Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xaosflux (talk | contribs) at 15:28, 1 April 2007 (→‎[[2007-03-28]]: rm {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales}} (was deleted)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

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

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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

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

I.
Edit PageName:

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

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

or

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

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

  • Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
  • Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • 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 Feb Mar Apr May Total
CfD 0 0 17 17 34
TfD 0 0 0 3 3
MfD Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil).
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 10 53 63
AfD 0 0 0 9 9

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.

It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating the miscellany. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the miscellany.

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.
Purge the server's cache of this page

2007-04-01

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 ^demon[omg plz] 19:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wobble/pa

WP:IAR. This page contains nothing but an offensive conversation, apparently unrelated to any useful activity on Wikipedia. Regardless of what the rules say - or what day of the year it is - it should be speedily deleted. YechielMan 03:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, you have my blessing to have this Deleted. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no reason to delete - this is simply an amusing record of anons being shown up as idiots for throwing childish insults on Wikipedia. bd2412 T 04:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The anons are shown as idiots, but the ed. always replies. I'd say delete for the general good. DGG 06:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Blatant personal attacks against people who he/she does not even know.Tellyaddict 11:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, to show how stupid some people can be. Abeg92contribs 19:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to show how stupid some wikipedians can be. --Emperor Walter Humala · ( talk? · help! ) 04:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - There is precedent for active users to keep a seperate talk archive of insults that they receive from other users/vandals. --After Midnight 0001 04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see why this should be kept, it's what most people remove from their pages as vandalism. · AO Talk 10:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to demonstrate how not to behave on Wikipedia. However, I think a note to that effect should be inserted at the top of the page, otherwise the reasons for saving the conversation are unclear. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as stated in some previous MFDs of other content, we do not have a use for negative examples of anything, as it has the potential to send out the wrong signal to users. Also, putting a tag on it and calling it an example is not an appropriate thing to do in userspace. --Coredesat 12:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well, the whole discussion can be seen on the user's talk page, and then was moved to this subpage by the user himself. Then, an additional reply was added by Globe01 (talk · contribs) on this page specifically, although I'm not sure that Wobble was aware of this. The initial revision of this page had Lupin's javascript edit count script, and then sampling an infobox, and then the text from the user talk page. The page hasn't been touched by said user since. I would say keep the page, unless the author specifically wants it to be deleted. Appears to be a sandbox of sorts, and we don't delete inactive sandboxes. Revert to the infobox revision if you want. GracenotesT § 21:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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, WP:SNOW. ^demon[omg plz] 18:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:The velociraptor

Not 100% sure about this, but it looks like a violation of WP:NOT - nothing remotely relevant to the user's contributions to Wikipedia.

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 miscellany 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 ^demon[omg plz] 09:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jzhang/Virtual Safari

I am nominating this page and all subpages and sub-subpages for deletion. It's just an attempt at creative writing which is more appropriate for a blog. I suppose that userspace is for the user, but the length of these stories is excessive. YechielMan 04:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • which I have included in this nomination. MER-C 05:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'agreed'DGG 06:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire. Spam. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome to the nighttime safari boat tour! I'll be your skipper today on the Leaky Westbucket! Anyways, please keep your arms, legs, tails, and tusks in the boat at all times! Pumbaa, Got your camera ready? Look! A totally misplaced Choose Your Own Adventure story appears! What do you do? You can either keep, delete, or BJAODN. Hurry up and decide, would ya! They're twiching their ears! So, what is your !vote? ... ... ... Delete, huh? So be it! AAH! A WORMHOLE! Oo1 Sorry! You just destroyed the fabric of userspacetime! )CTU( 7002 lirpA 1 ,6261 etmoP–
  • Delete and suggest the user to post those stories on Everything2.com (the website, not the article) instead. Wooyi 19:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above.--James, La gloria è a dio 21:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. Wikipedia is not Fictionpress. ♠PMC♠ 15:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I don't understand how a DVD's plot (with all the ins and outs) should be on Wikipedia. A plot summary in an article would be fine, but not this. · AO Talk 10:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 ^demon[omg plz] 19:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jamb0n6

User has 4 edits and zero useful edits. Userpage is full of crap, and WP is not a blog. YechielMan 04:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Only two mainspace edits are vandalism. MER-C 04:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 08:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hut 8.5 12:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as violation of WP:NOT.--James, La gloria è a dio 21:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd say the userpage is vandalism... Couldn't this be speedied by G5? · AO Talk 10:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Users have the right to talk about themselves, but this is just junk. RyGuy 12:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 speedy keep. Awyong J. M. Salleh 00:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

  • "So, I know that there are people in the U.S. who follow the lives of the British monarchy for whatever reason and they're called Anglophiles. So is there an equivalent word for people who follow the American scene? Amerophiles, maybe?" could have been better placed at the Language Desk. Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Ameriphile.3F.
--Parker007 20:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are plenty of other questions that do not comfortably fit into the other desks, e.g.:
If a country is just starting to participate in an Olympics event, is it allowed to send the best team they have, even though it is substantially worse than that of the other countries?
Humanities Desk involves Society. --Parker007 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
where to go in order to find the value of a set of 1994 mint condition topps series 1 and 2 trading cards for baseball. cant anyone help me out?
Humanities Desk involves Society. --Parker007 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a kid, living in the UK, I (and kids I'd meet from elsewhere in these fair isles) used to play a playground game called "Wembley". My question is, does this game exist elsewhere in the world and if so, what's it called?
Humanities Desk involves Society. --Parker007 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Branson has said that he'll pay Hawking's way on one of the Virgin Galactic flights in '09. This got me wondering, can Hawking not afford these trips?
Humanities Desk involves Society. --Parker007 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've made your point. However, by that argument Entertainment, Computing (and possibly Language) are redundant too as all are societal in origin. Rockpocket 21:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They could probably be squeezed into other desks, but these sort of questions benefit from a wide range of "common" knowledge that those who frequent the Miscellaneous Desk bring. Rockpocket 20:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, so you mean Everything in the world that can be asked is either Science, Humanities, Language, Mathematics, Computing and Entertainment. Oh, come on. Edit: Something similar to Rockpocket's argument, why can't we just have two categories: Questions beginning with the letter A and From B to Z. That would be clearly exhaustive, but utterly useless, huh? The idea of these categories is usefulness (BTW, Entertainment is clearly under Humanities, by your argument that should be removed too), not, err... logical consistence? --Taraborn 20:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! --Parker007 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get Serious for once in a while! Sheesh!--Parker007 21:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Even if the other six were exhaustive, it would be useful to have somewhere for when the questioner isn't sure of the best category Algebraist 20:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its the questioner's job of figuring out which catregory it should fit. --Parker007 21:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Why is it the questioner's job to figure out in which category it should fit? This isn't bothering anyone. We're here to help people, not to help them only if they can properly categorize their problem. This is just silly. What the heck is the point? What about questions about food, or fashion, or general health, or a whole number of topics on the murky line between your six catch-all categories? This is really just a pointless, and in fact slightly distruptive, thing to do. 70.108.199.130 21:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose So let's try to categorize some of these questions I saw on the miscelaneous desk. Keep in mind that even if you can place them in a category, odds are that this decision isn't absolute and we could find all sorts of people who'd disagree with you: "Television Buzzing", "radio scan frequencys (wilco) marlow, oklahoma. 73055", "Mobile Phone", "Netflix for Books?", "micro finance". 70.108.199.130 21:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not everyone knows where to put their question, and there are often ones which won't fit squarely with the others on any desk, and that's what WP:RD/M is for. As I've said elsewhere (that discussion seems to have been deleted, for some reason?) - as long as a desk is getting a fair number of questions, there's no reason for it to go. On a procedural note - where did all of those other discussions (WP:VPR/WP:RD go? Found them, and restoring - deletion of discussions when the consensus is against isn't a good idea :) Martinp23 21:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (keep) - The questioner does not have a 'job'. The questioner is often unfamiliar with Wikipedia, or even with the English language. They usually try their best to conform to the guidelines we give for asking a question, and try to classify something as best they can. However, sometimes they just don't know where to put something! Some questions cover more than one category, others may apply to a category, but this is unclear to someone who doesn't know much about the category, or the topic they're asking about. The categorisation of the desks is purely because we get too many questions to put on a single desk. They are divided in such a way as to try to avoid getting too many or too few questions on any one desk, while making sure that the people who are most likely to be able to answer a question are most likely to notice it. When a question clearly would get better attention on a specific desk, people usually copy it across. However, some questions need a more cross-category view than a specific dicipline provides, which misc provides. In addition, I could make an argument for all questions fitting Science, but only having a science desk would not be a positive move. In summary, deleting this would have the advantage of freeing up a tiny amount of Wikipedia disk space and encouraging some people to try harder to categorise questions, but the disadvantage of discouraging some people (the ones who are less confident, less knowledgable, less fluent in English, less comfortable with Wikipedia, etc) from asking a question at all, and remove a place to discuss questions that don't fit neatly into a category. I feel it would be a net loss. Given the below comment, I almost wonder if someone is impersonating Parker. Skittle 22:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please oppose my adminship Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Parker007. :) . --Parker007 22:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wanted an airplane identified. Sure, it could have fit science, but not very well. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It remains a very active page with regular questions and answers being given. What value is to be gained by deletion? The current set (Science/Entertainment/Humanities/Maths/Computing) are not all encompassing and it is easier for most people to see a desk they can put it in, rather than worry about putting it in te correct place. As long as there are people answering the questions posted there is no reason to delete it. ny156uk 22:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Oppose (Keep). The page is always brimming with questions, why was this AfD request even taken seriously; the page is obviously of great use, and would be sorely missed. There are no forseeable reasons to get rid of it. MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 23:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not every questioner can tell which desk a given question belongs at. The Miscellaneous desk is used and useful, and more harm than good would be done by eliminating it. Per your request, I opposed your adminship at this time. Edison 23:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
See also: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tenacious D (2nd nomination)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 ^demon[omg plz] 19:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tenacious D

Sorry, guys, but we really do not need an entire Wikiproject devoted to one act. Wikipedia is not a fansite or MySpace.

