't think that it is a collection of information on specific editors.
    • I think that copying and editing anything and everything released under our copyright is acceptable by default. Users do not own their userspace, including their talk pages. If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I never said that copying the talk page was a violation of WP:UP#NOT, I said that the sockpuppetry evidence that was subsequently added violated that guideline. I agree that copying over these archives was not in violation of copyright or anything. And of course users don't own their userspace. But in general this seems like one of the many bad ideas not listed at WP:NOT for obvious reasons. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I actually do not see a reason for deletion enunciated above. I see several questions which are outside the purview of MfD, however. Looking at the material, it appears that all links to people making posts are retained, making it a proper copy in that sense. I am unsure that "attack" is a problem, as the editor in question was apparently barred from WP, making any issue in that sense a tad moot. Is there a major point in favor of deletion that I am missing here? Much of the added material was by Theresa Knott, which muddies the question posed a bit. Collect (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Outside the purview of MfD? Perhaps, but since they're being presented with regards to deletion of a page in userspace, I think they are legitimately posed. If you would like me to start a discussion at WT:UP about this, I will. I think the major point here is that copy-pasting someone's entire user talk archives into your userspace is simply not an idea that makes much sense, and that maintaining a collection of sockpuppetry allegations (proven or not) as evidence against a user (even if that editor hasn't been on Wikipedia in years) is simply contrary to WP:UP, not to mention WP:DENY. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
As there is no separate noticeboard for userpages -- likely it would have to be raised at AN to get any eyes on the overall issue of copying material from other pages in general into userspace, and copying to material from user talk pages in particular. It is, to my knowledge, a common practice. I doubt that userpages are more protected from copying than other pages, and the requirement that the date and name of editors involved does not appear to be an issue in the current instance. I regard MfD as presenting weight of arguments for and against deletion based on policy and guidelines, with the onus being on the proponent of deletion to furnish valid reasons. If the material was solely that of the user whose space it is now in, you might have a valid point about attack information which could not be used in WP DR or processes otherwise. The material, however, does not fall into that category. The other issue running in at that point is whether references on userpages and usertalk pages to WP process pages (including SPI, EW etc.) are proper in the first place, whether or not they are quoted extensively. In short, several questions for which MfD with its very limited number of participants is not well-suited to answer. Collect (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Vinsfan368/^^

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

  • Keep on the basis that I tried the same thing with GuitarHero Christopher and the community voted keep. I fail to see why you should succeed where I failed. Crafty (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Which discussion are you referring to? Cunard (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The one involving GHC. Crafty (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players)

