Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

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

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

• Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText: and the various Talk: namespaces
• Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
• Pages in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
• Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace	If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?	Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace	Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first. Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion. User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion. Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages	Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere. Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages	It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication. Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion	Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems. Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD	Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

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

How to list pages for deletion

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted) Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process. I. Edit PageName: Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion: {{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}} for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}} or {{mfd|GroupName}} if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page. If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox. Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages. Please include in the edit summary the phrase Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion. Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit. Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone. Save the page II. Create its MfD subpage. The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry" Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page. Insert this text: {{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically. Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate. Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. Save the page. III. Add a line to MfD. Follow   this edit link   and at the top of the list add a line: {{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}} Put the page's name in place of "PageName". Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. Save the page. If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add {{priorxfd|PageName}} in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions. If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page. For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add {{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~ to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion. If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages. If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	12	15	27
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD
FfD	0	0	0	2	2
RfD	0	0	8	33	41
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Discussions

Active discussions

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

2008-05-08

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. – ClockworkSoul 23:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dragon Quest

This is an subproject of the Video game Project that has been tagged as inactive since November last year. The project was only active for approximately nine months, with no subpages generated.
See also discussion on VG Project talk page and inactive VG projects cleanup page for details. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect: Though the scope of the topic is much greater than the recently deleted TimeSplitters Project (admittedly not by much), the inactivity certainly doesn't warrant the project staying as is. And keeping an inactive project like this around can be confusing for newcomers looking to edit video game articles. The only alternative I can suggest would be to redirect it to the VG Project in the off chance interest in the topic increases somewhere down the line. Even then, it would work better as a task force than a full project. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC))
• Keep. Do we delete inactive WikiProjects? Make it a subpage of VG Project, but do not delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Even if the scope of the project only encompasses 30 articles? The reason this was brought to MfD is because the project had not really accomplished anything and there was little to no interest in collaboration on the DQ articles. Would a redirect work instead? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC))
    • If it only encompasses 30 articles, then its not a server space issue, which it is not anyway. I oppose deletion of the records of activities and failed activities. Archiving is preferable, but a redirect would be fine, if you prefer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, I'm all for a redirect. Though honestly, I wouldn't really oppose deletion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC))
• Keep/redirect, etc. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to WP:WikiProject Video games, or Delete and history-merge into the same page (I'm more for redirecting, however). --Izno (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment- How about demoting project into task force and redirect there. If it remains inactive, then the task force might as well be deleted. Although I have a feeling that it will remain inactive, so like Guyinblack25 I too don't oppose deletion. I just like to consider the options. —Preceding unsigned comment added by .:Alex:. (talk • contribs) 04:17, May 11, 2008
• Redirect. Per comments above.Renee (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I guess a little more background info might be needed. Because there are so many inactive video game subprojects, we're trying to do some clean up to consolidate resources and help new members not get lost. Some other inactive Projects were switched to task forces, but they still had some editors interested in working on the articles (Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Warcraft and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/StarCraft). There are already several such task forces, some of which may also be inactive. Deletion was brought up because this project does not have any interest from editors. Though redirecting to the main VG Project page will leave it open to future interest. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC))
  • Comment - While redirects are cheap, would a delete summary of "See 'this' page" work (is that allowed?)? --Izno (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect per other comments Randomran (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect I'm not sure if this project is interesting enough to leave it there and mark it as "historical" --Enric Naval (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. If this ever gets back together, we can fix it. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 13:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn and moved to WT:BOT Monobi (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group

The Bot Approvals Group has been by far one of the most argued over formal groups on Wikipedia. It's existences seems to come out of the will of 4 users who thought more process was needed in Wikipedia (link) In short, this process was never "ratified"/approved by the community.

While the idea of having some way to check the validity of a code is worthwhile, the community, not a group of users who approve new members themselves, should make the final decision in approving a bot. A formal group like BAG does NOT need to exist to check the validity of a code and the worth of a bot.

The process for joining BAG is shady and switches whenever their control is threatened. Previously discussion took place on the talk page of BAG. However, once a previously MfD was created about BAG and the community complained over the "cabal" of the process, BAG sought to fix this by allowing anyone to join. This was short lived, and BAG went back to the old way of adding users. Soon enough the community cried out again over the cabal nature, and BAG added itself to the RfA main page. Again, when one of the current BAG members would of failed joining BAG, (see link for ST47) the group switched back to the old way, which takes place on a unwatched talk page, of approving members.

This unwarranted and unapproved process needs to be stopped. No more reforms, no more process wonk. The community should decide the fate and usefulness of a bot, not a selective group of users. If, indeed, later down the road the community would like to have a group oversee the validity of a code, then a whole new community approved process can start.

Eliminate BAG, but continue to add bots to be approved on the WP:RFBA page. The community can then go there and, with consensus of the community as a whole, decide the usefulness of a bot. Those who are in BAG can simply comment on the validity of the code/script. If you want to complain this doesn't get enough traffic, then add it to the RfA main page. Monobi (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, unneeded bureaucratic process that would be better served by the community. May be better to mark as historical. Al Tally (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep MfD is a WP:POINT β^{_{command 2}} 22:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Incorrect, please assume good faith and give a proper reason for your !vote. !Thanks Al Tally (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. MFD is not the place to change policy. --Carnildo (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Here is as good as anywhere. And the said policy was never agreed upon (see the link in the nomination, and this.) Al Tally (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep: I tend to agree in that this does seem to be a POINT nomination. Monobi knows that I assume Monobi knows that MFD is no place to discuss this sort of thing. We don't change (or delete) existing policies / practices at MFD, especially those that are active. I'll comment on the issue itself though; it does seem that BAG runs efficiently and effectively, so I wouldn't want for it to be abolished. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please check your facts (1, 2). Where do you propose then, RfC ? Monobi (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected the wording. My apologies for implying that you already know. And yes, I believe RfC would be far more productive than this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to point out that this is the wrong forum. No matter whether or not the group is terminated, we actually want to keep the page (because it's historic documentation we can use to show that such groups are a good/bad idea). So hello, no deletion please!

At some point we might consider (briefly) blocking people who make such mfd nominations, if only just to wake them up and get them to grasp the concept that MFD is not really suitable for this kind of thing.

