Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

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

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

• Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText: and the various Talk: namespaces
• Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
• Pages in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
• 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 you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?	Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace	Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first. Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion. User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion. Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages	Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere. Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages	It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication. Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion	Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems. Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD	Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

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

How to list pages for deletion

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted) Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process. I. Edit PageName: Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion: {{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}} for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}} or {{mfd|GroupName}} if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page. If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox. Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages. Please include in the edit summary the phrase Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion. Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit. Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone. Save the page II. Create its MfD subpage. The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry" Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page. Insert this text: {{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically. Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate. Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. 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	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	9	15	0	24
TfD	0	0	4	0	4
MfD
FfD	0	0	3	0	3
RfD	0	3	27	0	30
AfD	0	0	12	0	12

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.

Discussions

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.

2008-05-20

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. This was a tough one to close. Both sides of the arguments were strong, yet didn't convince me to dismiss the other side's arguments. The community seems quite divided on this, and perhaps the only way for it to be remedied is for this squad to work for a while and see how it does. Those that wanted this kept I would hope would look at what the delete voters said to improve this. I really can't close this as anything other than no consensus. Wizardman 16:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan/Wikipedia Welcome Squad

For the reasons that often come up in why a welcome bot will likely (I've learnt never to say never) never be approved, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Welcomebot for one such discussion as well as reasons that came up in this recent MfD. Welcoming should be done out of a genuine interest/interaction with a new user, not as a quest for a barnstar. Also using a certain format "to qualify as welcoming, you must use this format. Copy and paste the following..." feels templated and disallows for the sometimes need to tailor the message based on the situation (as Twinkle, among others, allow). This in no way builds an encyclopedia and just serves to foster the desire for editcountitis, social MySpace, etc. Thoughts? _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate function of Wikipedia:Welcoming committee with extra red tape, plus it smacks of making WP a game. Delete. — Lomn 00:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP My page is meant to make sure EVERY user is welcomed. I often myself look at the user creation log and see many users unwelcomed. Ths means many users are not getting help and experience. My plan is to organize the welcomers. I can make the welcome marks harder to get, but I see welcoming as a productive member of Wikipedia editing. If it weren't for a user's good template and kindness, I wouldn't have even known of adoption. I find welcoming productive, and I'm sure other users think so, too. As it says earlier on this page, there ISN'T a bot for welcoming. Therefore, it is up to users. My templates and ideas should be worthwhile, and I don't see why exactly this page would possibly be put up for deletion. I am currently trying to expand, but if the page gets deleted, my ideas would not be given a chance to show it's potential. I have a logo, a template, challenges, and a userbox currently for the cause. This clearly shows that 1. I put effort into the project and 2. I take this page seriously. I don't see any reason why this page would possibly be put up for deletion. If I can't change Wikipedia for the better, shouldn't it be called "The encyclopedia anyone can delete". I'm sorry for my temper, but I am trying to get this project off the ground, and some user wants it deleted.--LAAFan 00:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that the above !vote is the creator of the subpage.--RyRy5 (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete We already have the Wikipedia:Welcoming Committee. And I'm a little concerned about how they want to welcome every new user. It seems a little like Wikipedia:Editcountitis. I'm also concerned about the barnstar give away portion of it.--RyRy5 (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral I think it is good for helping out, but I just can't !vote a full keep. Neutral for now.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 00:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Another note I can change the page. It is NOT set in stone. If there is something needing to be change, TELL ME instead of deleting. Another thing, is, my page is more friendly than the original one, so maybe more users would sign up for my project.--LAAFan 00:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC) The apparent creator of the subpage
  • Erm, you do know that the Wikipedia:Welcoming Committee is in project space and it has over 500 members, right?--RyRy5 (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - This partially came up in the recent deletion campaign for the award center. Including editcountitis in the discussion, this boosts the number of edits in "user talk space", which really doesn't help the inexperienced users. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 00:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Cleanup - It shouldn't be a merger between WP:WC and WP:AWC. It should be something different. If LAAFan can think up somehow to tweak this, then it works out. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 01:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Move? KEEP Oh boy, I was trying to help out my adoptee (LAA) by encouraging him to edit outside his userspace. When I saw this project he had created, I took the opportunity to "join" it. Could we make it into an adoption page so It will be me and my adoptee working together? I'll move it to a suitable page if agreed.
  I agree now with Nk.sheridan's unique comment. It's helped wikipedians have an easier start. Over 150 to be exact. So what if it's a "copy"! Best wishes WikiZorro^sign 00:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If my position as adopter seems too biased on this matter, let me know. I am being stretched by two sides right now. WikiZorro^sign 19:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  Comment: what here exists that's worth preserving with a move? If you want to work with LAAAF on some sort of adopter/adoptee page, I think that's fine -- but I think you're better served starting from scratch with a deliberate adopter/adoptee effort. — Lomn 02:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Move Hmmm. I think WikiZorro's idea could work. I just don't want to see this project die quickly--LAAFan 00:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per Lomm. Dupicative of other established avenues for greeting new users, doesn't seem necessary. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Final Thoughts I believe it would be possible to tweak it. I wanted to say this, so nobody goes on and deletes it over night. I'll have the ideas to present sometime tomorrow.--LAAFan 04:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment no one is going to delete it overnight, it's not speedyable. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Doesn't seem to violate anything, and while it is a bit repetitive with the Welcoming Committee, no one says we have to do such things exactly the same way. -- Ned Scott 04:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment but do we need multiple things that do the same? One with 500 users that's established. I don't think so, that along with the issues I raised in the nom are wht concern me. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Do we need any page that welcomes users? No. Does having two pages disrupt or get in the way of anything? No. One size does not fit all. -- Ned Scott 00:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as proactive means of spreading kindness and encouragement as well as useful links to new users. Considering how many new users we gain practically every moment, there's almost always someone needing welcoming. I would suggest keeping in mind, however, that we should not just use one default welcome and that we keep in mind the difference between registered users, IPs, and vandals. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• More commentsHmmmm, I see that 2 users want is kept. However, there are other users, including a possibly soon to be admin, so I shall go forward with the blueprints for my plan. I will make a sample page using a sandbox, but here is my idea summarized.
• Still be called Wikipedia Welcome Squad
• My idea would have new users going through the practices.
• Have 3 points of Welcoming- Welcoming, Editing Practice, and Bells and Whistles Practice
• Point 1 would be welcoming users. Not one standard template for welcoming, but one is very helpful. No barnstar rewards column. Point 1 would not involve the new users.
• Point 2 would be Editing Practice. This is on basic facts. There would be two ways to do this for users going through the program; Asking a special committee, where responses will be quick. The difference between the help desk is the committee would be experienced users. For example, I would not be on the commitee because I am not experienced. The other choice is the new users fill out a short form (about 5 questions about their intentions on Wikipedia) and we pair them up with an adoptor who has similar views.
• Point 3 would be optional. The plan would be for the users to be done with point 2, now looking to get the little things on Wikipedia. There would be a few users controlling this point, where the new users can learn about little things that might not be known by the new users. (example- Admin coaching)