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

  • Yes, the dates work well enough there. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Baseball players with the same name are common enough, and it's better to have a straightforward set of rules then proceeding randomly. Absent any demonstrated problems, these would make sense and resolve the great majority of cases. Team references certainly don't work; the two later Bob Millers were both on the Mets for the same season. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Hullaballoo. I wouldn't consider it rare that baseball players would have the same name, same position, same time period. Having a project specific disamb. string to differentiate between two players is helpful not only to the editors, but to the readers. Removing the redundancy is appropriate, but keep the string. It was developed in reaction to, not anticipation of, problems associated with players with the same name. Another example I just quickly found, John Fitzgerald (Boston Reds pitcher), John Fitzgerald (1950s pitcher), and John Fitzgerald (Rochester Broncos pitcher). Don't even get me started on Bill Smith. - 18:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) and delete (if allowable under our CC-by-SA and GFDL licensing schema). It is utterly ridiculous to have a naming convention specific to baseball players, what makes them so special beyond any other notable sports person? Why should this be handled any differently? JBsupreme (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Utterly ridiculous" might be overstating. It was intended to be a helpful guide for how to disambiguate baseball players consistently - by position first, then by right-handed/left-handed, etc. Just baseball-specific attributes that would form some helpful consistency to baseball readers. But someone is intent on turning the helpful guidelines into weapons to enforce a rigid consistency at all costs. Truly the original intent was not ridiculous. Wknight94 talk 19:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I can appreciate that the original intent was to be helpful... I just believe that the disambiguation guidelines should be generalized and able to apply to all sports figures, baseball players included. JBsupreme (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I could look it up easily enough if I cared to, but I think this page predates the (sportspeople) page. The issue isn't that baseball is special, but rather that this page was never properly folded into the new page that had a broader scope. Resolute 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The disambiguation guidelines had to be rather specific due to a) the huge number of articles that fall within the article's domain, b) the rather rapid population grown of articles and c) the maddeningly-overlapping nature of baseball careers. Look at the Bill Smiths and Bob Millers of the baseball world, for example. Was the level of detail ridiculous? Yes. I know, because just as I thought I had wrapped things up, another editor would throw another wrinkle at me. But I wanted to create something that would be comprehensive and lasting. 04:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge with sportspoeple per JBSupreme. This is really the same basic idea as the other sports on that page, no need to have a seperate one. x3 19:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep This has apparently been brought here to resolve a controversy over what it should contain--during the course of an rfc on the subject. It would be better to settle the issue at the rfc. I see this as an attempt to short-circuit discussion. (as for the merits of the different proposals, I havent the least idea or interest) DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep I take no stance on the arguments presented, but this meets criterion #4 for speedily keeping as the page in question is a Wikipedia guideline. XfD is explicitly not for discussion of revoking policies and guidelines. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Your speedy keep !vote is invalid. This was never a guideline. This was certainly never a policy. It is an essay or a proposed guideline at best. JBsupreme (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Was never proposed, just written and declared a guideline by its major authors. By such standards, I could create a fork of WP:MOS that, for example, did everything the American way, and then slap a {{Guideline}} on it. —  00:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
That's an inaccurate comparison. A bit of digging shows that there was extensive discussion before the guideline was tagged with {{proposed}}, was uncontested on the talk page, and was promoted to guideline status by an administrator about a month later. Was WP:PROPOSAL followed? No. But should a guideline that has been tagged and treated as such for almost two years be eligible for a speedy keep at MfD? Absolutely. I've raised this issue at AN. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Speedy keep per the very clear standard that policies and conventions etc. can be revoked only through dedicated discussion, and not deletion debate. JBsupreme says above that this "was never a guideline" – he is simply incorrect: it has been regular practice since at least 2005. 22:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    I've just noticed that JBsupreme might have meant that the basketball-page wasn't a guideline; if so, it was only un-tagged earlier today, having been upgraded a good while ago by a respected editor. 22:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) (which already summarizes it anyway). Speedy #4 doesn't apply: The page in question is not a guideline, it's a redundant draft guideline that was never proposed per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Proposals. And it is a POV fork from the merge-to page, itself a proposal (though not currently tagged as one, for some reason) and from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), the current actual guideline. User:DGG is right to be skeptical, but in this case I think it is is okay, because the wording in question is already part of the sportspeople page. This would consolidate it in one place instead of two, and should have no effect on the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people). —  00:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep for the reasons outlined above. That being said, I do think that redirecting this to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) is appropriate, but that's an issue we can discuss on the talk page.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete as argued here; do not keep and retain. I don't think much will be left to move, since the list of disambiguators is already at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople), but that's a normal editing decision. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep according to speedy criterion #4, per A Stop at Willoughby and TreasuryTag. BRMo (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Appears to be a good faith wikiedpia-policy-directed page. We don't delete such things. It can be converted to a redirect, an essay, {{failed}} or whatever, but not deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep As the principal author of this document, I feel that an explanation of the background behind it is needed. Firstly, this page was born out of necessity while doing my work with WP:WPBB. All of the disambiguation criteria were put into place in response to actual problems we encountered while trying to standardize article titles. There were dozens of (possibly as many as a hundred, or more) duplicate articles caused by the lack of consistency with article naming. Some sort of standardization was needed. And while we may not have followed WP:POLICY to the letter, notices were posted at WP:VPP, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming to try to involve as many people as possible in achieving consensus. All of this being said, this document has been extremely useful within WP:WPBB to internally coordinate our efforts. Thusly, I would opt to keep is as is. 03:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • So what is it about baseball players that makes them harder to disambiguate than sportspeople generally or people overall? Frankly I'm not seeing it. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think he is alluding to WP:NOTPAPER, in that it doesn't hurt and could help the wiki to have specific guidelines for an area so that when issues do come up there is somewhere to look to see what has been done in the past. That being said since the list is also listed at the (sports people) page there is no need to have it listed twice. -DJSasso (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep After reading all the above, I do not note a single WP rule or policy which would dictate the deletion of this. SmokeyJoe has a good handle on this. Collect (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Rename and demote to essay status. Too useful to delete but too specific to rename a guideline. -- @086, i.e. 01:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment to those saying "speedy keep": WP:IAR applies here; it is absurd to have one set of naming conventions for baseball players and another for sportspeople; we've already got half of a discussion here, there's no reason (well, no good reason) to close it down, disrupting discussion in the process, only to immediately reopen on the talk page. -- @089, i.e. 01:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