I'm not going to close this time. Someone else can do it. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC) mfd is designed to handle deletion debates, the format is not suited to discussing how wikipedia works or should work. Use the right tool for the right job. Feel free to post on relevant project namespace pages and talk pages!

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted under G6 by MZMcBride. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:158.125.9.4/monobook.js

monobook.js page of a shared IP – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, Monobook does not works on talk pages, and is not available for IPs. Macy (Review me!) 20:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Huh? Why on Earth would this be at MfD? Deleted under CSD#G6. Can someone please add the pretty box? Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 18:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Chap0230

As per WP:NOT#CHAT. E Wing (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I have repeatedly warned this whole network of users to refrain from using user talk pages inappropriately. They consistently ignore my warnings. I suggest some sort of block is appropriate. WilliamH (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WilliamH. Page blanking without admin-deleting may be sufficient. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Delete inappropriate use on sight, they'll learn, but be nice. Is there any chance that they will make useful contributions? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, they never have done since the numerous warnings I've given them. WilliamH (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's your list. User_talk:Mservais, User_talk:LoveYaXO, User_talk:Lovah11, User_talk:Jonnella99, User_talk:Jef225, User_talk:Fossilfinder444,User_talk:Fossilfinder44, User_talk:Dongusdoodle, User_talk:Ccherkin, User_talk:Carolemott, User_talk:Bnut7, User_talk:Axc936, User_talk:Andrea1186, User_talk:Amandalcherkin, User_talk:Amandacherkin. I'm prepared to help. I think it is better to manage them as identified than risk just having them move to other accounts that we aren't watching. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I see only accounts without contributions and a few welcomes. Have the offending contributions been deleted? Suppression of the records is counterproductive, unless you believe that only administrators should engage in behaviour monitoring. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they have been deleted. I agree with your sentiment that managing them as opposed to going elsewhere - that is something that occurred to me too. Judging from recent messages, I'd hazard a guess that their intent on communicating this way might subside soon anyway. Also I don't believe talking to users about their behaviour should be reserved for administrators, partly because I'm not one. I only forwarded them on to a sysop because other than watching my notices getting removed, I didn't feel like there was much else I could do. WilliamH (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Page-blank, and if that fails to work delete. Repeated violations of WP:NOT#CHAT even after warnings. User[s] do not seem to be interested in contributing to WP. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 11:23, May 10, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. If page-blank approach does not succeed.Renee (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Hut 8.5 17:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Kmatuszak

As per WP:NOT#CHAT. E Wing (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I have repeatedly warned this whole network of users to refrain from using user talk pages inappropriately. They consistently ignore my warnings. I suggest some sort of block is appropriate. WilliamH (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per my comment in the discussion immediately above this one. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Page blank or delete if they fail to rectify their behaviour. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 11:24, May 10, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. If page-blank does not work. Wiki is not myspace.Renee (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MYSPACE. Seems too myspacey. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 00:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Perhaps when this user makes a few edits outside of here, we can recreate, but this currently resembles a Myspace. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 00:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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

2008-05-07

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

The result of the debate was Projectfy, now at Wikipedia:Wikifun/User Wikifun. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:User Wikifun

See below MfD to delete the Wikifun project. This userbox is pointing that a page that has not had new riddles on one year (unless I'm missing something here). I'd agree with just removing the link from the template if the page is deleted. Not sure what to do if it's merged to WP:GAME. Enric Naval (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete but save a copy at Wikipedia:Wikifun for historical purposes per the outcome of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikifun.--Otterathome (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - seems as though the project below will be marked as historical, no point keeping the template around, unless people want it saved as a subpage for historical interest. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 16:28, May 7, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Otterathome. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Project-fy for historical reasons, like the rest of the project. -- Ned Scott 22:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Project-fy as per Ned --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Subst into the project for historical purposes, then delete. No point in keeping it if the project is inactive. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Project-fy per Ned Scott. Lunakeet 17:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Make a sub-page of the prject - per those above. Let those who wish, keep it on their userpage. (Though dab links in order to remove the eventual redirect, as appropriate.) - jc37 22:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - sad, because I really did enjoy solving Wikifun riddles. Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep as {{historical}}. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikifun

Page used for social entertainment rather than enhancing the encyclopedia. Has not been updated in nearly a year, appears to be abandoned. Kesh (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with Wikipedia:Wiki Game. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment last edit related to riddles is from 24 April 2007 [1] --Enric Naval (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Close and mark historical We almost never delete projectspace pages, even those that are now seen as bad ideas. Just mark it historical and be done with it. -M^ask? 03:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Mark as historical, does not help encyclopedia and has only 15 edits in the last 2 years. Note that Category:Wake me for Wikifun should be deleted if this is deleted, marked as historical, or merged (all of the 3 proposals thus far). VegaDark (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Mark as Historical. I concur that it probably doesn't do much for the project, but keeping it as historical would show that such things have been done in the past. In my mind, there is value in leaving it as a placeholder, if only to force someone who would start a similar initiative to come up with an original idea. I'm not sure that the related Category:Wake me for Wikifun is within the purview of this MFD, and there are enough users in the category to warrant a full CFD proceeding, if someone were so inclined as to nominate it. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

CfD started - As it seems fairly likely that this will get marked as historical, I have started a CfD discussion about the associated category. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 16:13, May 7, 2008 (UTC)

• Mark as historical. Always better to keep a record of these things' existence, but also time to draw a veil over it. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 13:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Mark as historical - seems abandoned, we already have WP:GAME and the Dept. of Fun, this seems rather superfluous. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 16:13, May 7, 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:SNOW, I'm willing to withdraw the nom in favor of the page being marked as Historical. -- Kesh (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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

2008-05-06

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

The result of the debate was Delete. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Nman649/story