What do you think? If there is any confusion, there would be a squad participant page, and another for new users signing up. The page can be moved wherever. My only request would be to get recognized as the founder of the Squad. Just a little sentence at the top, like the current page. --LAAFan 14:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're still duplicating existing (and vastly higher-profile) functionality to no end except self-recognition, which I find telling. Frankly, I'd like to hear a lot more how instead of what. In this proposal I see duplication well-established content at WP:WELCOME, WP:HELP, WP:Introduction, WP:ADOPT, and the guidance at WP:ADMIN. What I don't see is any proposed benefit or improvement beyond a "committee" that is better and faster than the Help Desk, though for no apparent reason. Finally, the proposal reaches a point at which it's wholly unrecognizable as related to the current WWS page except for (1) the name and (2) the "founded by" line. Admin coaching, for instance, is completely outside the realm of welcoming new users.

Here, then, is my counter-proposal: Contribute to and benefit the project as it exists now rather than trying to re-invent the wheel. As best I can tell, everything you want to work with here already exists and is already active with people who can help you with your own growth on Wikipedia. — Lomn 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Lomn, and I think you were more concise than I was. It exists and while it isn't perfect, there's no reason to duplicate. Instead use your ideas to discuss and establish consensus for improvements to the existing programs. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Vote You know what, I want a vote. There are some users trying to contribute, but others are just Wikidrones and are just looking to delete pages. I see users in this discussion rejecting everything. So tell me this, will you accept anything? I do NOT (yes, I'm going back to big letters) want to contribute as a drone, but rather and a creative editor. --LAAFan 22:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not a drone, LAA, but thanks for that. I don't !vote "delete" for everything I see. You're program, while obviously well intentioned, is too duplicative of existing programs. Go work with the existing programs! It seems the only reason you're trying to get this kept is because you want your name on the top as attribution. That's not a good enough reason, IMO. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not about voting. Are you taking the discussion here to heart? Gainfully integrating yourself with the community is not equivalent to becoming a drone. — Lomn 22:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Okay, now I'm going to lose my temper. No voting? That just shows how mindless you are! This shows you don't want a avote, because it's only a few users looking for power. As far as I know, none of you against the project are admins, so the level of power is the same.
  • My answers to q's. The idea is to put some new users through a system, rather than having users being welcomed, and then forced to walk alone. It is called the Wikipedia Welcoming Squad, because, although welcoming isn't all of it, the term welcoming is also to mean to welcome as in train them to be a productive editor. Here are the benefits. - - *1. Help from experienced users, not ones helping just to receive awards.