2009-12-27

User:Jay2518/ZIZORK

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

Delete: It's not even a very good game... Or... you know... a game at all. Pokémon has more options than this... -- 18:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Copyvio as self-described derivative work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Old business

Everything from here on down is old business; the 7-day review period that began on 26 December 2009 has ended. Open discussions below this marker should be either closed or relisted above. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions which have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically and need no further action.

2009-12-25

User talk:98.88.23.235

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

Are you the only person who's edited from that IP in the last few months? If so, I'll blank the page if it bothers you, although the content seems pretty harmless. A formal MfD is, in any event, not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that this IP is unique to my family's provider. I can't guarantee that the ISP doesn't float it around, however. It doesn't *bother* me per se, as much as it just takes up WikiSpace. I would have gone for a Speedy, but I don't think User Pages can be speedy deleted, correct? CaveatLector Talk Contrib 08:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
They can be (see WP:CSD#General and WP:CSD#User) but this doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep absent any real reason to delete. CaveatLector is free to blank it, I guess, although I don't see the point. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Loath to delete a talk page, even though this is a pretty fine splinter at the thin end of a wedge. On the other hand, some people have thought that old IP talk pages should be routinely deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete; if the user wants it gone, then get rid of it, although it's just a harmless welcome template. 00:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per CaveatLector (talk · contribs)'s request. The talk page does not contain any useful history. Cunard (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Drhealthwatch

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

  • Delete per nom; quite weird seeing the MfD notice in the subject page ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete It's clearly not a talk page, and as an article it has no merit; it merely points out the obvious (there is no reliable list of people with a particular disease), but then points to stdcarriers.com and a "Celebrities With Herpes" site, both of which are hopelessly non-encyclopedic and BLP problems. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Solved. I've removed the inappropriate article content from the talk page, leaving the notices. I don't see any harm in leaving it in the talk page's history at this point - any objections to just leaving it like this? Zetawoof(ζ) 06:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep in its current state, as it now meets the WP:TALK guideline. The user should be warned (and, if necessary, blocked) if he disruptively re-posts the inappropriate material, but that seems unlikely as he hasn't edited in over a year. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as it more resembles a legitimate user talk page now. 01:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep as edited. Collect (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and maybe purge history The user talk page now contains only warnings. If there are any problems with the information in the userspace draft, the page can be purged of that revision using Wikipedia:Selective deletion. Cunard (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

2009-12-24

User:Daf/Telepathy

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

  • Please remember to notify users when nominating their subpages for deletion. For this nomination, I posted a notice on Daf's talk page using Template:MFDWarning. Cheers, –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 21:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia already has an article on Telepathy (software). This is a clear-cut violation of WP:UP#COPIES. I don't think Daf intended to violate any policies or guidelines, but this page is now in violation of WP:UP#COPIES and should go. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    • To me, your words imply an allegation of intent of violation on the part of User:Daf. I think there was no such intent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • You're right; I didn't mean it that way. I've changed my vote's rationale accordingly. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Telepathy (software), or blank, or delete if you must, it doesn't really matter. This page appears to be a userpage draft associated with User:Daf's page move of the mainspace article. However, as per WP:UP#COPIES, we don't keep live copies of past versions of current articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Sure, I'm not using it; as noted on Talk:Telepathy (software), it was a rewrite which somebody else copied to the main article. Don't you people have anything better to do though? Daf (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