Unencyclopaedic and irrelevant to the work of the encylopaedia. asenine ^{say what?} 23:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no where else to make stuff like this! please let me have the page! Nman649 (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Helo? nman (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a free hosting service. asenine ^{say what?} 00:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEBHOST and unencyclopaedic (aka, per nom). Nman649, have you tried registering at blogspot.com? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:WEBHOST violation. Get a MySpace page or something. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. D.M.N. (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, but jiminy, be nice to the kid. DavidOaks (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SNOW? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as above, WP is not a free webhost. There are other places for writing a story. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 16:34, May 8, 2008 (UTC)
• Keep — Its presence does not harm Wikipedia, and its deletion would not help Wikipedia. Therefore, there is no valid reason to delete it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

omfg, WP:NOHARM and WP:IAR invoked on the same sentence. Well, being more serious, there is the fact that wikipedia is an encyclopedia so we should use for stuff that helps to make an encyclopedia, and that wikipedia is not a free WP:WEBHOST for people to put their stuff on a web page. This user should find a website dedicated to hosting plain-text content for free --Enric Naval (talk) 04:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Instead of citing rules, why not make arguments? Please tell me, what practical positive difference would result from deleting this that would make it worth the trouble? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not about that what we win from deleting, it's about what we lose by letting people use wikipedia pages to host their personal stuff, that's why I cite WP:WEBHOST. Wikipedia servers and badnwith are supported with donations of harware and money. But those donations are because the donators support the cause of wikipedia of making a free encyclopedia. So, if we start letting people use the pages for blogs and personal stuff then the donators will not be happy and may stop donating. That is bad. Also, this is not alphabet soup. This is relevant policies that editors are supposed to follow. We are supposed to follow them, there is no need to explain why they were created on the first place every time you use them on an argument. If the editor is using the page for free hosting of his stuff, then WP:WEBHOST applies, we have no need to make an argument other than to show that the editor is really using wikipedia as a web host. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Enric, don't let yourself be dragged into this. Just ignore him because his vote really makes no difference here, anyways. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We aren't supposed to follow any of these so-called "policies." They're totally non-binding. They're meaningless. All that matters is doing what makes sense, and you have yet to explain how deleting this would be worth the trouble. Really, that's the only relevant criterion: is it worth the trouble? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"so called policies"? we are not supposed to follow them? Please read Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Please_familiarize_yourself_with_the_following_policies, follow the links, and read them. Right now you are just making an uninformed opinion. I urge the closing admin to ignore !votes that choose to totally ignore relevant policies --Enric Naval (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that section of the page you mentioned merely perpetuates the myth; it is indeed a myth. I submit that it is you who are uninformed; those of us who have been around longer know what these "policies" are really intended to be. You're part of a newer generation that, fundamentally, gets it wrong. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, either that, or maybe consensus has changed since you started editing --Enric Naval (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: MySpace != Wikipedia. seicer | talk | contribs 05:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  Not a relevant criterion. Making sense is way more important than following a bunch of non-binding and irrelevant alphabet soup. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Tell him about myspace, and old fashioned notebooks. One the other hand, while his idea of contributions is completely in the wrong direction, he might be turned around. Be nice. Refer to WP:5P. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• lol. Yeah, he needs maturing a bit, but he can start doing some stuff and wind up being a good editor someday. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and assume completely good faith. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 13:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete at this time, page appears to describe the user at this time. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Dberger

Inactive sock user page created by User:Menicos basically as a way to recreate an article on Douglas Berger (also created by User:Menicos) that was deleted for lack of notability. He then uses the user page as an internal link in citations (in Berger-centric articles he writes), as if Berger's page hadn't been deleted. Ford MF (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete recreation of deleted content, user is inactive since November 2007 and his only contributions are to that page (and I assume he also contributed on the deleted article). --Enric Naval (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete reluctanctly. We could just revert to Dberger's own version before this other user got involved, but since Dberger's long gone I don't see much point in that. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  Comment. What other user? The original version of Dberger's user page is basically the same as what it is now, and additionally asserts that he is the user who created the Antidepressants in Japan article (which was actually created by User:Menicos, so I think it's safe to say the person behind the two accounts is the same). Ford MF (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep unless it can be determined that this user is not actually Douglas Berger, M.D., Ph.D. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  Comment. I think whether or not he is Douglas Berger is somewhat immaterial, as this hypothetical Douglas Berger has only been using this user page to circumvent his article's deletion, by using it as a ref in articles and adding it to article categories. Ford MF (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  If the user is impersonating the real person, then blocking is appropriate.

  If there is no impersonation issue, then are we seeking to delete a user page because of behaviour? The behaviour you describe could easily be interpreted as a newbie's good faith but misguided attempts to contribute productively.

  If sockpuppet abuse is proven, then link to the proof, and blocking is appropriate.

  In no case do I see deletion to be appropriate. For what purpose do we propose to suppress what information? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am Douglas Berger, M.D., Ph.D. I am sorry I have not been active for many months. While I am busy with lots of other things, I planned try to contribute to Wikipedia as time allows. Let me address your concerns. First, I do exist and any of you can contact me through my web page (www.japanpsychiatrist.com), call me, Skype me, or visit my office in Tokyo for Green tea. Next, while there was an article on myself deleted for “lack of notability”, the appropriateness of deleting the article was deeply debated by a number of editors because, while not ground-breaking, I have published a number of research papers in peer-reviewed medical journals, and some in top scientific journals like Science magazine. So ok, the article was deleted and myself and my assistant Menicos and I decided we would try contribute to Wikipedia on various topics that we thought could fit with Wikipedia projects, and topics I have some knowledge about seem the best way to go. If you have access to it, you may recall that the previously deleted content was a detailed description related to some of my background and research publications, it is not recreated in the User Page, though the User Page does briefly note who I am. Now, I have seen a number of Wikipedia pages on persons who lecture on flying saucers, erotic magazine stars, and other similar things. I guess some of these persons can be "notable" in the Wikipedia sense. So, if the editors at Wikipedia who have already deleted a short page then a stub page on a simple M.D., Ph.D, who has made some minor contributions to the progress of science proven by publications in respected scientific journals, and who now puts some sweat and effort into building the Wikipedia encyclopedia of information, want to delete my User Page, then by all means, please delete my User Page and any and all other pages I have contributed to so that I can focus on becoming more notable and not spend more time contributing to Wikipedia which will not be a constructive endeavor under this environment. Thank you all for your time.Dberger (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This user seems to have been given a very bitey welcome, and unnecessarily so. We have too many rules, and he can't be blamed for not having studied them all. His contributions have apparently failed Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (academics), but it was far from obvious for a newcomer. If he intends to continue to contribute on subjects related to himself, he is welcome, but should carefully read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In the meantime, I belive we should apologise, Userfy his deleted article to User:Dberger/Douglas Berger (Psychopharmacologist), and leave his quite reasonable User page alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Thank you for your comments and advice SmokeyJoe, we will indeed read the COI page. If the deleted page is userfied, however, it should read User:Dberger/Douglas Berger (Psychiatrist) not Psychopharmacologist. Have a nice day. Dberger (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, the page doesn't seem unreasonable as a user page. If it's being improperly cited on other pages, then that can be dealt with per the blocking policy. Deletion seems like an overreaction to me, though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Vlad fedorov/Internet troll squads