- - *2. Put users through a gauntlet- to show if they really want to contribute to Wikipedia. - - *3. Help users in guiding them through not only editing, but the bells and whistles of Wikipedia. - - *4. Asking a select group of users, so if one user can't help, another user can, instead of adoption. Users asked also don't have to ask other editors about the questions if they don't know it. - - *5. Making sure users are welcomed. There is already a page, BUT, there are many users joining Wikipedia. Is look in the user creation log, and I see about 2 out of 25 new users welcomed. - - *As for the how question, what do you mean by how? Please explain - - *The comment wasn't really meant for you, but your quick repsonce questions my thoughts about drones. --LAAFan 22:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• I also see no users have answered my question of what do you want.--LAAFan 22:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I get what you're saying LAA. Please don't lose your temper. I know you've put a lot of work into this. But your system already exists elsewhere in different forms. The "other" places it exists need more help. What about revising an existing system instead of creating a new one that does essentially the same thing? (and, I am an admin, and I'm against this...however, that does not mean I have "more power" or anything like that. This debate will be closed fairly based on the discussion, not based on who contributes to it) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I'm sorry for those comments. I've once again cooled down. I want to be creative, but, if needed, I could revise the existing. But can I do that? I thought I couldn't. Is it only with permission or something? Even if the page gets deleted, I guess I have learned something.LAAFan 22:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  Wikipedia evolves, from a policy standpoint, through discussion and consensus-building. Absolutely nothing prohibits you from working to revise existing procedures. However, it's a very good idea to first be active in and conversant with what you're trying to change. Try to understand why things are the way they are before boldly editing a policy to how it should be. — Lomn 23:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep If the page results in just one new editor receiving a helpful welcome message then I think it is useful for wikipedia. Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, not sure why this user is being forced to go through this for trying to help the project, we should be helping not hindering. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• My opinions have again changed I guess. Users are signing up for the project, with 5 already. This shows the potential and how valuable it can be. I can retool the page, but I really want to keep the page, especially when other users want it.--LAAFan 02:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• I now have 6 users overalll in the project. This has to show how valuable it can be. It is longer just me fighting, there are five other users that are willing to fight with me.LAAFan 14:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • CommentDrama is definitely not needed. There's no need to 'fight'. Oh and there are, as said above, 500 in the other. It's still un-necessary duplication as has been said. No need for a revolution. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• I didn't really try to go for drama, but okay. And if the current commitee were working productively, the user creation log wouldn't be full of red links. --LAAFan 21:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • So Fix It, work together. Don't re-invent the wheel _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete we don't need this, because we have already the Welcoming committee. Macy (Review me!) 21:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'm supporting this project. I not be PC, but please don't pick at my comments (ex. no drama). I'm trying to be creative not a Wikidrone (No, I don't mean you, Keeper76). I'm sorry, but there are 6 total that have joined the project, and 4 that are against it, so I think this process should be sped up. If the page is kept, I would still lose valuable time on the page. I also have trouble with users that ARE Wikidrones. I'm sorry, but Lomn's comments (see talk page) are neither kind nor helpful. This was one of the reasons I don't contribute to the Infosphere anymore, and I don't take these comments lightly or forgivingly.--LAAFan 23:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• I've also noticed 1. Nobody said anything when I asked about editing the original page and 2. Nobody has still responded to my question of what is acceptable. I'm sorry, but I feel this process will move quicker if users are helpful, not wanting to down other users while trying to put themselves up.--LAAFan 23:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. I'm not sure what, exactly, you asked about "editing the original page". I'll note that I think removing the countfest barnstar section is an improvement, though.
  2. "What is acceptable?" is far too broad to be answered here. I feel your critics have been clear, though, about the problems seen with the current incarnation as well as the problems with the various proposals floated on this page. Are there particular points you'd like me (or someone else) to clarify? — Lomn 00:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Since it's in the userspace, I'm be inclined to say no harm done, but it seems awfully bureaucratic (requiring approval to use a different welcome template?). also, we shouldn't "welcome every new user" - we should wait until they start contributing. Template:WWS should be userfied. if these issues were addressed, then I'd say there's no harm in keeping it. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 00:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• As I commented earlier, it boosts user talk space edits. If the users want to do this, then let this. Keep. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 01:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• What do you mean about the issues needing to be addressed. As i've said, the page isn't set in stone, so please let me know how to tweak it. I did go kind of crazy with the reward portion, so I did delete it, as an example. I think the page will go under a revision. I'm still thinking about part of my idea. I think the Squad could also put adoptees with suitable adoptors, from a short test. The new users wouldn't be forced to be adopted, but a link to the test if they want other users to set them up.--LAAFan 03:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  Again, already exists in more stable form at WP:ADOPT. I do not believe you have sufficient WP experience to be overseeing an adoption process. If you want to raise awareness of adoption, though, why not just add a link to your welcoming template? — Lomn 12:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think I will. The adoption thing doesn't make it the welcoming squad anymore. I do already have the adoption link on the template, but I think I can tweak the template.--LAAFan 14:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked about the issues needing to be addressed, to reiterate, they are: 1) bureaucracy (don't demand users seek approval to use a different welcome template) 2) don't welcome every user, only those that have begun to contribute (so many user accounts are created that never edit, thus you would be creating countless user talk pages which never get used again and 3) userfy the Template:WWS. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 14:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Okay. I got rid of the first one. I will soon put in the second rule. As for the 3rd, I didn't make the userbox, so I will ask my adoptor.--LAAFan 14:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Redundant with the Welcoming Committee, however, I would have no problem with this if it was, for example, a welcoming committee for a Wikiproject, but it is a single user's venture (it was started by one user), and is unpopulated (only 6 people including the founder were members when I checked). In addition, the Welcoming Committee is more well-equipped with things such as the New Contributor's Help Desk, and is a more coordinated effort. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 17:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• I believe all of my concerns were addressed, I would say again no harm done as long as the "adoption" part is dropped (just work with WP:AAU]). (though I still don't see any value-add over and above the WP:Welcoming committee). xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 20:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• My tally so far I made a short tally of users opinions. Not as a vote, but as a helpful list for user's opinions so far.
• Keep LAAFan, WikiZorro, Ned Scott, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, Nk.sheridan, SqueakBox, Basketball110 Total:7
• Delete TravellingCari, Lomn, Keeper 76, Macy, FastLizard4, Richard0612 Total:6
• Neutral RyRy5, xenocidic Total:2
• Comment Hello. If this MfD nom is decided as keep, I will watch WWS incase of anything not necessary such as encouraging editcountitis a bit too far. If the WWS goes too far, I may report it someplace. Thank you. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 23:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• CommentIf the page is deleted, I am interested in what you mean about welcoming for a Wikiproject. Please explain. I could just do that....--LAAFan 14:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  I think FastLizard4 is suggesting that if you were involved in a WikiProject (say, WikiProject Pokémon), you might want to craft a welcome template for users joining the WikiProject. It's probably fair to state that a good many people sign up for such projects without getting a lot of feedback on what, particularly, the project's about and how it works. Again, though, participation on your part should be a prerequisite. Explaining WikiProject Pokémon if you haven't worked with it for a while will naturally be problematic. — Lomn 14:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• I was just curious. If I did do one, I would ask first, and I would go with something I know better (ex. WikiProject Baseball)--LAAFan 15:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