2009-12-22

2009-12-21

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

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

  • Delete Totally fails WP:UP, and per WP:DENY page is extremely counter productive and harmful to the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as humour. And precedent allows humourous pages in userspace. As for "building an encyslopedia" - it does, by presenting a way to not take ourselves so dang seriously all the time. Clearly WP-related, to be sure. Collect (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    • You have got to be kidding me. How can that be considered constructive rather than disruptive? I can see how some pages such as WP:Go ahead, vandalize would get kept, but this is disruptive due to its how-to-vandalize tone/nature and the fact that (until I nominated them for deletion) it contained templates to actually use in vandalizing. In fact, there is currently a discussion ongoing about the final template's deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs. IMO, this page is not constructive in any way. (T•C•G) 12:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Amazingly enough, I regard "it's a joke" to be an indication that it is intended as a joke. Nor any indication that any templates were used in any improper manner. And for some reason, I associate "joke" with "humour." It may just be me, of course. Collect (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Plenty of jokes are inappropriate, and this page is one of them. (T•C•G) 16:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Totally innapropriate, and it encourages vandalism. No help to Wikipedia at all. Plus, the other humour pages I've seen, like WP:Go ahead, vandalize make it clear that it is NOT a good idea to vandalize, they just do it in a humourous way. HaiyaTheWin (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not sure the editor in question really gets what we are doing here. Edits thus far haven't been particularly constructive. Gigs (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Aaaaagghhhhhh. I can handle regular articles I created being deleted, but infringing on my userspace?! Absolutely not! That's the only place I can make my own pages that are humorous and whatnot and not have them deleted!!! TheGreenMartian (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
You were notified of this MfD here at 08:36, 21 December 2009 (same time as the above nomination). Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
A seemingly automated notification is different than actually posting on my talk page. I should probably remove the deletion tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreenMartian (talk • contribs) 13:18, 23 December 2009
I would highly recommend against that...or you would have another notice on your talk page, more specifically {{uw-afd1}}. (T•C•G) 19:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't removed the tag, but I did make a parody of it in my userspace and place it below the original tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreenMartian (talk • contribs) 16:57, 23 December 2009
GreenMartian, try to remember that the main point of being here is to build an encyclopedia. A little humor is fine, but Wikipedia isn't a game or a webhost. Gigs (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BEANS. Whether intentional or not, this could be viewed as a vandal's manual, documenting various techniques and showing which are most likely to cause irreparable damage. We don't need that. If its only purpose is a joke, and it could potentially be harmful, it should be deleted.
  • Keep, but mark as humour and as an essay, plus clean up in order to avoid WP:BEANS. Look, it's partly funny, and we have a lot worse allowed on Wikipedia. ( BWilkins ) 15:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    • How would you suggest cleaning it up to avoid BEANS? As far as I can tell, the entire page is fundamentally BEANSy. Unless the page is basically blanked it would still be that way.
  • KEEP - First, it's a joke. Second, it does not contradict WP:UP at all. It's a joke. Naluboutes,NalubotesAeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris 18:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • KeepWeak Keep and mark with {{humor}}. It's Wikipedia related, and it's in the userspace, no need to censor peoples' userspace except to enforce policies such as WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:Attack page. 01:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just want to address all the "it's a joke" comments: Marking something bad as "a joke" doesn't make it okay. If someone makes an attack page (for example) and marks it as humor, that doesn't suddenly absolve it of any violation. Secondly, and more importantly, despite the intention, the page contains real information, not "joke" information. When you advertise actual methods for damaging something, saying "just kidding" doesn't negate the harm done. You've still advertised information that could help someone inclined to cause damage.
    • I agree it's very immature. It is indeed promoting vandalism to a certain extent. However, as far as promoting malicious activity, it's not much worse than a particular page in someone's userspace I once read title "RfA for fun and profit" or something to that effect. I'm not big on the censorship of userspace. 02:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't think the two remotely compare with each other. The possibility that someone could get the idea to post a bad-faith RfA nomination is not only low but the damage it would cause would be minuscule; it would affect a single page that has continuous high attention, and would quickly and easily be taken care of. This on the other hand provides instructions for contributing to an already-overwhelming problem across the entire encyclopedia.
  • Delete Pages that provide ideas to vandals about the most "destructive" forms of vandalism (User:TheGreenMartian/TGM's Vandalism Tools (it's a joke)#Type IV Vandalism) do not belong on Wikipedia. This "joke" page does not improve the wiki. While some may find it very humorous, the negatives (teaching vandals malicious forms of harming Wikipedia) far outweigh the positives (giving people a laugh). Cunard (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion"

Questions for article:

This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.


IHS Europe: Infrared Heating Systems for Home and Business.