  • We already have Wikipedia:WikiProject The KLF, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd, Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. Those wikiprojects have been very productive in getting the articles, related to corresponding groups to FA or GA status. I don't see any reason why this wikiproject should be nipped in the bud, when it can, potentially, improve Tenacious D articles significantly.  Grue  12:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. We do not have a need for this project.--James, La gloria è a dio 21:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I even had to find out what this is all about so I am not involved. There are more partcipants than on many Projects and there are quite a few articles that it covers. I see no reason to delete. If the participants need it, why not? --Bduke 01:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough articles fall under it to warrant centralized collaboration. It's not particularly active but it has only been 3 months and there are plenty of members. –Pomte 02:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The project is not being abused as a WP space fansite. As long as they're working in the Wikipedia spirit to improve the place, I can't possibly see the problem. All of the projects are collections of Wikipedians with common interests and hobbies. I see no reason to single out one or the other as improper because of the project's topic. To me, that's the absolutely wrong measuring stick to use. Vassyana 04:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many editors on it, we have WikiProjects on other bands. Abeg92contribs 18:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems fine to me, and anyway, per above "Keep" voters. RyGuy 12:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2007-03-31

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. The bot that originally updated the page may be out of commission, but the bot coder has indicated that he intends to repair it; also, no one has indicated a desire for the page's deletion but the nominator. If the page is not updated within a reasonable time, sure, feel free to renominate, but try to fix it first. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Community Portal/Opentask

Has not been updated in a long time, perlre who is said to update the page isn't updating it, berland seems to have done some manual updated is the past, but stopped two months ago. I say it's time to scrap this page. →AzaToth 14:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not a fan of removing anything due to inactivity. As this open tasks list is quite open to the public, it's very likely that a bold editor might come along and update it anytime. For instance, see the changes done this month. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 15:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for Now Lets give this portal a few months before we delete it to see if it will become active. --James, La gloria è a dio 18:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Would it be possible to get a replacement for Pearle? --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think we should delete it just because Pearle isn't updating the page. Couldn't we do, as KFP suggested, and get a replacement?--theblueflamingoSquawk 19:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really do not see why not. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 19:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The usefulness of this page is completely dependent on it being up to date. If we can't keep it updated, it is not useful. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with you. If we have no one who will update it regularly then we really do not have a need for it. I think we should give this some time before we delete it though. If we can not find anyone to update it then we can delete it. Thanks. --James, La gloria è a dio 23:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, please try to fix before deleting (apologies if you have already tried). A request for assistance at Wikipedia:Bot requests would seem the first step? If deleted, we'd also need to first find a replacement for the large hole it would leave at Wikipedia:Community Portal. --Quiddity 04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Pearle has been broken for the past few months, but I can try to fix her in the next two weeks. Sorry for the neglect, the real world has been keeping me busy lately. -- Beland 20:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2007-03-30

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 ^demon[omg plz] 18:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adrak

Wikipedia is not MySpace. Of this user's ~100 edits, all but ~4 are to his user and user talk page, and he's been warned for vandalism besides. I don't think he deserves a user page (which has no non-userbox links to Wikipedia pages, by the way. YechielMan 20:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 ^demon[omg plz] 18:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Blerg1

This user IS A NOOB! Just kidding, but his talk page is impolite and incomprehensible, as if part of a walled garden. If there's a clause for "What your user talk page is not," this would qualify. YechielMan 20:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 ^demon[omg plz] 18:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pikminlover/frown

WP:POINT. Recreation of Template:Frown in user namespace which was deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 21. --Quentin Smith 09:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - legitimate users deserve fairly wide latitude in their userspace, and I don't see the harm of this. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 12:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't like it, but I don't see the harm or what violation this would constitute. Vassyana 14:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please avoid using WP:NOHARM. --Quentin Smith 14:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That applies to article space. Articles have to be neutral, verifiable, etc.; userspace items like this do not. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I probably would have problems if this were a template, but it's in userspace, which is fine with me. This also does not violate WP:POINT, in my opinion. It may make a point (as do many, many other non-article pages), but it does not disrupt the inner workings of Wikipedia. It's a cheerful anomaly. GracenotesT § 03:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while rightfully deleted from mainspace, it seems OK per the userpage guidelines. Krimpet (talk/review) 05:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Only in userspace. Abeg92contribs 12:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nothing wrong with this in userspace. The reference to its old location at Template:Frown should be fixed, though (I'm just saying). Gavia immer (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no harm in this page.--James, La gloria è a dio 19:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It made me {{smile}}. --tjstrf talk 04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I wish I had gotten a frown! [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 18:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Restore the soft redirect to the Meta version I'll just be bold, and do what everybody's suggesting: revert back to the soft redirect. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 05:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Voting is evil

  • For those who may not be aware of this page's history this is essentially how the page has sat for months until today. (→Netscott) 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the creation of Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion (WP:!VOTE) having superceded this page (in fact it evoled from it) it is now redundant paricularly given that meta:Polling is evil still exists. As well the GFDL history as mandated by the GNU license is missing. (→Netscott) 15:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • GFDL history has been added on the talk page. Note that this isn't a copy of the meta-page, it is an older version from the history of PSND on enwiki, and has been edited by several people to reflect the difference between enwiki and meta. Also, speedy keep per WP:POINT. "Voting is evil" is an ancient rule on Wikipedia; there is a dispute over the present wording of PSND but not over this. It's useful to consider the difference between the current version of PSND which some people object to (in particular, Netscott, hence this is WP:POINT) and the older wording on this page that is well-accepted. >Radiant< 15:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should simply restore the soft redirect to the Meta essay. That's what people are looking for, and I see no need for a Wikipedia-specific fork. —David Levy 16:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very much agree with David Levy... we can speedy close this if there's some agreement on that. (→Netscott) 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's not intended as a circumvention. The point is that some people object to the current wording of PNSD, and to my knowledge nobody objects to the current wording of VIE. It's probably useful to take some of the text from VIE and add that to PNSD. That's also why I took the last English version, rather than the metawiki one. Of course this doesn't really work if people are intent on deleting the page immediately. >Radiant< 16:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, people do object to the wording of VIE. That's why it was rewritten at a different title. --tjstrf talk 16:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We established long ago that the wording of WP:PNSD is less controversial. People accepted WP:VIE as an essay, but you wanted to make it a guideline. In order to do that, it needed to be revised, and the result was WP:PNSD. Whether consensus exists for that to be a guideline is irrelevant to the fact that there definately isn't support for WP:VIE as anything other than an essay (let alone the policy corollary that you've labeled it). —David Levy 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:VIE predates the entire concept of policy/guideline/essay. People didn't accept is "as" anything in particular. >Radiant< 16:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, now you're quibbling about tags (and the nonexistence thereof)? This was never treated as anything other than an essay. When you tried to make it a guideline, all hell broke loose. —David Levy 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either put back the soft redirect or redirect it to whatever the latest politically correct title happens to be. --tjstrf talk 16:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore the soft redirect to the Meta essay but without additional commentary or editorializing on whether it's a policy or an essay. It's material off wikipedia, so our definitions of those terms don't apply - people can click on the page and it explains itself. --Minderbinder 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've considered a couple of options, and I think that the best thing to do is change the title (move), keep, and mark as essay. This provides commentary upon a particular facet of Wikipedia, in this case a guideline, which is really what essays should ideally be used for. Once the page is moved, it would be best to be a soft redirect to the meta essay, with a link to the new location of the text and to WP:PNSD in a See Also section. If this were implemented, the new title (one that is not equivalent to that of the meta page) would have to be determined. GracenotesT § 17:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think that... this is rather complicated. Maybe it would be better to remove the stuff that is copied directly from meta, and only have Wikipedia-specific logic... if such a thing exists. Never mind. Given the history of this page, I don't know. I'm striking my above comments (but not the soft redirect comments) and either thinking about it, or giving up. GracenotesT § 19:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the soft redirect to the Meta version. The true believers can find it there in its pristine state, where it won't be bastardised. --bainer (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the soft redirect to Meta. POV forks (even of titles in the project space) are bad. POV forks that hide older, uncontroversial content are Very Bad. Any new versions (or old versions, for that matter) of Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion should be at that title. Gavia immer (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the soft redirect to Meta - Per above. Greeves (talk • contribs) 17:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore the soft redirect to the Meta essay Per Above:) --James, La gloria è a dio 19:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore soft redirect, the less repetition of this nonsense on Wikipedia, the better. 6SJ7 03:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 ^demon[omg plz] 18:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alansohn/B. H. Carroll Theological Institute

A copy of a wikipedia article from October 2006. After six months this page remains listed in all the categories due to the page's nature. If this is a work page there is no work done on it. Arbustoo 05:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This appears to be an active user with >30K edits. I would like to WP:AGF and assume that they meant to do something with this and just forgot that it was here. I'm going to nowiki the cats per [[Wikipedia:Content forking#Temporary subpages, and remind the user that it is there on their talk page and see what happens. --After Midnight 0001 18:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per After Midnight.--James, La gloria è a dio 19:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Metamagician3000 09:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing wrong with an archived article in user space. On the contrary, when pages fail an AfD (and even a further deletion review), one of the options is to have an admin move it to your userspace. That being so, I can hardly see how an archived article is a problem. Vassyana 04:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2007-03-29

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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, including subpages. ^demon[omg plz] 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:FIRST

This is a defunct portal page. It was originally created in 2006 by one user, and has had a total of three edits. The entire content consists of boxes with broken links and the text of FIRST transcluded into a box. Despite the "DO NOT DELETE" message, it is apparent that this portal is no longer actively maintained or edited. The community of FIRST itself has the FIRSTwiki, linked to from the FIRST article (inter-wiki links are also possible). This page is not necessary, inactive, and has never had any real content. Mazin07C₪T 23:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no indication that it has the needed content, maintainer(s) etc. feydey 01:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since it appears as though this group is trying to use the portal namespace as a web host. While this portal was not made in bad faith, I doubt that the subject is notable enough to be a substantial and encyclopedic portal. GracenotesT § 02:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no doubt that it was made in good faith. But I do doubt that they were trying to use it as a web host. It's not so much the group that's trying to do this, but one guy that attempted to build community. The group itself is a huge non-profit; Autodesk does their website. They wouldn't bother doing anything on Wikipedia. Mazin07C₪T 20:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a spam portal, very few edits and because its inactive.Tellyaddict 09:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inactive/defunct. Vassyana 14:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. --James, La gloria è a dio 19:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment as to the webhost and spam concerns, as well as notability, it's an international competition, with its own web-page and sponsored by many fortune-500 companies (in my time in FIRST we squared off against teams from NASA, Delphi, GM and Motorola, off the top of my head). That doesn't prove that this needs to exist, however, but I think the non-notability and webspace arguments are a little off-base. Wintermut3 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. John Reaves (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anarchism