• Delete - Duplication of the Welcoming Committee, it is better to have one central project than lots of variations. If that doesn't seem to be active/working, then raise a thread at the Village Pump asking for participants. Also, I think that it is probably best to wait until a new user actually makes an edit before welcoming them, rather than welcoming them 'as soon as they walk through the door' so to speak. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:49, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete We don't need a volunteer-powered version of Welcomebot. Mechanically welcoming users for no reason does not really help the encyclopedia (otherwise we would just code the welcome page on the user account creation), and it's deviating volunteer's time from improving the encyclopedia. Also, there is already a Wikipedia:Welcoming_Committee doing a similar task, but which has less bureaucracy and has reserves about doing mechanical welcomings. This just looks an attempt to avoid those reserves and implement Welcomebot for no good reason. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There are eight members of the project, but those two newcomers didn't put their opinions on this page. With more users joining, the society is becoming larger. I am trying on the WWC, but responses on the talk page are long awaited. The truth is, the more users that join, the more I will be pushing for the project. Tallies so far are 7 for, 7 against, and 2 neutral.--LAAFan 20:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  LAA: I don't think you understand how MFD works. It's not the number of votes that count, it's the quality and logic of the users' arguments that eventually decides if the page is kept or deleted. For example, let's say the Main Page was nominated for deletion, and 100,000 people said delete, but 1 person said Keep and gave a better reason than those who wanted it deleted, it would be kept. So, here, you could have thousands of people voting keep, but if the administrator who eventually reviews this thinks that the 7 that have delete arguments have better arguments, the page will be deleted. That's why these "votes" are commonly referred to as "!votes", or not-votes. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 06:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• As I had said before, my tallies are not for a vote, but rather a tally of the discussion so far. I have gotten slack for this earlier, so please read my first tally. The tally is mainly for me, but I might as well add it.--LAAFan 14:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP I find this project to be quite useful for welcoming new comers and making them feel noticed. Prom3th3an (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I want a statistic on how many sockfarms have been welcomed by this project :D --Enric Naval (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• My final opinions and reasons why the squad should be kept. I know that a decision must be made about the project. Here are my final benefits for keeping the project

1. Another welcoming squad. I'm sorry, but the Welcoming Commitee is not working to capacity. This squad would change the red links in the user creation log
2. Encourages users to join. I find this squad as a friendlier version of WWC
3. Open to change. If something needs to be changed by Wikipedia policy, I would be glad to change the page, instead of having it deleted.
4. Looked over by experienced users. RyRy5 has confirmed, if kept, he would look over the squad.
5. Lets users be creative. I would be open to other users expanding the page for the good.
6. Would look over new user's edits. If they are vandalism accounts, the users would be reported quickly.

If I think of more, I'll post them, but these are my benefits for keeping the squad. Hope anyone looking at the page at least considers these benefits.--LAAFan 22:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at them, and here are my thoughts:

1. So fix it! Fixing is the solution, not dulplication. Also applies to number 4. Plus not every editor should be welcomed as has been said above.