Soapboxing, POV, attack page. The article was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet troll squads. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Also, this user has also been banned until September 2008, and the article has not been touched since May 2007. It appears that a new version is actually at Internet brigades, see my reply to other editor --Enric Naval (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly inappropriate user space page. – Zedla (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Attack page, use of userspace for soapboxing and POV on something unrelated to Wikipedia. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete article not being actively edited, main AfDed. My compliments to the banned editor for getting некультурный in as a descriptor of this supposed phenomenon. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This article has been already deleted from the main space but restored by administrator User:Alex Bakharev in the user space on the request from Vlad fedorov. That was a legitimate action. I have no objections to delete this material whatsoever, but Vlad fedorov may be back soon, and may be he would like to recycle this? I have no idea.Biophys (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. "It was not edited for a long time" is not an argument. How could he edit if he was banned for a year? What are WP policies with regard to user pages of users who have been temporarily banned?Biophys (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I only know of WP:BAN. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Not edited for a long time" is because of While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia in WP:USER. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Vlad is indefinitely banned, so you cannot say that his user page is indefinitely archived. Martintg (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Work on the article stopped at 23 March 2007, except for one addition on 26 April 2007. Vlad Fedorov's only edit to the article was in 16 March 2007 and it was not any improvement[2]. Also, that means that he didn't edit the articles during 4 months and a half before he was banned. So, I don't expect him to make the huge amont of work necessary to make this a viable article after the ban ends. The only editor making significant improvements is User:Biophys and 3 days ago he stated that this is the same article as Internet brigades [3] so this is probably an old version anyways --Enric Naval (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Vlad wasn't banned in a vacuum, there was a long running ArbCom case from July to September, and before that there was a month or two of disputation, so obviously he was diverted by more significant and pressing concerns. You can't assume he won't make significant improvements upon his return, please extend him the courtesy of waiting and seeing. Martintg (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As Relata refero points below, *if* he wants to improve the draft once the ban ends, he can just ask for undeletion of the page --Enric Naval (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Question. Are you able to edit things within your own userspace while blocked? I know you can edit your own talk page, but I don't know if that's it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No you are not. From WP:BAN:"Unlike editors who have been temporarily blocked, banned users are not permitted to edit their user and user talk pages." Martintg (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• In that case, Keep for now. It's not a permanent ban, he may want to work on it when he comes back. Kind of harsh to tell the guy he can't edit, and then delete his user pages because he's not editing them. If his ban lifts and it sits idle, that's a different story. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• If he returns, and if he expresses a desire to work on this topic, preferably without calling anyone некультурный, it can always be restored for him by any adminstrator. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Then what, may I ask, would be the point of deleting it? Think about this. If it is deleted and he asks for it back, either he will get it back to work on (in which case, deleting it was completely pointless), or he will fail to work on it and it can be safely deleted (with the user's input this time). Plus, if he comes back and sees it deleted, he may just decided to not work on it at all, potentially depriving the site of contributions. And what's more, even if he wants it back from deletion (and you've implied you have no objection to that), he'll probably have to fight against a bunch of people who know nothing about the situation but will simply point to this AFD and say "It's gone". In short, saving the discussion for later on is a much better option. Deleting it now has no benefit and several possible drawbacks. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• The reason is that it violates WP:USER. WP:USER is written as it is so we have some control in terms of applying out core content policies to all "articles" hosted on WP while simultaneously allowing people to draft stuff in their userspace. If this was not in userspace, it would be being edited by others; if it is in userspace, it should be temporary so it doesn't show up on Google or in wiki-scrapers. That is, of course, only one of several reasons. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's a draft article, this doesn't violate WP:USER. And again, it's hard to argue that the user in question hasn't improved it when he is unable to. If he were a perma-banned user, it would be different. You haven't given me a good reason why we can't wait on this. --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• If he can't edit it, by definition its an indefinite archive. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Kind of mean to kick someone out for a while, then throw all their stuff out while their gone because they're not using it, don't you think? --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh. No, not really, not when it can be given back if necessary for the good of the project and the useful bits of it are already incorporated elsewhere ... --Relata refero (disp.) 11:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• And again, if we're going to just give it back, why take it away? --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• No, it's not an indefinite archive by definition, because he is not indefinitely banned. Martintg (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep for now, per UsaSatsui. I don't see how this page violates WP:USER. I have no view on the topic of the userpage, but attempting to delete a userpage of a temporarily banned user, particularly when they are not in a position to develope the article, let alone defend it here, doesn't make sense. Vlad's ban will be over soon enough, let's wait and see. Martintg (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• He doesn't need to defend any *article*. It's a draft that was undeleted to get improved, and no one has improved it on a long time. He can request it undeleted after the ban ends. No reason to keep a copy of a deleted article specially when the only guy making improvements to it stopped months ago and has asserted a few days ago on his talk page that the draft page is the same as an article already on mainspace[4]. For all we know, that draft is simply abandoned and it's not fulfilling at all its purpose of creating a better article for re-creation of the deleted on. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Suitable user page work that is not currently suitable as an article. There could well be an intention for this page to be bona fide work towards useful contributions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

2008-05-05

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

The result of the debate was Delete. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Don butch/St John Bosco College Year 12 2007

Serves no conceivable encyclopaedic purpose and is patently an attempt to use Wikipedia as a free web host. — iridescent 15:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a web host service. Macy (Review me!) 18:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No content that can be salvaged for an article on mainspace --Enric Naval (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per my comment last November. I temporarily userfied it in good faith from a deleted article and was unaware it was still about - Alison ^❤ 16:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#WEBHOST. GlassCobra 23:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

2008-05-04

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

The result of the debate was keep. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Highly Active Users/Unknown