Not an actual editor's page: Editor had 54 edits total since July 2005: 50 of them to this page, 1 to its Talk page, 2 to someone else's Talk page, and 1 to Talk:Anarchism in January 2006, with the last edit of any kind in September -- until yesterday, when he removed the PROD tag I added. WP is not a permanent free webhost/MySpace substitute/82Kb link farm. Calton | Talk 23:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a POV fork of Anarchism; is it more POV than the article, this week? I have always thought that sort of thing a legitimate use of user space; at least he's not involved in that interminable edit war. Add a tag saying This is not a wikipedia article; {{userpage}} might do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Legitimate use? It's a content fork -- which aren't legitimate -- made by a guy who's made no contributions -- zip, zero, nada, zilch, nil, bupkis, goose egg -- to mainspace until yesterday, when he added two words to Violence (for the record, those words were "comic books"). And his one Talk page comment (in January 2006) was, essentially "Hey, I've got a content fork on my User page, come see" [1]. Not even close to being an active editor. --Calton | Talk 00:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have added the Userpage template and removed an article template meanwhile; but this is still an article in user space. If the user wishes to work on the Anarchism article he may certainly do so; this is a POV fork kept in userspace, not a sandbox for the article, as can be seen by his actions. Delete. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork CharonX/talk 01:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this does not meet the guideline of a temporary subpage as it has been sitting here for quite some time and without activity. --After Midnight 0001 03:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatantr violation of NPOV and the userspace is written in an article format, overall it violates WP:USERPAGE.Tellyaddict 09:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. --James, La gloria è a dio 19:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates

Please discuss the deletion of this page at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 WP:SNOW delete as violation of all policy. I will be reviewing the edits of the user, blocking, and salting.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jborg

It's way past my bedtime, but it was worth staying up for this. Just when you think you've seen everything...let's just say Wikipedia is not a free web host. Maybe one of our detectives can figure out if the Savannah user has her own talk page, and delete that too. YechielMan 06:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete pure rubbish. Blatant violation of WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. Also consider warning the user... --KZ Talk • Contrib 10:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Bjaodn for we must preserve a record of this informative exchange between J and S lest they forget the intervention by "this Walter guy". –Pomte 11:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy - as "this Walter guy" might object to the references to him in the third person. I would love to (probably without authorization) turn this into a joke page, though. John Carter 15:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. James, La gloria è a dio 16:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. The editor has signed up purely to comment on his talk page. CloudNine 20:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete No actual edits here except for on his/her talk page, being used as a Myspace.Tellyaddict 09:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2007-03-28

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. —Doug Bell 08:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alfonso Leon Guillen Gomez

Not an active editor's page: Only two edits (both in October 2005) are to this page, which is only a holder for someone's personal theories on physics. WP is not a permanent free webhost/MySpace substitute nor a permanent home for not-ready-for-primetime articles or someone's original research. PROD tag added but removed by anon IP. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alfonso Leon Guillen Gomez/Superluminal. -- Calton | Talk 00:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 both. Articles not allowed in user space, especially articles that wouldn't be allowed in main space. —Doug Bell 08:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alfonso Leon Guillen Gomez/Superluminal

Not encyclopedic. Original research essay userfied in December 2005 and essentially untouched since then, from a user who has not edited at all since, well, December 2005. WP is not a permanent free webhost/MySpace substitute nor a permanent home for not-ready-for-primetime articles or someone's original research. PROD tag added but removed by anon IP. See also User:Alfonso Leon Guillen Gomez. -- Calton | Talk 00:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Throw in the related page Talk:Faster-than-light/Is Gravity Faster than Light?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calton (talk • contribs) 00:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

2007-03-27

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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, defaulting to keep. ^demon[omg plz] 18:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie

Though this page was created in humour, it adds nothing to the encyclopaedia and has multiple violations of Comment on content, not on the contributor - WP:NPA.

Two (of multiple) examples:

  • Essjay: I will create so many false references of myself that faith in wikipedia will be irrevocably damaged. HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA.
  • Cute 1 4 u guilty for blatantly killing all the manatees in the United States

While Essjay has famously left, and Cute 1 4 u is a 12yo girl banned for sockpuppet games (though after 1000+ good edits), I believe WP:NPA should still apply to both of them and "humour" is not an excuse to ridicule past contributors (whether they left on a good note or not), especially since even banned users can sometimes return after having their bans overturned.

Attempts to remove this content have been reverted, attempts to address it on the talk page has lead to aggressive responses from a user who has been at my throat for a third of a year now (who then kindly proceeded to falsly tag me as a banned user). The owner of the user space, Raul654, did not show concern in the discussion and no one else cared to participate.

Due to the circumstances described above, I do not believe it is possible to get the content removed through a civil discussion on the talk page, hence if the content won't go I think the whole page should.--Konstable 13:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've deleted the Essjay section because I considered it in bad humor. As I said on the talk page when Konstable brought this up, I see nothing wrong with making light of proven vandals. As for the page, I say keep. It's clear from the number of contributors that have edited it that they don't consider this page a problem. Raul654 15:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. James, La gloria è a dio 16:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Raul654. I question the tastefulness of the manatee joke, but it's not worth blowing up the whole story. YechielMan 17:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete userspace is not for fantasizing about various Wikipedia editors, and the existence of the WP:WPMOVIE redirect falsely give an air of authority and acceptance by the community. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that redirect violates WP:CSD#R2, and has been deleted. --19:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the redirect actually violates that criterion, as neither the redirect page nor the target page is in mainspace. Newyorkbrad 23:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP: space is a de facto namespace; however, it is, de jure, in articlespace, meaning CSD R2 can apply. That's a change/clarification I'd like to see on WP:CSD. Picaroon 00:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you relying on for that de jure classification? (Not challenging you, honest curiosity; you can reply on my talk to avoid cluttering this MfD up any further.) Newyorkbrad 01:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oof. What wikilawyering we have here, and rules merely for the sake of 'em. As though I don't see enough of that in real life. It should be noted, as an aside, that mirrors don't copy pages beginning with "WP:". Now, ZimZalaBim, doesn't the redirect WP:WPSONG also apply to this acceptance by community? I mean, I can just add a song there. Does that automatically give it authority? Acceptance by the community? Should we delete the redirect WP:ILIKEIT because some people don't like that essay? Of course not. Judging redirects based on whether or not the target page has consensus is a fruitless excercise. Someone can MFD my latent song, but can't the community also accrue consensus to remove sections of this movie page? GracenotesT § 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect was not deleted due to any estimated of "acceptance by community" (that was a comment about the impact of having a "WP:" redirect on a user page - that this user page is somehow a "WikiProject"). The redirect was deleted because it redirected to a page in Userspace (whereas WP:WPSONG does not). --17:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
If you have no other reason for deleting the redirect than because policy says so, I think we need to change the policy. GracenotesT § 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on. It was clearly an inappropriate redirect. Do we really have to have an extended discussion on it? —Doug Bell talk 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I still don't get the "clear" part, anyway. Why was there clearly a need to delete the redirect? GracenotesT § 19:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't have the patience for this today. Figure it out yourself. —Doug Bell talk 19:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. I had WP:CSD in mind, but also WP:IAR. So, I've figured it out... but the best thing to do is drop it. So I shall. GracenotesT § 19:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per User Raul654. It has been done it good tast. --Historyfan 21:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I must lodge my dissent with the recent nominations of humor articles in user and wiki namespaces. A little laugh is a good thing every once in a while. Concerns about content are best addressed through talk pages, or possibly even mediation, but not deletion. The article itself does not need to be removed in order to remove one or two contentious lines.

Wintermut3 23:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I found it very confusing when I saw that page a few weeks ago; I had to read a fair bit before I understood it was a joke (and a very bad one at that). · AO Talk 00:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If stuff like this is kept...I don't see any reason for the deletion of the page... --KZ Talk • Contrib 10:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Also, there was a motion to get rid of the BJAODN archives anyway... not sure what stage it's at. --kingboyk 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but clean up. I wrote the deletionist scene, and several deletionists I know found it funny :) I would suggest the removal of scenes 11 and 12, since they frankly aren't that funny, and the former contains incorrect information about WP:3RR. GracenotesT § 13:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's no official policy on this, it's considered humorous but not offensive to anybody. --Emperor Walter Humala · ( talk? · help! ) 13:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is the latest round in an ongoing argument over the page between User:Konstable and User:Moe Epsilon, both of whom have been extraordinarily lame about the whole issue. --tjstrf talk 17:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a clear violation of WP:USER. I'm somewhat surprised at some of the editors, whose opinions I normally respect, are suggesting that this be kept. —Doug Bell talk 18:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep anything that encourages a sense of humor, a component of civility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anything?? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The page is also clearly labeled as humor. Might as well delete all humor pages if this goes through. — Deckiller 03:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; fix the obvious problems and let it be. Not that big a deal. Ral315 » 05:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not funny.-gadfium 19:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and how comme no one told me about this nomination. I think wikipedia should have an automated bot that advises everyone that edited an article or page when it is nominated for deletions. Plus you know what... I like the part when I play Jimbo's Lawyer. --CyclePat 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While clearly intended in humor and not a personal attack, it has a very cliquey and in-jokey air to it that could be discouraging to contributors, especially the "Cast" list which has undertones of a Wikipedia "who's who" list. Cultivating an oligarchical atmosphere such as this is antithetical to Wikipedia's community effort, and is not a productive use of userspace, which is provided to facilitate that effort. Krimpet (talk/review) 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the page ... and our sense of humour. Metamagician3000 08:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Douglas Rain as AntiVandalBot? "In Soviet Russia, Wikipedia delete you"? Keep, oh please, keep! In fact, expand to include a Citizendium scene. If a community doesn't develop in-jokes, it's not a community. Anville 19:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, maybe add a scene about pointless and stupid MFD nominations. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 19:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am litterally crying from the humour! I have never felt better from such a great laugh and comment! If I wasn't such a lazy guy I'dd give you a barnstar or something.--CyclePat 02:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ITSFUNNY--Konstable 04:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Raul654. It's funny. Why delete it?--$UIT 03:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ITSFUNNY--Konstable 04:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That essay states that those scenerios are geared toward the non-MfD discussions. — Deckiller 04:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So? Then please explain why avoiding discussion and instead claiming "it's funny so keep" is relevant here.--Konstable 05:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Userspace allows people to express opinions and display information, as long as it is not taken to extremes. I believe this is a case where the humor is uniting Wikipedians in a lighthearted manner. Building team cohesiveness is a good idea in environments where people need to work together and get along. Humor - within reason - helps bind people together (imagine if a team of four workers couldn't make a joke; it would be boring, and they would not be sparked to work together as much). That's why it's so common in the workplace, and that's why it naturally carries over to Wikipedia. And that could be a very solid reason why ITSFUNNY isn't mentioned specifically in regard to userspace and essays. However, what I do agree with is that we need to take it easy: removing comments on banned users should not be allowed in humorspace, and every non-banned editor should have the right to remove any information regarding them on humor-tagged articles. Of course, there are many other reasons why this page should be kept. — Deckiller 06:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think you will find that WP:ITSFUNNY does not ban humour, nor is it any defense to a page to be kept because it's funny, nor am I saying "delete it because it's funny". So really I'm not sure how what you're saying is relevant.--Konstable 07:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • By all means, say "Delete, because it's not funny and fails to serve its function"; really, people that vote "Keep, it's funny" should have no more problem with that vote than you have with theirs. If people agree with you, they will vote in a similar manner. And you're treating ITSFUNNY like it's policy or something. Maybe use its logic, not its mere existence. GracenotesT § 16:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Various, see below. As for the broad nature of this, userspace template (awards, welcomes, userboxes) have a long history of being acceptable. If userspace activity starts interfering with the project via large guideline infractions (such as WP:CANVAS) or we are obviously being used as a free web host deletions are called for. This editor has stated below that while they did commit many edits making these userspace templates, they are pertty much done now, and they are not a userspace only editor. — xaosflux Talk 15:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is speculation that this user may be leaving the project, but they have indicated that they will be trying a WP:Wikibreak first. Should they fail to return within a month (indicating project departure) their userspace templates conditionally kept can be SUBST'd and deleted per this MFD. — xaosflux Talk 15:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Da.Tomato.Dude assorted usersubpages

Da.Tomato.Dude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a user who, at the minute of writing, has 877 edits to Wikipedia, 79 of which are to main space, with the vast majority of the rest (739) being to user and usertalk pages. Special:Prefixindex/User:Da.Tomato.Dude indicates that the user has 14 subpages of her userpage. I propose the vast majority of these pages be deleted.