3. No offense to RyRy5, but he's not the most experienced editor and would not necessarily bring it down the right path.

I know you mean well but as I and a number of others above have said, it's duplication of an existing program with no evidence it wouldn't also become broken. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 23:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Another concern has come to mind, if kept, the word "Wikipedia" should be dropped from the name, to ensure it is not erroneously thought to be an official entity. xenocidic (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What if, instead of dropping Wikipedia from the name, put a note at the top after the beginning, stating that the squad isn't an official Wikipedia page. I'm going to change it, with maybe a few other things, right now.--LAAFan 01:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn't alleviate my concern, no. I can't think of any other non-official organizations that carry "Wikipedia" in their title. xenocidic (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Travellingcari Non-taken. And for one thing, I never said I was "experienced" LAAFan. I just would watch the page incase it goes too far such as editcountitis. --RyRy5 (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I know. I just automatically think of you as experienced because of all the help you give me. --LAAFan 14:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I presonally trust RyRy to give the project members good advice about avoiding editcountitis --Enric Naval (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Responses to LAA's six points:

1. Some users should not be welcomed, you don't welcome every user in the creation log, only users that actually make an edit (this has been pointed out above)
2. I don't see much difference, just a template that, in fact, points to resources created by/for the Welcoming Committee
3. There is not too much to change without defeating the reason you created this project. See WP:ESP and related deletion debates for further information about this. This applies especially due to the "quizzes" and "tournaments" that you talk about on the WWS page.
4. It has already been said, and I will not repeat it. In addition, this isn't really a quality that moves the "status" of the project one way or the other, case in point Wikipedia itself. Sure, we have good administrators watching over the project, but just because of that dosen't mean that every school in the country will suddenly prefer Wikipedia to a paper-and-ink encyclopedia
5. Umm, that is sort of the point of having a wiki in the first place, so that anyone can edit and improve it, so number 5 is mostly useless argument, but at least we know that you won't cover the project in red tape
6. Recent Changes Patrol, those who use tools such as Huggle, VandalProof, and the Anti-Vandal tool, generally take care of the vandals. This is because most of these tools allow for very rapid checking and reporting of users, and checking the contribs of a user for vandalism is pretty much implied as a perquisite to anything, like getting rollback or accountcreator rights
   

Again, these are specific responses to the six points that LAA brought up higher above these counterpoints on this page. However, I agree with xenocidic, if the final result of this debate is keep, Wikipedia should be removed from the project's name, as it is not an official WikiProject. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 00:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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

2008-05-19

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

The result of the debate was Keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Piracy

No editors update the portal regularly. I used to, but do not have much time to contribute. It also does not have any readers. It was also mentioned here at WP:Piracy. Deflagro ^C/_T 20:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Could we tag this as "historical" or "unmaintained" or something? If someone wanted to write a portal on the subject there's enough here to get them started, and the topic is broad enough. Hut 8.5 21:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as it could attract new editors who may want to start contributing. As mentioned some kind of tag or box added to the portal stating that it's not been maintained, etc.. Seems a shame to delete it when it has the potential to entice editors, after all WP:NOTPAPER Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - portal could be changed to go onto automautic rotation, thus not needing regular human updating. John Carter (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and place a tag to direct interested users to WP:PIRACY --Enric Naval (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - It looks like WikiProject Piracy is gaining at least a few new members every month. At some point soon, one of them will likely "seize the portal" and make something of it. It happened to the Time Portal. -Yamara ✉ 14:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• KeepI think the page could be good for something. --LAAFan 19:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It looks like new members are still joining the WikiProject, so that in itself should not mean that it should be deleted at this time. Razorflame 23:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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

2008-05-18

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

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete, marking {{historical}} per the keep notes. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Noticeboard

This is inactive and has been for several past months, even the original creator has once said it's dead. So let's remove it, it's not being used anymore, which is why I've been missing a lot of Pokémon related deletions. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, project itself is currently marked inactive, and page is unused. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• ? Excuse my ignorance here, but can't it just be marked as historical? Former members notified that the Pok-noticeboard isn't doing anything? Deletion doesn't do anything but make it non-resurrectable to editors (except admins). I have exactly zero interest in anything Poke-related, but deleting an inactive board (keeping in mind that it does not free up any server space) seems overboard. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Arg. I think I misunderstood. This is for the specific subpage, called noticeboard, not for an entire Wikiproject. I endorse Deletion in that case. My apologies for my previous dumbfoundedness. I won't strike my prior comment, because I want others to read how silly I sounded.  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I have exactly zero interests... I am surprised you're part of this discussion then. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Doesn't stop him from commenting. I'm sure most of us have zero interest in the subject material of whatever AfDs we comment on. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Not me, I personally find it useless to be part of a discussion if I don't know a damn thing about something because I can't prove notability if I don't know about something. But then again, I'm not usually in deletion discussions. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually it's more of a project-related than video game related. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep for historical reasons, even if it is just a notice board. This is the norm for all subpages of an inactive project, and this subpage does have some history on it. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - can be marked as historical I believe. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Mark as historical and include a soft redirect to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon, which is still active. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Can be marked as a historical archive. No reason to delete it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually there has been a reason given to remove it, so your "no reason to delete it" statement is therefore wrong. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • No. No policy/guideline based reason has been provided. All you've provided is a NOEFFORT argument, which is something to be avoided in XfDs. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Where you were leading me applies to articles in the mainspace, not the Wikipedia space, there is a huge difference. If you want to tell that my arguments are invalid at least prove it with something that applies more to the WP space. I will not believe my argument is invalid until I see some good example that applies to pages like noticeboards because like I said this isn't and never was an article. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and mark it historical. I don't think a noticeboard being inactive is a reason to delete. --Pixelface (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Looking at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pokémon#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pok.C3.A9mon.2FNoticeboard, it looks like the project members agree with deleting it for inactivity. I'd say not to delete it because this way we can track better what happened at the wikiproject, so historical tag + soft redirect would probably be ok. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Only I was part of that discussion, I'd hardly call that an agreement. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Probably a case of WP:SILENCE, nobody disagreed or cared enough to keep it, so nobody commented. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• DeleteIf the page isn't being used, it should be deleted.--LAAFan 19:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete — xaosflux ^Talk 16:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Editor of the week