The whole purpose of the Highly Active users page is to show active helpful users. Being listed under unknown isn't helpful, if there's an issue that needs dealing with that a user from that area may help with. Also, which user will pick someone under "unknown" to help them? I certainly wouldn't, I find it kind of intimidating personally. I'd likely pick a user from the same continent as myself, preferably in the same country, but that's just me. But I can't imagine anyone choosing someone from this list, hence why it needs to be deleted. If people on it still wish to help, they can list themselves under the relevant location. Thanks. Al Tally (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Temporary keep. I suggest keeping for about a week or two, then deleting. Anyone who hasn't put their name in another place should be presumed unwilling to be on list. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 22:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - 5 parties, including myself, have decided not to indicate our whereabouts by including ourselves on this list. Maybe we would be better moved elsewhere, but that would be for later. I think it should be kept until and unless the creators or others merge the content in elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Actually, it's eight parties who are listed on the page currently. As those parties have been requested to list themselves, and chose to list themselves here, I would presume that would be enough. Some of us may just not want to give the Review any information they could use to determine who we are. I do have a feeling that those individuals will ultimately be moved to another page, but such action should not be pressured by the threat of a deletion vote. Let the page develop as it wishes. John Carter (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Temporary Keep - Just what I was thinking, give users about a week, and if they do not add themselves into a different section, then they probably don't want to be there. iMatthew 2008 22:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• keep and rename As I understand it the creator of that page is removing all names who do not actively reply. Based on how John C. says he is using it, this particular subpage would be clearer if changed to "unspecified location" DGG (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - My personal choice would be to have the main page of listings contain those individuals who didn't specify their location, and links to the separate pages for those who specified specific continents. John Carter (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If I'm interpreting you right, then the page would be better moved to "unspecified"? bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 04:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • What I'm actually thinking of is making the page with names which haven't specified location datas as the main page for all the "location" pages. It might include something along the lines of, "to find editors who have specifically indicated their location, see (the following options)". That would address the concerns about no one seeking out the page, as it would be the first to appear, while at the same time allowing those who list themselves there to keep their locations undisclosed. John Carter (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, in some form, but maybe not as this current page. I don't mind being included in these lists, but I do not wish to disclose my physical location, so that's why I listed myself under "unknown". I am happy to include my editing hours (wrt to UTC), and that should be sufficient. Might I suggest a better approach to allow users like me to participate in this project? Why not recombine everybody onto a single page, but make it into a sortable table, so that it is easy to seach for help by location, timezone, or area of interest? Right now, it would be awkward to use the area of interest as the primary seach criteria for a helpful editor. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly reasonable page, clear purpose, should be expected to be empty most of the time, this is no reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (N.B. uncylopedia is not a valid transwiki target, as they have an incompatible licensing scheme. (GFDL here CC-A-NC-SA2-G there) — xaosflux ^Talk 13:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Clientele/uncyclopedia/zorkguide

A sub-page of an absent user which tells you how to play a game on a site which has nothing to do with the Wikimedia Foundation. No reason to keep. Otterathome (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It's also linking to the Uncyclopedia wiki, which is not exactly on the list of reliable wikis, lol. All those links are to jokes/hoaxes, so it's unencyclopaedic content too --Enric Naval (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• You are in a dungeon, looking at an unencylopedic game guide. Exits are delete, keep or no consensus. It is dark outside. This page is likely to be eaten by a grue. MER-C 11:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep/Transwikify to Unencyclopedia userspace. Naturally if the nominator were nominating a subpage of a userspace he or she would have sent a warning to the appropriate talk page. This doesn't seem to be the case.--WaltCip (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  I couldn't see the point informing them as they haven't edited since Dec 2006, and their final edits were blanking their user and user_talk page. Nor do they have their email enabled.--Otterathome (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiky to Unencyclopedia. Don't put time limits on volunteers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. If he wants it back when he returns from his ban then this can be looked at again, but until then it's not needed. Wizardman 21:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Digwuren/Denial of Soviet occupation