Typically users are allowed a level of leeway as to what they keep in their subpages. However, I don't think that should be the case here, as this user seems to not understand that Wikipedia is about the encyclopedia. This user has shown a general reluctance to contribute to the encyclopedia, and these subpages distract her further from this goal. In addition, some of these pages are redundant.

Note, I have not nominated her Quotes or Userboxes subpages for deletion. These are relatively harmless. --Deskana (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I got sick of waiting with User:Da.Tomato.Dude/Body Shop and deleted it. I noticed new users popping up and going to that page. People've gotta learn this isn't what Wikipedia is about and I can't wait for this MfD to end for them to get that. --Deskana (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Some goofing off is acceptable, but this is way over the line. —ptk✰fgs 22:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Da Tomato Dude has been warned repeatedly to focus on the encyclopedia, and there's reams of precedent for deleting autograph pages and the like. None of these contribute to encyclopedia-building. A Traintake the 22:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me? I most certainly have not been warned.
  • Delete, these don't help the encyclopedia, and the user has been warned about it several times. --Coredesat 22:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Ptkfgs --kingboyk 22:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another user who finds it hard to edit outside userspace. As above, we're not Myspace or a free webhost. Majorly (o rly?) 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous comments. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 22:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pages don't benefit Wikipedia--$UIT 22:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stop nominating to discourage timewasting on pointless MfD's whose net effect is zero. Uninterested accounts making useless pages is a lesser evil than dozens of active editors searching for stuff to delete when that deletion will accomplish nothing. Of course, the fact that I'm posting here means I'm only making it worse :'-( Whatever. Milto LOL pia 23:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't search for them, I stumbled upon them when patrolling. And deleting them does have a purpose, that's the point of my nomination; I'm hoping it'll make the user concerned contribute more to the encyclopedia than using it as a toy. --Deskana (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone deleted all my fun crap, I wouldn't want to contribute more. Best to just leave them be, IMO - sure it sucks from an idealistic point of view, but what can you do? Other than delete every trace of them, which doesn't have any effect on mainspace... Milto LOL pia 23:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As you're an active contributor, then I'd certainly oppose any nomination to delete all your fun stuff. The flip side of your "no effect on mainspace" scenario is that if we delete all their stuff and they stop editing, then that also has no effect on mainspace. On the other hand, it stands a chance of making them contribute, whereas leaving it all will probably not accomplish this goal. --Deskana (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; uncontroversial xfds waste little time. Now let's get back to building an encyclopedia. :-) --Iamunknown 00:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#MYSPACE. / edgarde 01:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#MYSPACE. She's not contributing now (kinda the point of the nom) and the worst case is -- that she continues to not contribute? Dunno how Wikipedia will recover from a blow like that. --Calton | Talk 02:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep One of these is a userbox, duly in userspace; one is an experiment on the sort of signature I hope DTD never adopts - I prefer he play with it here; several are empty; one is a notepad, and so on. Harmless. OK, delete the empty ones, as housecleaning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete everything as WP:NOT#MYSPACE. I see no use or assistance to the encyclopedia with any of these pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Dan | talk 03:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he doesn't want to contribute anymore, that's sad. But he doesn't contribute now, and even if deleting it won't make him do so, it will convey the impression to other people that they are expected to do something to help the encyclopedia here. -Amarkov moo! 04:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a free web host. This is not MySpace or Geocities. Terence 05:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of other users have subpages of (for lack of a better word) crap, and they get to keep theirs - so why delete these? It might seem that we're out to penalize users for lack of mainspace edits-K@ngiemeep! 10:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An excellent observation! ;) Majorly (o rly?) 11:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, why not MfD user subpages of active users that do not serve to improve WP, and come under "MySpace crud"? Deleting the subpages won't encourage Da.Tomato.Dude to participate any further in the project. Server space isn't a problem, afaik-K@ngiemeep! 11:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes you're correct, but I think it's important to remember that people donate to the Wikimedia foundation to keep the encyclopedia going, not so people like this can have fun at their expense. People who do something useful as well can be given a certian amount of leeway. --Deskana (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, have you noted that a lot of D.T.D's 'unproductive' User talk: space edits have been welcoming new users? That is beneficial to the encyclopedia, no? If that is his or her thing, let them be. And I have a feeling that, looking at his or her edits, he or she is liable to hit the submit button, instead of previewing...-K@ngiemeep! 12:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • And just look at the signatures this user created for those new users. We would be better off with a bot welcoming people than this. —ptk✰fgs 12:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think criticizing the user, rather than discussing the subpages, isn't the best way to go about this. It's like whispering things behind their back. They are trying to help new users feel welcome - probably with varying success, but the good intentions are there. Perhaps ask them to stop pushing their sig book upon people? But at least they aren't doing everything totally unrelated to Wikipedia's purpose-K@ngiemeep! 12:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Considering the overwhelming majority of edits this user contributes to these pages, it is somewhat futile to attempt to separate the two. That is to say, any discussion of these pages is essentially a discussion of the user, because that is what the user primarily does. —ptk✰fgs 12:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • And the general consensus is that the user is not beneficial to wikipedia? If they're welcoming users, and attempting to encourage active participation in the project, I think it is fair to say that despite not editing the mainspace often, they're contributing to the project, if not the actual encyclopedia, and aren't just here for a "social life". Also, if you take away the edits that kinda go "many edits every few minutes to one page", it's clear that the difference between Mainspace and User (talk) space(s) isn't that large - they might just not press the preview button, which is a common trait amongst users new and inexperienced in wiki software. Also, they've even done a little vandal fighting too-K@ngiemeep! 13:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think that the general consensus is that the amount of time this user has spent on the nominated pages, when weighed against the contributions to main article space, is not beneficial to Wikipedia. —ptk✰fgs 13:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I'd suggest examining the page histories for the user subpages. You'll see that most of the edits were made within minutes (or even seconds) of eachother. D.T.D mustn't be considered to be very valuable, as most of the edits follow the pattern that usually accompanies failure to use the preview button. The difference between mainspace and userspace edits isn't that great, all things considering, and a lot of the "unbeneficial" edits to user talk space are, as I said, either vandalism warnings or welcomes. Editcountitis is a horrid disease :) (summed up, they haven't devoted nearly as much time to their subpages as people are making out)-K@ngiemeep! 13:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Essentially, what I am getting at is that the inflated amount of user space edits is due to the fact that they've not used the preview button (and have made 10 edits in 5 minutes on numerous occasions). That explains that. So the difference is probably more like, 400 productive edits welcoming and such, and perhaps 50 (broken up edits in a few minutes that can be considered as one) to user subpages. I suggest introducing D.T.D to 'Mr. Preview Article' :)-K@ngiemeep! 13:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There are periods when I have been less focused on the mainspace, and if any of my subpages were deleted, I would have left Wikipedia. I don't want that to happen to this user. Abeg92contribs 11:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I point out that if this were merely a phase on the part of the user, and that she did indeed have a good length of time contributing to the mainspace, I would never have considered nominating these pages for deletion? --Deskana (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firm Keep all with content consistent with long established tradition, but go ahead and Delete the empties-- some of these pages are semi-amusements of sorts (Signature collection?), but they are (save for awful coloration) within the bounds of reasonable.