In my view, this page is simply not needed. It is simply a process to award editors for their good work here on Wikipedia, basically similar to barnstars. The page does nothing to help the project as a whole; editors should spend more time improving articles instead of discussing "who is better than who". After all, we are all here to edit the same content, so it's a mute perspective who is better than who in the long run. If you really want to give an award to someone else, simple, give them a barnstar in WP:PW's case, the Professional Wrestling star. D.M.N. (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Other projects have this, I see no harm in it. King iMatthew 2008 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you give an example of other projects that have things like this? D.M.N. (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Just for one, GAN has reviewer of the week. King iMatthew 2008 17:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • That's not a WikiProject though. D.M.N. (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I see your point, but there is no harm in this. King iMatthew 2008 17:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete-I was going to support it's keep, but seeing DMN's reasons, I see that the PW star is what we should do to award good editors, and seeing the activity of EOTW, not too many members pay attention to it. SRX 17:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - The contribution of editors should not assessed relatively to other editors. Editing should not be competitive. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't think we're here in a competition. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I find it funny, because you nominated somebody on the waiting list. King iMatthew 2008 22:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Way too much bureaucracy for an award that shouldn't be give out anyway. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• ThinkBlue and SRX, you both supported the EOTW opening in the first place, and have both been active in it. SRX even helped create the interview questions. King iMatthew 2008 22:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, i thought it was gonna work differently, but seeing that its not really active with other members, I don't find a need for it. Like DMN said, we should just focus on editing PW articles, its not a competition. I made the questions, to help you out, since you were complaining how no one helped.SRX 02:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Hey, the only reason I gave my support in this, was because I thought this was going to be of good use. Now, it seems to be more like a contest and its not a good idea to go by that. That's why I'm standing next to my decision. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No contests between editors. Each editor's contribution should be assesed individually, and only in respect to how they improved wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Oh, and it promotes head counting --Enric Naval (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep agree with imatthew MATT^talk 05:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless. --Endless Dan 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not sure if it's a good idea, but I'd rather let this play out than predict the future. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I see no reason why it should be deleted. If nothing else, it keeps the WikiProject active.--LAAFan 19:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• The purpose of this page is not only to recognize user's improvements and hard work to Wikipedia, but also to keep users actively aware of those users who can help them, should a user experience a problem or have a question. The EOTW points those users in the right direction. Like Ned Scott said, can we see this play out, rather than going ahead and predicting the future? King iMatthew 2008 11:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a volunteer ambassador would be more helpful for that purpose. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete – (1) per Enric Naval ("no contests between editors"); (2) while it could keep the project active, it could also become a distraction; (3) there are other activities (including contests) that the WikiProject could hold that are more related to improvement of articles (e.g. an article sourcing contest) and less related to a competition between editors. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - becoming the sole focus of an editor in a project is not the same as keeping it active. I suspect the former is much more likely to happen. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll give in, because some of you make good points. Feel free to delete. iMatthew _T.C. 15:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 00:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:User car-free

This userbox was created in Template space contrary to WP:UBX and WP:UBM. It also substantially duplicates an existing userbox in User space. It should be deleted or moved to the editor's User space. DieWeisseRose (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as a substantial dupe of something already in userspace, or userfy if the editor really wants this version. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 08:16, May 18, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Looking at this edit, I think that the user was inexperienced at the time, and misunderstood how templates work (he has been editing since then, and is now more experienced), and he hasn't made any major improvements that really make the userbox different. Given this, I don't think that he never intended to create a version of the userbox, he probably must have moved it there because he must have thought in good faith it was a better place. Actually, I see lot of userboxes on User:Ashleyvh that also look like duplicates (does someone recognize them?) They are not duplicates of anything I can find:
• no need to delete, they are listed at User:UBX/Userboxes/Health {{User:Ashleyvh/Userboxes/Diabetic user}} {{User:Ashleyvh/Userboxes/Diabetic contributor}}
• listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Food#Tea {{User:Ashleyvh/Userboxes/Redbush tea}}
• listed at User:UBX/Userboxes/Beliefs {{User:Ashleyvh/Userboxes/Freecycle}} {{User:Ashleyvh/Userboxes/Public transport}}
• listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media/Books {{User:Ashleyvh/Userboxes/Postcyberpunk}}
• listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media/Television_(shows) {{User:Ashleyvh/Userboxes/Torchwood}}

as well as what look like others userboxes on template space, someone please check them and say which are good for template space and which are just copies from userspace (today i'm too tired for this): Damn, these templates are used on a huge amount of user pages, and have dozens of similar ones. This would need a bot updating all the transclusions and could cause a lot of disruption.