Main article deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of Soviet occupation; deletion subsequently endorsed; user has been banned from editing Wikipedia; no need to keep this around Relata refero (disp.) 11:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment DRV is here (last one on the list). There are similar articles at
  • User:Digwuren/Denial_of_Soviet_crimes, and its talk page User_talk:Digwuren/Denial_of_Soviet_crimes (this article underwent reestructuring until 27 May 2007, when work stopped, and only a pair of sources were added, I'm unsure whether this article should also be deleted, or if it's a work in progress to get a less POV version all changes were done after the deletion of a re-written version, I assume this page was the base for that re-write. It didn't solve the POV problems and can most probably get deleted too)
  • User:Digwuren/Talk:Soviet_occupation_denialism (copy of original talk page, as seen here, it has been copied on talk page above) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all copies. They were all shot down at either AfD or DRV for being a WP:POVFORK and containing WP:POV, original research and synthesis. Both AfD and DRV leave clear that the improved copies still have the same problems as the original article. In particular, the article was still doing WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, trying to make unwarranted and unsourced associations of Holocaust Denial with denial of crimes during Soviet occupation. The article has not been improved since the DRV, so no hopes for a rewrite. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, this article is never going anywhere (as are 90% of the "historical wrong against my nation denial" articles.) <eleland/talkedits> 14:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Gah, thats a bad page. MBisanz ^talk 14:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Wow! Horrible pages. POV, OR, soapboxing etc etc. Delete. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. All these rules only apply to articles in main space. This user was temporarily blocked, and he may be willing to improve this article in his user space when he comes back.Biophys (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Since when does WP:POVFORK, WP:POV, original research or synthesis apply to user space? Obviously it was work in progress to re-write the article, and bears no resemblance to the original deleted mainspace article, as I recall it. The only reasonable grounds to delete in this case is inactivity, since Wikipedia is not intended as a permanent archive of userspace pages. However Digwuren was not permanently banned, in fact his ban expires in 5 months time. Banned editors are not permitted to edit their userspace. Kind of harsh to tell the guy he can't edit, and then delete his user pages because he's not editing them. Extend him the courtesy of permitting him to delete it himself if he so chooses. When his ban lifts and it continues to sit idle, that's a different story. Martintg (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Marting. Let's wait till Digwuren's back and can defend his own userspace.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Work in progress, misguided or otherwise, belongs in userspace. Persuade the user to give up on it by all means, but it is his decision in his workspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think that the commenters above are having a problem with WP:OWN. Basically, Wikipedia:USER#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space states "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community: (...) in some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as well as edits from banned users". So, this user does not need to defend "his" userspace, since all userspace pages belong to the community, and tha page can be undeled *if* he wants it back. And I'm not attacking him, I'm just saying to delete a page that no longer furthers the goals of this project. The page has not been worked on for a long time and the user is not going to be able to edit again on a few months. If the user still wants to work on this draft to improve a deleted page *then* he can ask for undeletion as soon as the ban ends. Actually, if you want to work on the draft, you can say so here, then move the draft to your userspace and work on the draft. As it stands, nobody is working on the draft, so this is not "A work in progress, until it is ready to be released", which is an acceptable use listed on Wikipedia:USER#What_about_user_subpages.3F. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Also, if you think that this draft is ready for moving to the mainspace, then please say so, since we can move it to the mainspace and inmediately put it up on Articles for Deletion so it gets evaluated by the community. Please consider the alternatives, consider that this is not a personal attack against a user, and consider that the page is not irreversibly lost. It's just deleted so it's not a visible part of the project since it's an abandoned draft. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think you can say that the page does not further the goals of the project, it is clearly an unfinished draft of an encyclopedic article, not something else like a personal blog or page advertising some product, which clearly would be contrary to the goals of the project. And if you say that he can simply request the page back when he returns, why take it away in the first place. There are no issues of WP:OWN here, but clearly since he is tri-lingual estonian/english/russian, he may have access to sources that you or I don't have. The issue here is of WP:AGF. Let us assume that he intends to develop this article in good faith when he returns, and let him decide to delete it or not. Martintg (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Marting and Piotrus. This is user space. Let's be civil with regard to a user who was temporarily banned. The content and talk pages of both articles can be used to make something different and better. I can not understand this urge to delete.Biophys (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(it's because there is no guarantee that the user will return, or that he will ever edit the page again, and the page is unacceptable on its current state. There is no user right now that wants to take into improving it. It's not a question of civility, IMHO) --Enric Naval (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've previously been in contact with Digwuren and I'm certain he will be back. Note that the deletion review only narrowly endorsed deletion and indicated there was a clear consensus that the Russian government's position is worth covering and the controversy is also worth covering, just there were issues of POV and OR that needed to be worked on first. While the present page is not acceptable for mainspace, the standards of mainspace are not applicable to userspace. The reason others haven't worked on it is because we are all busy with our particular topics of interest. Martintg (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Useless article, and one that is factually wrong, I tried to correct an obvous error, and got immediately reverted. --Kuban Cossack 00:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with the page in question and more to do with an IP who is following User:Kuban kazak around and reverting any edit he does [5]. Martintg (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep because the user is banned until 21 October and cannot reasonably defend the page at this time. If he fails to make any improvements by, say, 1 December, by all means reassess, but deletion would be premature at the moment. Biruitorul (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I had a copy of this page in my userspace, and I was working on it off line: User:Dc76/project2. It was kindly restored to my uesrspace by the admin (User:Moreschi, if I am not mistaken) who closed the discussion when the article was ruled "delete" some months ago. He told me it was alright to work on it in my userspace. Given that I had to read a lot of stuff to improve the page, I decided that I first need to gather more information/links, check and copy that info in my computer and work there before I modify the existing version. So, I did not make any change in User:Dc76/project2, because I still had information to assimilate (read, understand, write sketches). Unfortunately, one month ago User:Dc76/project2 was deleted by JzG (talk · contribs) with comment "(G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Abandoned userfied content)". The only way to find the log to this action is to look at this user deletion log on 17 April 2008, 22:25. I kindly asked him to restore this page. He kindly answered that WP can not host forks of content. [6] My vote here is motivated as follows: it would be nice if people could work on controversial articles in one place in someone's userspace. Otherwise, it encourages people to recreate the same page and work on it separately or in small groups. Which is worse, forbidding to work on something like that in the view of everyone implicitly encourages people to cooperate off wiki to edit it outside the view of the community. I don't think we want to move in this direction. Dc76\^talk 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Using material from a deleted page to create continuing content anywhere is not allowed under the GFDL without special care to provide attribution to the original authors. If there is any good faith effort to work with this, and it is not kept, it should be userfied. Also note that there are no time limits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep --PeaceNT (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Privatemusings/OptOutNoticeboard

This was undeleted on the condition of being a mock-up to be discussed at WT:OPTOUT it is obvious that it is being used to circumvent the existing discussion and rejection at the talk page. Therefore, it should be deleted as an attempt to circumvent WP:CONSENSUS and as a page that left intact or tagged as historical would have the potential to mislead users (as it has 7 already) into believing it is an active forum for subjects to opt out of having an article. MBisanz ^talk 08:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

um - well - no, not really. Rather a harmless page, not really causing any trouble, and certainly not misleading (I don't really understand if MB is asserting that it is?). Maybe it would be better in mainspace? Maybe it should have another name? Maybe there are heaps and heaps of ways of improving it, and making it clearer! - but deleting doesn't really seem like the wiki way to me.... so please don't! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

ps. keep ! Privatemusings (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete: This page was undeleted as a courtesy to the creator, and whilst I support the ideas being proposed to an extent, using deleted material to circumvent consensus isn't fair. This also has the danger of making administrators much more reluctant to provide users with deleted material, if they think it's going to be used in some way to circumvent the reason by which it was originally deleted. Nick (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly - thanks heaps for providing the content the other day, Nick (which I hope wasn't too much hassle - and saved me the few minutes work in structuring such a page, which was appreciated) - and it's important to me to be really clear that I didn't in any way intend to somehow sneak the small previously existing page back in - indeed, I still don't really understand why it was deleted in the first place, and will be happy if it can find a home somewhere where it's a good fit (different name? different place? - any ideas most welcome!). Also - sorry to be a little slow.. but I'm not really understanding the 'circumvent consensus' argument - that is absolutely not my intention, nor do I really see how that would be possible... please explain a bit! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that this proposal has been rejected via consensus at WT:OPTOUT, creating another page to discuss the same thing is evading consensus by creating a new forum to discuss it. When Nick restored, I understood this page to be a place you could point at from WT:OPTOUT as a model of what you wanted. By letting people sign up to support or oppose it, your recreating the discussion from WT:OPTOUT. Also, by adding the section for subjects to request their articles be removed, this provides the sense that this is a permitted behavior, when it is not a permitted behavior. And well statements like "The proposal is currently not accepted by the wider community, and will no doubt take quite some time in gaining enough ground to be enshrined as policy." do tell me that your trying to fatigue the community into accepting your proposal one way or another. MBisanz ^talk 11:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think there's any discussion on this page, MB - nor do signatures represent discussion in my view. I'm not too clear on your point about 'permitted behaviour' - but don't really think that this page claims any false authority (although suggestions for clarification are most welcome!) - I'm certainly not 'trying to fatigue the community' (I'm sure the community has much more stamina than me! - and it's always a bit woolly to speculate intentions, no?) - rather, I just think that this is a kinda straight forward, sensible page which might help move discussions forward... again, if the wording is problematic, then we can work on that.. perhaps it's just not a good fit in this space? maybe it belongs as a 'straw poll' subpage or subsection? - maybe it can sit elsewhere to allow folk to tick the box of their preference over time, or drop relevant information in? - I'm sure we can figure something out! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