      IMHO, This is likely a young user feeling their way and experimenting with templates (Welcom) and HTML/Wikimarkup on others. I don't see sending a message to this user as helpful mothering, in light of our traditions. Note the editor has also been given an Anti-vandalism Barnstar, and apparently does welcoming per WP:Wc, and we of the committee generally feel we can use all the welcomers that we can get. HOW and where a user contributes are not ours to decide, but their choice. Some do nothing but templates, others categories. That the user is contributing some and active recently is plain. // FrankB 14:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If we want to ban the user we should do so; making arguments that this is a <eerie music>Bad User</eerie music> and then simply deleting these pages seems pointless, or rather WP:POINT. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the items I have seen from this user and User:Onions67 have been nothing but vanadalism. Chris 14:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me, what's your basis for asserting that? If you accuse someone of vandalism, you must provide diffs to substantiate your accusation, particularly as this user has received a barnstar for fighting vandalism. I see no evidence that this user's ever vandalised any page on Wikipedia. I propose that the above comment be struck out, and the vote be discounted. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. This is an unsupported accusation which I think is false. I'm sure the closing admin will ignore this vote. --Deskana (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How did I vandalize anything...? And what do I have with Onion?! I welcomed him! Goodness, is that a bad thing to do? I'm sorry, I'll go delete that right away! Protect Tomato Rights!(sign the petition!)
          • Look at the Roar Ljøkelsøy article and User:Onions67's contribution and you will see the differences between articles that some people consider either vandalism or nonsense. Chris 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FrankB. This user has done nothing wrong. 14 user subpages? So what? IIRC, Essjay had 288 user subpages prior to his departure. This user is a relatively new contributor, making this nomination a typical example of WP:BITE, or rather WP:TEAROUTTHEIRTHROATWITHYOURTEETH. Not to mention that this page is useful and functional, and does not merit deletion. I suggest that DTD should tag the empty pages with {{db-userreq}}, and the rest should be left alone. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay. Six of these subpages are templates so I don't have to go around typing the whole "Stop, ye vandal" or "Welcome!" thing to every person that I find. One is an autograph book, and, by the looks of it, seems perfectly fine and dandy (except someone keeps wanting to go delete it). The signature page is so that I can see my own signatures and copy/paste the code when one of the Bots lecture me about not signing my posts. The "spiffy" items, well, quite frankly, I don't care if you delete those; as they were tests in the beginnning. Someone already deleted the bodyshop, fine. So, what's the big problem here? Protect Tomato Rights!(sign the petition!)
    • I agree, I'm on your side in this. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And we have messages in the Template: namespace that are already recommended for these things. The warning and welcome templates supplied in the template namespace also don't use offensive font and color formatting. —ptk✰fgs 17:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as violation of WP:NOT. James, La gloria è a dio 16:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT. User:esurfer This user has been gratuitously and maliciously deleting things I write. (UTC)
  • What? My dear sir, that is called reverting.
  • Delete WP:NOT a free webhost. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all things used as templates, Delete everything else. Wikipedia is not a free webhost; I honestly can't see how having an entire subpage for a birthday message is useful. Veinor (talk to me) 19:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whoever makes the final decision on this may want to know that these pages have absolutely nothing to do with my editing. Yes, I do work on them a lot. But, again, with the 6 being finished templates (and with my reluctance to show preview), I have nothing more to edit on them. The user talks are for either RV ,welcome, or a "Happy Birthday" (usually). There would be no point of deleting these things. What's wrong with an autograph page? OTHER PEOPLE HAVE AUTOGRAPH BOOKS AND NONE OF THEM ARE LINING UP TO HAVE IT DELETED. This is an absolutely ridicuous thing to be arguing about. Will someone settle this?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Da.Tomato.Dude (talk • contribs).
    • 'Everybody does it' is not a valid reason; many people vandalize too. I personally don't like it when people say 'EVERYBODY' does something; I know I don't (see a list of my subpages). And why are you so reluctant to preview things? Veinor (talk to me) 19:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do realize that "Everybody" is not a good reason. But, my point is, that while people are going around ripping up my signature books (which, by the way, Jimbo approves of), others are still there, perfectly fine. So, why is mine being deleted?! And, what's my point to vandalize an autograph book? D.T.D(speak)
        • Jimbo approves of them? Can you show me where he said that? And the entire issue is that you've made little to no mainspace contributions; they've mostly been working on your userspace. You've had more userspace edits than in any other two spaces combined. Veinor (talk to me) 19:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is a quote here where he said he didn't disapprove of them, but I can't imagine he'd approve of people who's purpose on Wikipedia is autograph books. --Deskana (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please sign your comments by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each post. This will append the date and time of the edit, which makes discussion easier to follow. If you wish to use a customized signature, it may be set using Special:Preferences. —ptk✰fgs 19:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Veinor. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nomination and many of the above comments. - Adrian M. H. 20:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not MySpace. And to the editor above who noted that Essjay had 288 subpages - that may be true, but Essjay (his failings aside) was a prolific encyclopedia editor who, at his time of retirement, had approximately 16,000+ edits. If DTD had 16,000+ edits, I don't think I'd care if she had 300 subpages. But she doesn't, unfortunately. So I vote delete. See comment below.♠PMC♠ 20:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're suggesting that the more edits a user has, the more irrelevant crap/user subpages they can have in the userspace, like scout-badges? One for raising an article to GA, another for voting on your first RfA! I thought that it was established that if a user is actively contributing they are given more leeway regarding userspace crap. DTD is actively participating in the project, so why not give DTD a break?-K@ngiemeep! 06:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. You know what? You're right. All crap pages should, in a perfect Wikipedia, be deleted. In fact, I've gone and deleted 9 of mine. So let me amend my previous thoughts: in theory, no one should have crap pages. But, people always will, because that is the nature of people. Editors should have a greater percentage of mainspace/encyclopedic edits than they have pointless subpages such as quote pages or autograph books. Prolific editors should be allowed more leeway in creating crap pages, because they're prolific editors having fun. On the other hand, users with a low percentage of mainspace edits should be discouraged from using Wikipedia as a personal webpage/MySpace; that's just not what we're here for. ♠PMC♠ 08:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Subpages are relevant to the community aspect of the encyclopedia and facilitate WP:FUN. The less relevant MySpacey "Spiffy Pictures" subpages have already been deleted, but there's nothing inherently wrong with using templates to substitute welcome/revert messages. I personally find them ugly, but other people find other Wikipedia:Template messages ugly as well. Deletion is unlikely to encourage editor to increase mainspace edits. Kangie: you should consider also that mainspace edits are also not getting previewed, which reduces those to an even tinier number. –Pomte 11:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the mainspace edits are reverting vandalism - it doesn't require use of the preview button to do that-K@ngiemeep! 03:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per above comment.--Emperor Walter Humala · ( talk? · help! ) 15:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because WP:NOT#MYSPACE. If a user has an abundance of mainspace edits, having a little fun in userspace is okay but if 90% of a user's edits are in namespace, there's a little problem, which is where NOTMYSPACE comes in. Axem Titanium 23:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I say keep. The Wikipedia Department of Fun wants fun here, so keep the fun. Also this user on his deleted bodyshop page gave me a new signature. Mikemoral 21:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Mikemoral 21:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC) MIKEmoral[reply]
  • Keep all but User:Da.Tomato.Dude/Signatures: This is the only one that seems disruptive to me.  ~Steptrip 01:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. I see what you mean. Alright, Steptrip, I put a tag on it. :o|
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 miscellany 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 eat the pizza and delete the page. —Doug Bell 01:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chiefsfan364/Pizza

Bizarre, unencyclopedic essay. I'm not sure what this is, but I'm sure it isn't helping us write an encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It may have been intended as humor (and failed completely) or as evangelization against pizza (real POV). Fails either way. John Carter 23:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though it made me laugh, articles like this one shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything but the pizza - maybe as a brief, diverting little section on a user page , this would be fine. But a user subpage devoted to this seems a tad too much, in terms of encyclopedic helpfulness. GracenotesT § 01:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep....kinda - Only reason, is I find it kinda funny. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 09:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I presume that is basically a delete, given there's a lot of funny stuff on Wikipedia which still violates our core policies and guidelines? 08:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • With respect, please don't try and interpret someone else's vote according to your viewpoint. Leave it to the user in question to place their vote. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have a long history of funny little essays in userspace. If you want to change that, you need a bigger policy change. Abeg92contribs 11:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There hasn't been an MfD on one of these "funny little essays in userspace" in a while. This deals with the issue of these kind of comments quite nicely. Daniel Bryant 08:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Abeg92, and, either way, "failed evangelization" is a horrible reason. POV isn't a big reason here, essays are supposed to be (at least a little) POV. Anyways, it is not an article. Protect Tomato Rights!(sign the petition!)
  • Delete WP:NOT a free web host. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not funny, not encyclopedic, no conceivable purpose in building an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Also the colors and fonts are offensive. —ptk✰fgs 17:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throw it in the trash can. I think the pizza is beginning to rot. YechielMan 18:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's in userspace, and completely harmless. This user is an active and valued contributor who doesn't deserve to have their userspace smashed apart for no good reason. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Active only in their userspace? Per After Midnight below. Daniel Bryant 08:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This "active/valued" contributor has 595 edits, 544 of which are in User/User talk namespaces. Wikipedia is not social networking. --After Midnight 0001 00:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless userspace essay. And as someone pointed out we have a history of those on Wikipedia. Gateman1997 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to Uncyclopedia. Funny, but doesn't belong here. bibliomaniac15 20:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't Uncyclofy; it has an incompatible license. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd just like to know where this current fad for deleting people's user subpages comes from. We tell users (quite correctly) that they can't fill the mainspace or projectspace up with trivial content. Fair enough. So they put it in their userspace, thinking it'll be safe, and it still gets MfD'd. Not to mention, Wikipedia is full of trivial humorous community pages. WP:HOLIC? WP:FUN? Wikipedia:List of cabals? The entire category "Wikipedia humor"? None of which are even in userspace. If you want to be consistent, nominate all of those for deletion. Then, and only then, would there be a sound argument for deleting this page. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -I completely support Walton. His comment pertains directly, and, besides, this one seems to be completely fine. It violates no rules. There's nothing wrong with this. Protect Tomato Rights!(sign the petition!)
  • Other than violating longstanding policy (as in WP:NOT, no, there's nothing wrong with that. And it ain't no "current fad", MFD used to be filled with them until the PROD procress cut down on the workload. I've tagged about 1500 of them in the last several months. --Calton | Talk 12:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My major query still stands, though: why are there pages in projectspace like Wikipedia:Whacking with a Wet Trout, which bear no relation to building the encyclopedia, that are never challenged? Yet a user creates a harmless joke essay, and everyone starts tearing into it. If you MfD pages like this, then for the sake of consistency, you need to MfD virtually everything in Category:Wikipedia humor. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. MySpace? That-a-way. --Calton | Talk 12:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page undermines the credibility of Wikipedia and does not assist in the making of a factual encyclopedia. Computernurd22 (talk)(autograph book) 01:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wait, everyone who vote delete, please tell me HOW exactly this would hurt you/wikipedia? It's a harmless sub-page of a harmless user who likes to make a joke or two from time to time (albeit, dumb jokes). For God's sake, let the man get it out of his system and keephis dignity. Stop being nit-picking little bureaucrats. It is, after all, part of HIS personal userpage. And, again, how does it hurt anything exactly? - Bagel7 04:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2007-03-25

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 - no sound basis to delete from userspace, where we give a bit of latitude to silliness. Metamagician3000 09:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


User:Sue Rangell/B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.

I am requesting a ruling on this. The nomination was withdrawn. Now it's reversed.(is that even legal?) The nominator has also moved the page while it was still under discussion. There is clearly no consensus to delete. I am asking that this whole waste of time be dropped. Enough is enough. We have to have rules.