• listed at Category:Place_of_residence_user_templates {{user London}}
• Listed at Category:School_user_templates {{User The Open University}} {{User Imperial College}}
• This is part of the huge list at Category:Academic_degree_user_templates {{User degree/MBA1}}
• Listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Interests#Sustainability {{User Recycle}}
• Listed at Category:WikiProject_user_templates {{User LGBT Project}} {{User WikiProject Environment}}
• Listed at Category:Computer-related_user_templates {{User dvrk2}}
• listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Grammar {{User Oxford Spelling}}

(please keep them transcluded for a few days because this way it's easier to identify them) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• The only ones that could be userfied in a reasonable manner are {{User MacMini}} and {{User_Teeline}} because they have no incoming links except this user. The rest need to be done with a bot to update all the transclusions, and userfying at User:UBX, and any such massive move should probably be brought first to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or other forum. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep or userfy. Userbox guidelines do allow for userboxes in the template namespace. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a duplicate or userfy (a distant 2nd choice). Although some userboxes are allowed in the template namespace, not all of them are. Wikipedia:Userboxes#Which namespace? suggests that userboxes which are not encyclopedic in nature (such as this one) should generally be in the user namespace. However, given that the template is a duplicate, I consider deletion to be preferable to userfying. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. ➪HiDrNick! 21:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Britney Spears/Sabretooth (superhuman powers)

Content fork of Sabretooth_(comics) ThuranX (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, over a year since it was even edited. It was created far too long too possibly still be a valid "development ground" exception to WP:UP#NOT. Collectonian (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Actually 3 years and 1 month since the last improvement to the draft, and the user didn't touch it for 4 months before she stopped editing on January 2006. Notice that Sabretooth_(comics) already exists, and appears on first sight to be more complete. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I was very disappointed to see that this was a subpage of a user named Britney Spears, rather than an article where someone said that Britney Spears had superhuman powers of a sabertooth tiger, as I originally thought when I first glanced at the page :D -- Ned Scott 04:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Think of the tabloids for that mess! ThuranX (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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

2008-05-17

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

The result of the debate was delete. bibliomaniac15 23:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Michael Hejazi

Use made two edits three years ago. WP is not a place to post a resume. meshach (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Hut 8.5 20:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - resume in userspace. WP is not a webhost, and the user's last edit was three years ago; it is unlikely that they even know this still exists. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 21:29, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a place to post your résumé, even if it was three years ago. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 05:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nomination.--LAAFan 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. ➪HiDrNick! 20:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Country Music

Underpopulated, abandoned portal; hasn't been touched in over a year. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Not that it makes much difference, but it was last edited in August 2007 [1] which is only about 9 months of inactivity. It does seem to be inactive, regardless of the time frame. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• delete: only linked to 10 or so articles.--Hu12 (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you see the topics and categories boxes? Far more than 10 articles here. Ultra! 16:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• It isn't exactly underpopulated, there are hundreds of country music articles out there, but it's inactive and not greatly done, so weak keep--Phoenix-wiki 20:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, appears to be abandoned and better handled by Portal:Music. Collectonian (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep Inactivity is certainly not the reason to delete. Thousands of articles on the subject exist, unlike portals Punk rock, classical guitar, Motorhead or Powderfinger. Ultra! 16:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I updated selected article recently. Ultra! 16:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: On the one hand, country music is a subject for which a portal is obviously justified. On the other, a static portal is not really carrying out the function of a portal, which is to introduce a subject and highlight and direct readers toward particularly relevant or high-quality content. Portal pages are not 'essential' pages in the way that articles are, but recreating the portal from scratch would probably require substantially more effort than developing the current portal. (Then again, a user could ask any admin to undelete the content.) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. ➪HiDrNick! 21:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Jpupier

User:Jpupier appears to carry controversial content about some living person in his/her userpage. It is not known whether he/she has done this with the knowledge of the individual. But then, this is not permissible under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Non-article space-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 18:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Also violates Wikipedia:User page#Copies of other pages. The content on the userpage is an exact copy of Chaithra Vasudeva article deleted according to Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion to which this user had contributed extensively -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 18:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, duplicate of a speedied page and violation of WP:BLP's guidelines for non-article space. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - copy of a BLP in userspace in violation of policy. Also, userspace is not intended to be an indefinite archive space. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 21:27, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination--LAAFan 19:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Mark {{historical}} and soft-redirect. Although the delete !votes have a higher count, the arguments are primarily that the other list is better, now, not that the history of the page is without merit. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts (2nd nomination)

All prior XfDs for this page: Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts (2nd nomination)

Now, I wasn’t sure originally whether to MfD this or not. However, a couple things I realized about this list put me over and made me decide to do this. Note that I don’t have a problem with editcountitis and could care less about that, I am NOT using that as a rationale for deletion, though some may I guess. Anyway, here’s my rationale:

1. It’s near impossible to maintain. Leaving up people that long ago left, people that are on the 5,000 bracket when they have 16,000 edits, admins remaining on the list for months.. it’s too much of a pain to bother with.
2. It’s a duplicate of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Everyone that’s on this Mfd’d list is on the WBE list, only that one’s better updated and in better detail, rendering this other list useless. Plus, that WBE list says what users are sysops and what users aren’t, defeating the purpose of this list.
3. It says not to nominate users for admins by edit count, but by having users who want to be admins in bold, it as a result seems to contradict itself. Plus, there’s already userboxes for the bold and strikeout types of users, and those do a better job of letting people know.