on the other hand - the more eyes and ears passing over the page the better in my view! - so I guess this discussion can't help but help in many ways! (please do consider dropping a sig. in folks!) - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(sorry for being hash, but you are pushing against consensus a bit too much) Shouldn't you be improving the WP:OPTOUT proposal and presenting it again to raise consensus? You made no improvement at all You only made some small changes on wording to the proposal, and you really seem to believe that consensus is wrong. See Wikipedia_talk:Biographical_optout#Reboot.21 for you removing the tag after a week of putting it up and see Wikipedia_talk:Biographical_optout#The_Tag_and_this_talk_page for an ongoing RfC requested by you. You just seem to be pushing this proposal against consensus, including this restoring of a noticeboard to create a straw poll after having it undeleted to create a better proposal. I suggest deleting the damned thing and asking Privatemusings to make a better draft of WP:OPTOUT instead of making straw polls to overcome clear consensus against the proposal. The current encarnation of the proposal was already viewed by enough editors at the talk page of WP:OPTOUT and it was rejected. I suggest that you pay attention to the RfC comments about how the consensus for rejection was clear --Enric Naval (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Can we please get a link to the original deletion discussion? Viridae^Talk 12:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't one AFAIK, Ryulong deleted from the Wikipedia-space with the reason "(The proposal has been rejected; there need not be a noticeboard for a failed proposal)", Nick restored to the userspace under the conditions here, which indicated it should be used as a model to be pointed at, rather than a discussion page itself. MBisanz ^talk 12:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok first and foremost thats not a speedy deletion criteria, so undeletion should not have had any conditions imposed. You wanna do that - take it through a deletion discussion. Viridae^Talk 12:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like WP:CSD#G6 to me. Deleting descendant pages related to rejected proposals is a form of housekeeping. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep harmless, as noted by PM, no reason for conditions to be imposed on userfication of out of process deletions (as noted by me above). Potential for something decent to come from it - little potential for harm. Viridae^Talk 12:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Not harming anyone. Zginder 2008-05-04T12:20Z (UTC)
• Keep. This is not harming anyone, yet I suspect that removing it would be be seen as suppressing an idea that really does need more discussion even if it is eventually totally rejected.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talk • contribs)
• Delete or move to WP:OPTOUT/Long Term Straw Poll or similar title (per Privatemusing's proposal, see reasons on my reply to his proposal). Attempt to raise consensus on a different forum for a proposal that was rejected on the proper forum (WT:OPTOUT), using the undeleted copy for other thing that the purpose it was undeleted for. Notice that PrivateMussings was supossed to make an improved version of the rejected proposal, and he is instead trying to raise support for the original version, and he is misunderstanding WP:CONSENSUS by trying to make a straw poll with no arguments. To sum it up, this has nothing to do with what you do with your user space, but with attempts to avoid consensus against one of your proposals on the proper forums. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Notice that, per WP:USER, Private Mussings can perfectly write a draft proposal or an essay on his user space, but this is not what he was doing --Enric Naval (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please notice that WP:NOHARM is an argument to avoid on deletion discussions, and, yes, it does do harm by ignoring the reasons for undeletion and by attempting to short-circuit consensus --Enric Naval (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. The text of WP:NOHARM shows it specifically refers to articles. This is not an article. --Bduke (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think it was ever intended to refer only to articles. It evens says that it's specially relevant for MfD, where many times we are not talking about articles.... --Enric Naval (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The quote that mentions MfD is "Note that in WP:MFD debates, whether or not something is harmful is often a relevant issue, since the rules provide that inherently disruptive pages, for instance, may be deleted. The argument "it's not hurting anything" is less persuasive, however, when WP:NOT clearly prohibits the content in question (e.g. a full-fledged blog in userspace) from being hosted here." clearly indicates that whether something is harmful or not can be an issue, but that "It is harmless" may be not persuasive in some cases. In other words WP:NOHARM can be used at MfD. Of course whether or not it should be used here is a different matter, but I stick by my use of it. --Bduke (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please note that WP:NOHARM is an essay and there was no reason for deletion in the first palce so no reason to set conditiosn for undeletion on request. Viridae^Talk 00:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Notice Scot5114's comment about meeting criteria G6 for speedy deletion.

• • • • WP:NOHARM is a collection of usual reasons, so I don't need to remember and type all the same arguments all the time. Please read the reasons there and address them, instead of just dismissing it for being an essay. The specifical reasons for citing WP:NOHARM and saying that it does cause harm, is that not deleting a page that is trying to short-circuit consensus does damage to the consensus process of wikipedia, and keeping a page that was undeleted a page for a purpose and then using it for a different purpose damages the possibilities of other pages getting undeleted because admins will fear that users will misuse the stated undeleting purpose and that they won't be able to enforce it --Enric Naval (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think any reasonable person would be misled by this text, or any of the past versions here, into thinking that "it is an active forum for subjects to opt out of having an article". If anything they would be educated that this is not currently possible. Barring a better explanation of why this was deleted, the conditions for undeletion are not material. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The userspace isn't there as a mechanism to circumvent consensus. The userspace isn't a place to find consensus on something. That's what the WP namespace is for. This is essentially using this as a platform for reusing undeleted material against what it was originally intended for, which is a perfectly good reason for deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia:Biographical optout already existed, and was discussed, and rejected. This seems to be an attempt to hold a new vote which would override the the discussion already held. It's a kind of "forum shopping". If there is to be renewed discussion of Wikipedia:Biographical optout, then the obvious location of that is Wikipedia talk:Biographical optout, not user-space. --Rob (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