Sue Rangell[citation needed] 22:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This seems to be a {{humor}} page with most of the text lifted from WP:ROUGE, reversing the direction (Eng Lit types: do you know the proper word? Put it here.) of WP:ROUGE and substituting ‘B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.’ for the subject. Unless I’ve missed something, that’s a reference to the Encyclopædia Brittanica, which is a contemporary work. Now, humour is a fine thing, but I don’t think it’s proper for us to make fun of a major competitor like that. Also, the hyperbolic descriptions from WP:ROUGE are mildly offensive when applied to an outside entity. So I think it’s best not to keep this essay in any namespace, in its present form. (Or maybe I didn’t get the joke.)
This page was speedily deleted as Wikipedia:B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A, but it can’t hurt to get some kind of consensus… —xyzzyn 02:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Per the discussion below, I’ve removed the potentially offending term everywhere I found it. I withdraw this nomination under the assumption that nobody wants the old term back. There’s a redirect left that can be dealt with later. —xyzzyn 01:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to withdraw the nomination, that's great, but you cannot move a page while it is still under discussion, especially if it is in someone elses user space, and without any consensus. If you disagree, feel free to nominate it for deletion yet another time, but this is getting tired. Thank you. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 22:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reason as the first. Could this be speedy deleted as a recreation of deleted content? Koweja 02:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The artical was NEVER speedy deleted. It survived a speedy delete, then was put up for deletion again. This time I felt too much time was being wasted on it, so I withdrew my objection to the delete and left it to the admins. It ended up being moved to my user page. Now it is here, up for deletion a ridiculous third time. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 05:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether it is in user space or not, it is still tasteless (and a potential PR disaster) to have a page like this. Strong delete. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A PR DISASTER??? Britannica is not Brittanica. They are two different things, spelled differently. One is an encyclopedia, the other is this. You guys amaze me. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 04:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, some silly stuff in someone's user page, so what. I recommend some people grow a thicker skin. ~ trialsanderrors 02:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the third time this article has been up for deletion in 24 hours! I'm not sure what the problem is, the article is funny, it's in my own space now, there are about 15 other articles which are very similar. I really don't understand what the controversy is all about, seriously. Now with that having been said, I will not make waves. I am standing back to let this process take it's course. It's not important to me if it's deleted or not. It's just a harmless silly little article I wrote up to fit in with a few other silly little articles I've come across. What bothers me is the amount of time being spent debating this goofy little piece. I'm not an admin, but I assume you folks' time is pretty valuable to be arguing amongst yourselves (THREE TIMES IN 24 HOURS) about this silly little thing I wrote up in about 3 minutes to get a little chuckle! You guys have spent more time discussing it than I did writing it. I don't see anything wrong with the piece, but I'd rather you delete it than waste all this time. Seriously. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 02:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've Speedy Deleted it as recreation of previously deleted material. There's been enough discussion over the deletion of this page at WP:DRV already, where the overwhelming consensus was the page should remain deleted. Moving pages about shouldn't permit the page's creator to circumvent both process and consensus. -- Nick t 02:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I userfied the article back into her userspace, that's a clear exepmtion from WP:CSD#G4. Keep your finger off the delete button if you don't understand the speedy criteria. ~ trialsanderrors 02:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's gonna end up deleted one way or the other, arguing about the reason for deletion is pretty pointless. -- Nick t 02:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. I've got nothing else to add. --James, La gloria è a dio 03:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok everyone I really don't want to see all of this time spent discussing a silly page I wrote in three minutes. I went through and edited out everything that has been mentioned so far. While it's not as long as it was, I don't see how anyone could object to it in any way. Why? Because I respect you guys and what you do. I know each of you is trying to help make Wiki a better place and I can't stand seeing all this debate and wasted time. If theres anything else I can do tell me what it is. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 03:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep have we nothing better to do than harass people over silly but harmless user pages? Derex 08:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Silly, harmless, we wouldn't even know about it if it wasn't being shunted around. – Riana talk 14:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'KeepHe why not, small essay in userspace. Abeg92contribs 15:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Neutral discontentione, WP:POINT, WP:AFG, WP:HARMLESS and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If this gets kept I reserve the right to create controversial essays on my userpage as a result using this as precedence.--WaltCip 20:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild objection to the fact that it's a straight lift of WP:ROUGE, but if it were really that objectionable, it would have been WP:OFFICEd already. In the meantime, let it lie. Userspace is the one part of the 'pedia where WP:HARMLESS actually is valid reasoning. Chris cheese whine 23:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel as if this kind of thing should be on uncyclopedia and not at wikipedia. --James, La gloria è a dio 00:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speedied this when it was in Wikipedia space because using official space to make fun of Britannica (no matter how you choose to spell it) was a horrible idea from a public relations point of view, and not in keeping with the policy against attack pages. While, I wouldn't speedy it in user space, I still consider that using any part of Wikipedia to make fun of third parties is a serious violation of what we are about. If it wasn't associated with Britannica, I wouldn't object to keeping it as is, but since it is, I favor deletion. Dragons flight 04:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. This is easily fodder for a "slow news day" story about Wikipedia (wherein the blogger/journalist doesn't know or doesn't care that it's in user space). That might be an acceptable price to pay if this was really funny and attempting to humorlessly claim it was real attack would boomerang, but, uh, no offense, but it's not funny (happens to us all) and would surely be deleted from Uncyclopedia too. So all downside, no upside. If it is kept, I'd recommend the humor tag prominently placed on top. (Also, if Sue Rangell would like to continue to work on it, I'd have no problem with giving her time; it's just that the essay as is should probably go.) SnowFire 06:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Sue says she wants to work on it, then we don't delete. Simple enough. (And if it comes to naught, a request for a courtesey blank / db-author). SnowFire 13:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer Again, Britannica is not Brittanica. They are two different things, spelled differently. One is an encyclopedia, the other is this. The article has nothing to do with any encyclopedia, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA! (Sorry about the added emphasis, but it keeps getting ignored as you can see by reading above) Brittanica is also a female name. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 17:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...no, I saw that before, it's just that it doesn't make a lick of sense. Are you saying that the similarity between the two words is coincidental? Come on; what little humor that is here rests on the fact that this essay suggests that the encylcopedia Britannica has some fiendish plot to covertly destroy Wikipedia. This would just be bizarre, unfunny paranoia if it was entitled Y.O.L.E.T.E.K. or something else totally unrelated. And if you didn't mean to draw a connection to the encyclopedia, you do realize that this will be interpreted as Britannica anyway, right?
Explaining humor is normally a losing endeavor, but How to be Funny and not just Stupid gives it a shot. This joke is fine as a side reference in Wikipedia:Primogeniture; it suggests that one of the few ways to fall from grace involves working for the shadowy and mysterious "enemy," and leaves it at that. Actually detailing the organization isn't funny. Imagine someone wrote an article about the secret organization R.U.U.S.I.A. (not Russia!) that is engaged in secret attempts to destroy the West or something. It sounds more like the insane rantings of an isolationist, not humor (though interestingly enough, if you went completely over the top with this, then it could work again- turn it into an actual scenery-chewing rant about the evils of Britannica and how they will destroy freedom, dignity, and civiliation itself if they succeed against Wikipedia, the one true hope of mankind). SnowFire 20:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, because it would be bad precedent to delete HARMLESS stuff from user space where so much OTHERCRAPEXISTS. However,
Sue, you invited me into this discussion. I am quite honored to find you respect my integrity, since our previous relationship was because I reverted your lame gag. You were right to trust my integrity on the issue of policy, because you are not winning me over on humor. You know a joke when you see it, but you don't know a good one from a weak one. One log floats. Lash two together and they both float. Lash several together and you have a raft that floats. However, you will not have a boat. Good comedy requires proper selection and crafting of each joke to fit into the whole. Don't quit your day job; you are not a humor engineer. — Randall Bart 20:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Bart (I think!), I don't hold anything anyone says against them. I know all of the detractors above are just trying to do what's best for Wiki, even if we don't all agree. It's all good! :) Sue Rangell[citation needed] 01:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As we all know from The People vs. Larry Flynt (actually Hustler Magazine v. Falwell), it doesn't matter if this scores a 10 on the funny scale, but if any serious person could seriously confuse this with a serious essay. Last time I checked the admin bit doesn't come with a bad humor delete button. (This is in no way a judgment on the humor content of this essay, but on the case of Kollektive Admin Kneejerk that seems to hit this little community from time to time.) ~ trialsanderrors 04:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, If someone wants to have a joke, feel free, just keep it in User space (like it is now), I'm sure you could find equally poor jokes in an administrators userspace, has anyone put them up for deletion? --NigelJ talk 20:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this page being in user space. People extoll the various appropriate acronyms above. ;) Vassyana 09:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; unfunny rouge spinoff and we have no business taking stabs at Britannica. Yes, Sue, I've read your "It has nothing to do with Encyclopedia Britannica" rant, which makes no sense. TomTheHand 17:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest of all possible deletes. Yes, it's an attack page, but even if it were spelt correctly, EB could suck it up. (Sue, your link is to a redirect which spells Britannica wrong; the actual page is Insecta Britannica Diptera, as is the book.) On the other hand, I really dislike meddling with user space unless necessary, and this isn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but Brittanica is also a girl's name. :) That's what seems so odd about this whole discussion. It's as if I made up a fictitious group called L.I.S.A. and people were concerned that Apple computer would object because they have a product called Lisa, except this isn't even THAT good, because the acronym doesn't even spell out correctly. I regret that this silly little lark has wasted such a large amount of everyone's time. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 18:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
False analogy, as your essay has no visible relation whatsoever to Apple’s product. So why not just substitute B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. by L.I.S.A. (or Y.O.L.E.T.E.K. or, for that matter, S.U.E.)? —xyzzyn 17:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a false analogy at all, in fact it's dead on. As for the reason B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. was used...Because the link from the originating page used it! You make it sound like I made up the acronym, I didn't. It's on other pages as well. I could have sworn this was explained above. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 04:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I searched, but only found it on WP:ROUGE (where you added it) and WP:PRIMO (and MFD, DRV and various talk pages, of course); either instance could be easily changed for consistency. —xyzzyn 09:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. to be consistant with other pages, not the other way around. If WP:PRIMO had used Y.O.L.O.T.E.K. then that's what I would have used. If you want to go change the references on those other pages, or put those pages up for deletion, nobody can stop you I suppose, but this whole thing as gone too far (In my opinion) as of a week ago. Never in my life would I have imagined such a goofy little joke creating so much controversy! I don't care what happens to the article, I leave that to the wisdom of the admins, but I find the PROCESS fascinating. People discussing policy, etc. etc., and how even a silly little humor article gets the same attention as an article on a king or president. I'm humbled. I want to thank everyone (Pro and Con) for the lesson and the insight. Be well. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 20:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed WP:PRIMO and User:Sue_Rangell/B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. and moved the latter to User:Sue Rangell/Y.O.L.O.T.E.K.. WP:ROUGE doesn’t currently link to it, although I’m not sure whether the reason is good. (I used Y.O.L.O.T.E.K. because it doesn’t currently get any Google hits and I want to fix that.) —xyzzyn 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(By the way, that’s not a typo. It’s the British spelling of Y.O.L.E.T.E.K.…) —xyzzyn 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate for deletion if you choose, but PLEASE refrain from rewriting (or moving) articles in my user space, and changing other articles that link to it. The rule clearly states you cannot move pages until the discussion is over. I have repaired the damage. Thank you Sue Rangell[citation needed] 21:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this means the acronym is important, after all. —xyzzyn 22:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