I might not mind the list so much, and would actually want it to stick around if it was not for these points, which make me want to just get rid of this instead of keeping it around. We have better lists that are better maintained, so as a result we do not need this. Wizardman 18:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, per Wizardman. Excellent rationale. This particular list is unnecessary, underdeveloped, and duplicative of other lists on wiki. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this seems to be another page that I was going to nominate for deletion, but Wizardman beat me to it. :) Anyway, Wikipedia:List of administrators by edit count was deleted on the basis that it was unnecessary, and redundant to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. I think that Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts is also redundant to WP:WBE. In addition, I think that this page ends up treating adminship as a "rank" above non-admins, for it, like the administrator edit count page, seperated admins and non-admins, therefore going against adminship not being a rank or position of power over other users. Most users who are on this list are on WBE anyway. Acalamari 18:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • At the same time, I would not object to this page being marked as historical. Acalamari 16:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Acalamari. No need for duplication, particularly when others are better maintained and easier to maintain. Collectonian (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as unuseful and high-maintenance. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• It was useful when it was small. Too many damn Wikipedians now. :) However I must say that your first rationale is nonsensical and could be applied to many high-maintenance articles. High-maintenance by itself is not a rationale for deletion; there is no requirement that Wikipedia entries be up-to-date. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-05-17 18:45Z
• Delete - Although there is no requirement for pages to be up to date, it certainly does help with pages like this that are only really helpful when they are up to date. Redundant to WP:WBE and hard to maintain effectively. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 21:24, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - It did once have its uses, but it's now redundant to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Epbr123 (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Mark as historical with a form of soft-redirect to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. No reason to lose the edit history and talk page discussion. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, useless. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 05:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed vote to mark as historial as a redirect. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 05:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Mark as historical per Ned Scott. No reason to delete it, since it's referenced in roughly 530 pages. There is no reason to lose the edit history ... the page is just less useful now that Wikipedia has grown. The contents of the archive table may be deleted at any time, and there is no reason for the page history to disappear permanently. It is valuable to know which users were addded or removed from the list, how long they were up there, etc. Graham87 14:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Most of those references are likely transclusions from Template:Wikipediholicism. Wizardman 21:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Mark historical yes this is impossible to maintain and redundant, but we don't generally delete old redundant pages - we keep them for historical and archive reasons. No need to get rid of the history or the talk page. Hut 8.5 21:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Just to point out, I did originally try to mark this as historical, but got rv'd. Wizardman 02:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Preferably Delete, alternatively Mark as historical. Can't argue with the nominator: this is difficult to maintain, an unnecessary fork of a better list, and more seriously, encourages people to nominate users for adminship simply for having a high edit count. For all those reasons, we'd be better off without it. I don't personally see the need to keep this page around for 'historical reasons', but wouldn't object if there is a consensus to do so. Terraxos (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, really not necessary. Encourages editcountitis. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Mark as historical and keep. Like Ned Scott said, there's no need to get rid of everything. Malinaccier (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as first choice, mark as historical second. This page has been hobbled at the top and has gotten too large at the bottom, rendering it pointless. At the top, people keep reverting any brackets above 20,000, which prevents us from recognizing those users who have made some of the largest contributions to the encyclopedia. At the bottom, as we've grown, it's just gotten to be too much. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Mark as historical. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

2008-05-15

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

The result of the debate was No consensus (default keep), this discussion does not have a clear consensus, and noone links a precedent, so keep for now. If the community decides that all of these discussions don't belong here we would need a bot to transwiki them all then clean them up. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Image talk:Fastpass availability icon.svg

talk page for deleted image Tiggerjay (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep this is the talk page for an image on Commons and therefore should not be deleted (as people can discuss the Commons image here). Hut 8.5 06:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The image at commons is here. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Surely if the image is at Commons, then the talk page should be at Commons as well. No need to have a TP for a Commons image here. People can discuss any issues there [not that there is a heated discussion going on anyway]. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:19, May 16, 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It is pretty normal to see talk pages on en.wiki for commons images. I know Wikipe-tan has a few. -- Ned Scott 04:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

2008-05-19

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jimbo Wales (speedy delete)

2008-05-18

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cnutvictim (speedy close)

2008-05-16

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica (speedy keep)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LaraLove/Userbox/Ignorance (delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LaraLove/Userbox/RacistOnlyOnWP (delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Majorly (speedy close)

2008-05-15

• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:AmarilloLostFan (Speedy delete - U1)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Edits Per Day (withdrawn)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fraud Protection Unit (delete)

2008-05-04

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Digwuren/Denial of Soviet occupation (delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Image:Xavier 500125925 acn108 2b.pdf (delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Youre dreaming eh?/Your sandbox (Speedy delete, U1)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Cinematic sunrise (speedy delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stodart (delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Privatemusings/OptOutNoticeboard (keep)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Clientele/uncyclopedia/zorkguide (delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Highly Active Users/Unknown (keep)