what do you think of this page being a subpage of the rejected proposal, Thivierr? - I think maybe that's a better fit for it. I see it as part of the ongoing discussion of the proposal, to be honest... and the page certainly isn't a vote - more a kind of clear statement of users' positions on this issue. I'm happy with the trickle of votes the page has received, and think that it actually helps move things forward - maybe it could be renames too - perhaps a 'petition'? or somesuch? - thoughts most welcome! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The ongoing discussion of the proposal is at WT:OPTOUT, as you are perfectly aware, and there is already a RfC going on which you opened yourself. You can perfectly open a straw poll there, where people will be able to see all arguments pro and against the proposal on the very same page. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see any problem with someone drumming up support for a proposal in their user space. It's not like someone's going to accidentally make a major shift in the way we do things because of this page. For the proposal itself, I don't like it one bit, but that's no reason to delete this page. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think anyone would realistically anything created on the page "consensus", but we don't delete straw polls. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Completely appropriate use of userspace to express an opinion on Wikipedia policy and support a proposal to change it. I don't see the problem here. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The policy proposal was soundly rejected, and trying to restart the discussion on a userpage is a waste of time. This is not simply a statement of opinion, but an attempt to introduce rejected policy through the back door, as shown by the poll (where people are encouraged to support, not merely participate) along with the sentence "If consensus, and general helpful wiki editing, moves in this helpful direction, then we can consider an appropriate 'mainspace' location." Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  I think there's zero risk of this being back-door accepted. We should be a little more confidant in the stance the community has taken, and not be afraid of something like this. -- Ned Scott 04:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  As much as being afraid... :) At most, I'm afraid of the bad example that this sets. Having a proposal rejected summarily, and then making a RfC and a straw poll at the same time, using an undeleted noticeboard that was supposed to be used once the proposal was accepted. And the noticeboard was undeleted for the purpose of making a better proposal that could pass consensus but then it's used to attempt to raise consensus for the same unmodified proposal out of the relevant talk page, after it has been rejected there. Seriously, this is not at all about the actual proposal or the straw poll. Privatemusings can make another draft of the proposal whenever he pleases, and he can perfectly convoke a straw poll on WT:OPTOUT. The problem is with using *this* page for that purpose. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep So what if it is a waste of time? It's in userspace, it's being done in good faith whether the most brilliant point is being made or the worst idea ever. MrMurph101 (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or move to a new title that won't confuse new users, who it is explicitly directed at, imo. This page makes a claim to be something it is not for people unfamiliar with the wiki. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

what would you think about WP:OPTOUT/Long Term Straw Poll? - you probably know that I initially thought this page would be a better fit as a subpage.. I think that way people can see that it's part of a currently rejected proposal, and still register their position as / when / if they come across it. If you like the idea, I've no objection to anyone just moving the page. Privatemusings (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a better name. MBisanz ^talk 06:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with that idea too. It marks it as a straw poll and not a noticeboard and solves the problem with the reasons for undeletion, since it would be like a new different page. It also puts it more in context with the WP:OPTOUT thing --Enric Naval (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

great - this process has actually helped moved things forward - hopefully someone uninvolved will be able to facilitate the move, and I'm happy for the subsequent redirect from my userspace to be deleted. Thanks guys, Privatemusings (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved at Wikipedia:OPTOUT/Long Term Straw Poll. Maybe it would be adequate to make a post at WT:OPTOUT for people to go there --Enric Naval (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• keep per DHMO and Ned. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - it's in PM's user space, doing no harm. There's really nothing wrong with expressing wiki-views in one's user space, mainstream or not. Doesn't seem extraordinarily useful, but user space content certainly doesn't have to be. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Moved page to Wikipedia:OPTOUT/Long Term Straw Poll from comments two !votes above --Enric Naval (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - it's "not eatin' any oats", as my grandfather would have said. Now that it's been moved to projectspace, all the better - Alison ^❤ 19:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. In the absence of demonstrated abuse, if it is related to wikipedia, let users use their userspace in peace, especially where is concerns policy. Censorship of policy discussion is very much the wrong way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Stodart

page is advertising only. User has not edited any other articles. User (stodart musika ?) has created a page, now deleted, to advertise their company. User page is fourth hit on Google for "stodacom international", most ghits are advertising. But I still can't figure out what company is _really_ as mentions investigations, news reportings, etc. It might be just a fantasy/experiment...? "Through our international network of associates and affiliates in over 150 countries,..." Shenme (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Blatant WP:ADVERT advertising by what looks like a WP:SPA Single Purpose Account --Enric Naval (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; likely advert, user has no other contribs. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete designed to promote a company Ultra! 21:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not exactly clear on what the text on the userpage is about, but it appears to be some form of an advert. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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

2008-05-03

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (housekeeping) — xaosflux ^Talk 02:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Scholarship subpages

The portal "Portal:Scholarships" was deleted during this discussion. The sub pages of the portal were not included in that deletion request and so I believe they need their own deletion request. The logic is the same as in the previous discussion. The following pages are unused: ~ Eóin (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Scholarship/Related portals (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Scholarship/Related portals|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Portal:Scholarship/Selected article/31 August 2007 (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Scholarship/Selected article/31 August 2007|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Portal:Scholarship/Selected article of 31 August 2007 (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Scholarship/Selected article of 31 August 2007|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Portal:Scholarship/Selected article (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Scholarship/Selected article|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Portal:Scholarship/Selected article/32 (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Scholarship/Selected article/32|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Portal:Scholarship/box-header (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Scholarship/box-header|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Portal:Scholarship/Selected article/31 (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Scholarship/Selected article/31|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Portal:Scholarship/Selected article/33 (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Scholarship/Selected article/33|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete uncontroversial delete, as it's only leftover material. The only encyclopaedic content is already at Rhodes Scholarship --Enric Naval (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete orphan pages of deleted portal. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

2008-05-07

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thebluesharpdude (speedy delete U1)

2008-05-04

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Image:Xavier 500125925 acn108 2b.pdf (delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Youre dreaming eh?/Your sandbox (Speedy delete, U1)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Cinematic sunrise (speedy delete)

2008-05-03

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User WikiProject Early computers (keep)

2008-05-02

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tresiden/god (keep)