2007-03-31

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Speedy close as a bad faith nomination by a single purpose account. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense

Just a collection of patent nonsense, and unencyclopedic. Not needed. You'll slag me off for this, no doubt. We don't need this, not even cut-down. No way, nada, not at all. Mas que nada. --Havelstand 16:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC) — Havelstand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Speedy keep. "Don't need it" is an insufficient rationale to delete a page that has one of the longest histories on WP. Page is in project space and tagged with {{humor}}, so there is no risk of it being seen as a serious encyclopedia article. Suspect nominator has climbed the Reichstag, dressed as Spider-Man. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as SPA nomination and too close to the previous quasi-nom. Take your Spider Man suit off. WP:UNENCYC. PTO 16:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Kaustuv. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, WP:SPA. --Conti|✉ 16:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 speedy delete, you can use {{db-spam}} for these (which will get you a far quicker response than saying it in bold). --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:THE EP'S

Wikipedia is not myspace. User has zero encyclopedic contributions and was last "active" six months ago. Contested prod. MER-C 09:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I wish. MER-C 13:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia should not be used as an alternative for myspace. Wooyi 16:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This is a clear violation of WP:NOT. Wikipedia user space should never be used as a webspace provider! When will people learn that?:) Peace:)--James, La gloria è a dio 19:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 speedy deleted as attack page. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 15:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tvoz

This page was created by SLCUT841 (talk · contribs), an obvious sockpuppet of Dereks1x (talk · contribs) who, at the time of this writing, only has three edits. SLCUT841 brought this SSP in bad faith, evidenced by an almost complete lack of diff evidence, the absurdity of the claim, and the fact that it was never transcluded to WP:SSP. Creation of this SSP is disruption and a violation of WP:POINT. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dereks1x. Delete. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

2007-03-30

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 per WP:SNOW. ^demon[omg plz] 22:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Oh my God! You Deleted Bad Jokes and Other Nonsense! You bastard!/Pope Benedict XVI

The only apparent purpose of this page is to show a Pope Benedict XVI infobox with a picture of Palpatine in it. This is pointless, not particularly funny (there are other sites that do the same thing in a much funnier manner), and even though the fair use of the Palpatine screenshot could probably be defended under U.S. law as satire/parody, it is against Wikipedia policy at this time. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (as long as only the sub page gets deleted, not the BJAODN page) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  04:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless, image use violates Wiki policy. bd2412 T 04:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Only purpose is to show Darth Sidious as Benedict the 16th? Nonsense! There's also an image of the Digimon Emperor as Benedict in his younger days. That said, Delete. The joke's hardly original and they could do it just as easily on Uncyclopedia. --tjstrf talk 04:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - first thing I thought when I saw that page is "Oh my goodness! Is that image fair use?" If the whole article were transformed creatively, it would be worthy of a BJAODN subpage. But this is an under-implemented idea that falls flat on its face. If anyone else feels the need to fully vandalize the Pope Benedict XVI article, please go ahead. GracenotesT § 14:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lame joke, stupid, rude, probably offensive to most Catholics, but most importantly, not all that funny. BJAODN is the treasure trove of funny or otherwise clever vandalism: keeping this one would be like keeping every time some random idiot replaced someone's name with the word "penis". K. Lásztocska 14:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most of the Bad jokes in BJAODN are actually good, or at least funny, jokes. This one isn't. John Carter 15:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete personal attack towards the pope that isn't actually funny. Wooyi 16:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very offending and not funny at all. --James, La gloria è a dio 19:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 speedied per user request. 21:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Shamir1/Arguments on Israel

  • Delete essentially a political essay on userspace. Wikipedia is not a political advocacy forum and as a violation of user subpage guidelines on WP:UP (in particular the section titled "What can I not have on my user page?"). Jersey Devil 14:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll disclose my pro-Israel bias here. We have to gauge the intentions: is he using Wikipedia as a soapbox, or stockpiling reference points in case NPOV disputes flare up on Israel articles? I think it's the former, but I'm not 100% sure. YechielMan 16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Creator blanked the page (except template) after the MFD was posted. Is that a request for deletion? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. I interpret it as CSD G7, and will tag it accordingly. YechielMan 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 speedy keep. No one has seriously proposed that the poll pages be deleted, so this only distracts from the real issues. Please discuss what should (or shouldn't) be done at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll‎ (instead of forking the discussion into yet another meaningless vote). —David Levy 16:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a previously uninvolved admin, I second this close. --RobthTalk 17:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll

Per comments on the Talk page here, and in other locales, it appears groups of editors are specifically against Jimbo's specifically requested public poll to gauge thoughts/support on the idea of the ATT merger. As it has been stated that the Poll is "dead" per users such as User:WAS 4.250, I am nominating this. If there is wide spread support to run this poll, this page should be kept. Nominated as if concensus is we will not honor Jimbo's request, we shouldn't waste time on the poll construction. I notice primarily older admins that work on policies heavily are overtly against the poll. AGF, but it has the appearance of their not wanting to yield the semblance of authority/power over policy to the unwashed masses. - Denny 16:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Please don't speedy close this anyone. As this is so wildly contentious I think everyone should have a couple days to weigh in. - Denny 16:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Denny. I was in the process of doing just that when you posted the above. I know that you're trying to help, but this only added to the confusion. —David Levy 16:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the fact that we are polling on this page's deletion. (→Netscott) 16:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; but this is a perfectly good place to discuss whether it should be marked as {{historic}}. I did not see any one against a poll, as such; almost all the proposed wordings for the poll have been opposed by someone as biasing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The argument here isn't so much whether we should have a poll as which of the 18 slightly different wordings it should take. For the VIE arguers, which are the only group I've seen outright oppose the poll, if voting is evil then having a vote over whether to have the vote sure won't help. --tjstrf talk 16:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the argument IS should we have the vote, hence the nomination. Some do not want to expose ATT to a wide public poll, despite Jimbo specifically asking for it. If the idea is dead against Jimbo's wishes, lets delete it and save time. - Denny 16:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Brimba 16:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Premature. It's not yet clear what we're supposed to be voting on. Give them a break. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, to avoid complete collapse of the space-time continuum. I'm this close to nominating the MFD page for deletion, so we can have a poll over whether to have a poll over whether to have a poll. :-). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Jimbo suggested a poll. For more that a week, we have been telling the community that there is going to be a poll. We posted anouncements at the Pump... we put it at the top of the community discussion page... we even put it on everyone's watchlist. To now decide "nevermind" we are not going to have a poll after all would be very, very wrong. People are expecting to have a poll. Even a bad poll is better than no poll. Blueboar 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the page. This isn't about whether to keep the poll. That can be removed and the page marked as an archive without losing useful discussion through unnecessary deletion. Angela. 16:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I oppose deleting of policy development pages in general. If the community has rejected this idea or this process, mark it as rejected or historical and move on. Having the history of how Wikipedia got to a particular policy or process is just as important as the process itself. Furthermore, MFD is not to be used as a "backdoor" to kill something you don't like. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the poll/process. I MfD'd to get a decision/concensus on the "poll is dead/we won't poll for this" nonsense. - Denny 16:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict x2)* Keep I'm sorry to see that the attribution policy has become such a sordid fiasco. That being said, it should have its day in court, and the poll should proceed. Somehow people have to agree on which of the five versions is best; any of them is better than none at all. YechielMan 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, even if the poll never happens, at least we have a historical record of the near lameness that has surround this whole issue. Alternately, MfD this page per AnonEMouse (talk · contribs) (that one cracked me up).--Isotope23 16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that I have some concerns about the process, but overall the poll is a good idea, and should be allowed to run. If we can't agree on wording, then let's just make it a simple one-question, "What is your opinion on the Wikipedia:Attribution situation?" and let each editor post their own opinion in a single bullet point. That should probably reveal a clear consensus on most of it, and then anything else that's still vague, we can run a separate poll with a more clearly-stated question. --Elonka 16:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Denny, am I understanding that you nominated this for deletion so it would NOT be deleted? What, are you hoping for a precedent? Why couldn't this discussion have been had at the poll's own (talk) page? Kelly Martin (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominated it because there is heavy talk on the page that the poll altogether is dead from admins that heavily work on policy, and that there shouldn't be a poll regardless of what Jimbo wants. Based on that, I nominated for deletion. If some admins/users have decided the poll is dead, we can kill Jimbo's request, nuke the work on the poll, and stop having a hundred plus editors fighting over what to do with this poll. - Denny 17:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2007-03-29

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Speedy delete as a probable reaction of deleted content and as a userpage not attached to a user. --Deskana (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fishieey/Sandbox

This is considered nonsense, and does not contribute to the writing, building up, or edits of this user or Wikipedia. DTD

Comment - After asking the help desk, I have confirmed that it is "against the law" to have nonsense on your page. DTD
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 miscellany 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 salted by Knowledge Seeker. --ais523 08:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Willren

Page is being used only for personal non-Wikipedia chat. This was the subject of a WP:ANI incident report, but user has continued to use page for the same purpose. Apparently a single-purpose chat account. RJASE1 Talk 02:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was about to nominate it myself. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; in fact, I was going to block the account, but the user has edited from an IP address as well. If the page is deleted, I am sure he will just recreate it with new messages. I think the best thing is to block the account, delete the page, and recreated and protect it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I think I will just go ahead and do this. I believe it should be noncontroversial; if anyone objects please let me know; I can always undelete it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right; I deleted it, then re-created it and protected it. I left the account unblocked. As long as no one objects, could someone close this discussion? Thanks — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2007-03-28

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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.

King Edward VI Five Ways DJ Wright House Chess Trophy

The result of the debate was speedy close, this is MfD and the nominated page is an article. Would move to AfD, but this is a {{db-authora}} so I'll put a speedy tag on instead. --ais523 15:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I made it and want it to be deleted. It was only here because it was nowhere else, and now it is somewhere else, so it can be linked to from the main school page. It is not required anymore. Alex Holowczak 14:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

2007-03-27

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. Daniel Bryant 06:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Republika Srpska

Project is a later equivalent of the extant Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia. Proposed project for merging with WPSerbia yesterday, and received response that simple deletion and possibly insertion of a redirect might work just as well, given the page's lack of content. Am acting on that advice. John Carter 15:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Because there is a similar project. --James, La gloria è a dio 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Little information, of what I can see their is no members and too small of a scope for a Project.Tellyaddict 16:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant, project scope is too narrow. Terence 05:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom // laughing man 15:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 both. Daniel Bryant 06:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:LiA112692 and User:Neru Valentine

Partial userfication and cross-namespace links trying to avoid AfD on the main namespace pages while still looking "encyclopediac". WP is not your personal website and/or WP:SPAMish for non-notable WP:MUSIC/WP:BIO. DMacks 03:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Cases like this depend partly on the user's general behavior. These users have done absolutely nothing except to create these pages. YechielMan 05:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. No other encyclopedic contibutions. MER-C 13:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as inappropriate uses of userspace. I've orphaned the images since they're duplicates and fair use violations. --Coredesat 15:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per all of the above comments. James, La gloria è a dio 16:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 per WP:ROUGE. >Radiant< 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Rouge admin

How does a page full of mockery and drivel belong in wikipedia official policy space. If it is an inside joke between a handful of users, then it belongs in user space. —Kymacpherson 14:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 early deletion per my own ideal that a user who has no edits to the article space does not get the privelege of a userpage.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Korean History

Personal essay, Wikipedia is not a free web host. User has made no encyclopedic contributions. Contested prod. MER-C 10:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 speedy delete - WP:CSD#G8. --Coredesat 16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:World best guitarist

test edit by User:220.227.2.54 that was followed by vandalism of C (programming language) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Speedy Keep and refer to WP:AN/I and/or WP:RFC. MFD is not the place to ban users from running user scripts. Warn/Block, followed by longer blocks if they are being disruptive. — xaosflux Talk 00:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:LegoAxiom1007/monobook.js

Please see User:LegoAxiom1007's edits. He has been consistently abusing Twinkle. His monobook should be deleted and salted to prevent this abuse. WP:AIV rejected a vandalism report [2]. Nardman1 20:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of his edits appear legitimate but most of them are sheer nonsense. See his talk page. Nardman1 20:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question: Is Twinkle a script that requires approval before use (a la Vandalproof)? If so, having the approval revoked might be a more straightforward procedure than this MfD, as I for one have no ability to look at script code and tell if it's legitimate or not. Newyorkbrad 22:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the code is available here. The code is perfectly legit, it's the user's actions with it that are suspect. He even has one block for misusing Twinkle and multiple requests for him to stop using it on his talk page. Basically everything he's been warned for (invalid AIV reports, invalid protection requests, invalid diff reversions, etc) are all based on just randomly applying this tool to the wikipedia whether it was a good edit or not. Nardman1 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't delete my Javascript page! I need it for future scripts. Why are you deleting it? >:( IsuzuAxiom1007 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the way to do this. The purpose of MfD is not to ban people from using scripts, no matter how much they deserve it. I've already suggested it over at the community ban discussion, but there are valid reasons he might want other Javascript, so even then it wouldn't be appropriate. -Amarkov moo! 04:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean you're not going to delete my JavaScript file? IsuzuAxiom1007 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... this is a discussion to determine that, and it isn't over yet, I don't think. I wouldn't be the one deleting it anyway, like anyone else who commented here. -Amarkov moo! 04:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess so. So, do you love my WikiLove template? --IsuzuAxiom1007 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummm... I don't know... if he's misusing the scripts, then there must be another way to solve that problem... Abeg92contribs 11:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Proper way to handle this is through warnings, blocking, and banning, if it comes to that. --After Midnight 0001 00:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But warn him not to abuse TWINKLE (or to stop using it altogether). If he/she continues, block. Much simpler than this IMHO. · AO Talk 00:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2007-03-26

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Speedy Delete blatant violation of WP:NOT (a free web host). Left user a link to WP:USERPAGE. — xaosflux Talk 01:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ms. Vincent's Grade10 English

It looks like this user page is being used to store notes for a class (note the username). This is inappropriate use of user space - "extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia". Also violates WP:NOT a free webhost. Coredesat 23:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete even though I feel kinda bad for them losing all their work. i kan reed 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... but don't speedy ... per Ikanreed, give them a couple of days to copy the content somewhere. Newyorkbrad 23:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 speedy redirect. —Doug Bell talk 16:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject MLB

Proposed project seems to be a shortcut to the Baseball project. Maybe. I'm not sure if it really has to be nominated for deletion to be made into a redirect, so I'm playing it safe. John Carter 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 deleted userpages and blocked users responsible as they have had absolutely no constructive edits to Wikipedia. I even found childish vandalism on several edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zuo Ci Cheat

For some reason, these people think their userspace is for playing silly games. It is not. Also nominated is User:King Logo and User:Xv8M4g3r, all of whom have made no encyclopedic contributions. Only User:Zuo Ci Cheat is a contested prod, but I threw all of these together as they are part of the same walled garden. MER-C 10:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. Daniel Bryant 09:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tulips

This project, which apparently deals with tulips or amrita or maybe both, has no real content and does not give any indication as to which articles it might deal with. It also has no listed members. John Carter 20:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lacking content. Honestly, how much collaboration is necessary for tulips? I think BJAODN needs a WikiProject section - oops, I shouldn't have mentioned BJAODN... :) YechielMan 05:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is the example project used in the documentation on WikiProject organization at WP:COUNCIL. Since it is an example of how WikiProjects are organized, it is not intended to have a great deal of content. Slambo (Speak) 10:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it wasn't intended to be an actually existent project; all the needed example material is in the guide itself. Kirill Lokshin 11:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this WikiProject is inactive . There's no need for a specific WikiProject on tulips or amrita. This page is redundant and what project collaboration is need for working on a specific flower family? Its very unlikely someone will add content to the WikiProject and there is no content. Terence 11:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN it. <cough> Apparently WP Tulips is the example project given in the WikiProject Council guide (as mentioned above); it's been created and deleted before as a test page. It might not do any harm to have such a test page but not as a live WikiProject, so delete (could probably be speedied as a recreation/test). --kingboyk 11:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is clearly vandalism, just a copy of the project guide version. No real members, only one edit to the main page (not counting mfd notification), no talk on talk page. Branson03 14:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a few reasons. 1) It is not active. 2) There is not enough collaboration needed for tullips for a wikiproject. James, La gloria è a dio 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It contradicts it's self, contains litle information (that could be changed) and seems inactive.Tellyaddict 16:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per comments above. Inactive does not help wikipedia.--Historyfan 21:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough scope for a WikiProject. · AO Talk 00:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems like a test page. Either way, it is not a WikiProject. That said, if someone decided to start an actual WikiProject, and obtained enough users, with enough interest, then I don't see why it should be speedied under CSD G4... but that is not the case right now. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. Daniel Bryant 09:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Social networks

Project page has zero content, and has not had any added in the over three weeks since its creation. John Carter 19:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a potentially useful project to organize social networks, but now it is abandoned. Delete it for now and allow someone to recreate it. Wooyi 19:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since it has been abandoned and will probably not become active. No reason to keep. --James, La gloria è a dio 20:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inactive WikiProject. Terence 11:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Pastordavid 14:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. Daniel Bryant 09:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical figures

Page has no real content, no real links, and is redundant to boot. John Carter 18:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Sadly, yes; I hoped that something might come out of this, but it turned out to be a dead end. Game over, I suppose. --PaxEquilibrium 18:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not active enough. --James, La gloria è a dio 20:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. DrKiernan 07:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ... consider as a task force for WP:Biography. -- Pastordavid 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. Daniel Bryant 09:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject P2-search peerpedia

The week we were requested to wait ended in February. Since then, the project page remains substantially without content or any clear indication as to what it is supposed to do. John Carter 17:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. Daniel Bryant 09:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boyoung Song

Wikipedia is not myspace. Included in this nomination are User:Joosep Parts, the former user's vanity pics - Image:Bosand.jpg, Image:3koreans.jpg and Image:Tapout.jpg. Also nominated are some more vanity pics used in pages I have prodded: Image:From left madarshahi, yousefi,sanaie ,azhari3.JPG, Image:From left madarshahi, yousefi,sanaie ,azhari3.JPG, Image:DSC000397b.JPG, Image:Arsames 3.JPG, Image:From left madarshahi, yousefi,sanaie ,azhari3.JPG and Image:King tex.jpg. None of these users have made encyclopedic contributions. Contested prods. MER-C 10:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

2007-03-25

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 speedy delete, attack pages. Picaroon 21:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Big_Sissy

WP:NOT Not a free webhost Fredrick day 19:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Speedy Delete as orphaned typo duplicate of Wikipedia:Gray's Anatomy images with missing articles 17. — xaosflux Talk 12:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Gray'Anatomy images with missing articles 17

Wikipedia:Gray'Anatomy images with missing articles 17 (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Gray'Anatomy images with missing articles 17|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a duplicate of Wikipedia:Gray's Anatomy images with missing articles 17 (note the extra "s " after the apostrophe) that was the result of an unlikely typo on Wikipedia:Gray's Anatomy images with missing articles, which has now been fixed. There are no inbound links. Selket Talk 08:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, inadvertently created page. Policy hardliners may wish to ask the creator, User:Omes, to formally request a speedy deletion, but I seriously doubt that's necessary. --tjstrf talk 08:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. Daniel Bryant 09:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject African Union

Inactive WikiProject with only three members. Purpose eclipsed by the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa. This nomination also includes Wikipedia:WikiProject African Union/to do, Template:WikiProject African Union, Template:User WikiProject African Union, and WP:WPAU. Picaroon 22:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 tagged as historical. As with all {{historical}} things, if someone wants to reactivate it, and has the support of the community in doing so, then that's fine. Daniel Bryant 09:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Great editing in progress

This page was created in April 2004 with the purpose of letting people know about the good work of someone, yet there have been less than 100 edits to the page (since its creation three years ago) and the most "recent great editing" was added in June 2006 [3]. The only reason it survived the previous nomination is that a few editors thought people could use the page more. In fact WP:GEIP is scarcely ever used and I don't see a reason a why it should exist any longer S. Miyano 12:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tag historical. I don't see any advantage to deleting the majority of community pages, but if it's inactive then it should be marked as such. --tjstrf talk 18:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make historical I agree with tjstrf, mark as {{historical}}. Because of the low number of edits their and its general worthiness are low.Tellyaddict 19:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resume using. I know that's not a proper MfD !vote, but actually, I like the idea of this page very much. Newyorkbrad 22:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but mark as historical. --James, La gloria è a dio 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark as historical; this can always be reversed if, as Newyorkbrad suggests, people resume using it. Disuse of this page doesn't entirely surprise me, though, given what most people seem to think should be expected of a user – Qxz 02:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark historical inactive project, but potentially resumable. Wooyi 03:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag as historical. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 08:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical - per above ...personally I think that we could stand to delete some of these historical pages, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. -- Pastordavid 14:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=119498474"