Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Shortcut: WP:MFD

Skip to active discussions

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

Deletion discussions

Deletion today

Articles (today, all, closing)
Templates (today, all, closing)
Files (today, all, closing)
PUF (today, all, closing)
Categories (today, all, closing)
Redirects (today, all, closing)
Miscellany (today, all, closing)
Stub types (all)

Speedy deletion (candidates)
Proposed deletion (books, BLPs)

Centralized discussion

Proposals	Discussions	Recurring proposals
RfC about adding a "de facto" section to the official list of banned users at WP:BANNED Proposal to standardize the use of {{reflist}} and deprecate <references />. RFC on new watchlist feature Straw poll on which awards, if any, should be excluded when assessing the notability of pornographic actors. RFC on amending notability guidelines for Mixed Martial Arts events. Proposal to change guideline on how big a Talk page should be before archiving. Proposal to establish a closure review on move requests. Proposal to enable Reference Tooltips by default Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive talk edit history watch

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

Information on the process

Pages in these namespaces may be nominated for deletion here:

Book:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including Wikiprojects), User:, the various Talk: namespaces, and userboxes (regardless of namespace)

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 personal userpage deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}}. If you wish your user talk page (or user talk page archives) to be deleted, this is the correct location to request that.
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.
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 - Nomination is generally frowned upon. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages	It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{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 should not be tagged as {{historical}}, reserve this tag for only the most influential projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion 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.
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-reason}} using the reason: Redirect left after a cross-namespace move - G6 Housekeeping. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.

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 — whose guidelines on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
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:

Click to view 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 steps II and III. 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.

Edit PageName:

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

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

If the nomination is for a userbox, please put <noinclude></noinclude> tags around the {{mfd}}, as to not mess up the formating for the userbox.

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

{{subst:md1-inline|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
if you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page.

Please include in the edit summary the phrase
Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
Save the page

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.

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 add a line to the top of the list:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".

Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add

{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.

If nominating a page from someone 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:MFDWarning|PageName}} ~~~~

to their talk page, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as

Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]

replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
If you are nominating a Portal, please make a note of your nomination here and consider using the portal guidelines in your nomination.
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.

Closing instructions

Active discussions

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

Purge server cache

May 27, 2012

Wikipedia:Example of a double redirect

pointless A:-)Brunuś (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 14:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:User Beng-1

Unused template originally created by a user who hasn't edited since 2010 Kumioko (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:User AllPeers

Unused and unneeded template. Previously submitted for deletion here and all voters agreed but wasn't deleted. Kumioko (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:User Albaniaphile

Unused template. Created a couple years ago but isn't used. Kumioko (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:User Aer Lingus

Unused template. Was previously submitted for MFD with everyone voting to delete here but closed without being deleted. Kumioko (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:User Agnostic beleiver

Unused template Kumioko (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Мэн-1's European Championships articles

User:Мэн-1 has created a bunch of copies of European Championship articles in his userspace for no obvious reason. These pages have existed for for only a couple of weeks, but they do not seem to be acting as drafts for future mainspace articles and are hence candidates for deletion. – Pee Jay 09:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Wikimam/Bob Proctor

WP:STALEDRAFT which has been used to advertise the person; no indication that there's any notability that might make this into an encyclopedia article bonadea contributions talk 09:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Tornadoisme

Userpage masquerading as an article. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. User has contributed nothing to Wikipedia, and the account seems to exist in order to joke about Parreno (presumably the user) being the youngest soldier in the US military. J Milburn (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Aaron Wolfson 1

Abandoned userpage. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 02:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant to nominate User talk:Aaron Wolfson 1; the only substantive history on the user page is your 'last friendly warning' four years ago, after which the user never returned. (His) Aaron's only (remaining) edit is the talk page bio. Dru of Id (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have to confess not having listed any articles for deletion for a while, and my twinkle software must be out of date. I will have to do them manually. In the meantime, perhaps we can delete both? OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 03:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Speaker Demon/Two Bullet Parade

Abandoned userspace draft. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - I copied this for a user whose first article was facing speedy deletion. I don't believe they have been back to edit. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 02:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Petiatil/modern.js

Petiatil^»Talk 01:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

May 26, 2012

User templates

Unused and uneeded templates. Mostly created by editors who no longer edit. Kumioko (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment a bit of a hodge podge. Oppose Studio60 - no different than many others of its kind; Oppose Aperiodic - editor doesn't appear to be inactive. Neutral (Not sure/no opinion) on the two college ones (AJC, TJC); delete the rest. - jc37 20:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a note all the creators were notified on their talk pages so hopefully they'll comment. Kumioko (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete all per nom. Lets sweep out some of the unneeded rubbish. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

User:TheListUpdater/New articles

Relisted. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Unlinked list of unclear purpose. Not linked from anywhere, not maintained. ListUpdater is pretty much retired. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep User:TheListUpdater/New articles seems to be a list of articles that TheListUpdater (talk · contribs) wishes to create. I reviewed several of the red links on the page and they were not to deleted articles but to ones yet to be created. Per Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?:

Notes related to your Wikipedia work and activities

"Current or planned articles, topic areas, to-do lists, reminders, articles worked on, accolades and other successes, collaborative works, draft proposals, (constructive) thoughts on Wikipedia articles or policies and how they should be changed, etc."

I believe this material should be retained. Cunard (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 16:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Tempac3/sandbox

Relisted. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It is possible that the "original" user is still editing this and another sandbox, User:Tempac3/sandbox2, as an IP. But this is going nowhere. The original editor hasn't been around since last year and even then was really only making edits in these sandboxes. These are abandoned drafts, if drafts is even what they ever were. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete both User:Tempac3/sandbox and User:Tempac3/sandbox2. Tempac3 (talk · contribs) removed the MfD tag from the first page on 06:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC) and from the second page on 06:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC), indicating that the user is aware of the MfD discussion. Because the user has chosen not to contest the contention that these pages violate WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:STALEDRAFT, I support deletion. Cunard (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Note: despite the hullabaloo of Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#A_provocation, the account nor the IPs have seen fit to weigh in, though one IP has been active. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

These are abandoned drafts...

The first page was edited a month ago, the second page was an ongoing work when the tag was placed.

The original editor hasn't been around since last year and even then was really only making edits in these sandboxes.

I have edited Wikipedia outside of my userspace.

...if drafts is even what they ever were.

Belittling language.

So I still believe the MFD tag was a provocation.

PS: I realize that some insults said at an inappropriate time can become a personal issue. I apologize for overreacting, combined with the lack of knowledge when I was a newbie. But maybe you should just close the ticket? This is indeed "going nowhere". Tempac3 (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

They haven't become a personal issue. Some editor calling me "some asshole" more than a half a year ago, I don't remember that, but your apology for that is nice. As for this MfD, you can believe what you will, but this is not a provocation (and your edits outside user space are known from your edit history: my point stands). There is nothing belittling about "if drafts is even what they ever were": it merely points out that it is unclear what this is a draft of. There already is a List of Russian inventions--one of your IPs is all over that history. And what is User:Tempac3/sandbox2? A list of guns, that's it. You need to look at WP:UPNO and explain how these pages have any purpose toward furthering the project. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

For the List of Russian inventions - the notes can be incorporated into the Timeline of Russian inventions. For the sandbox2 - I don't think it being a table makes it any less valuable (I'm rewriting the List of Russian weaponry to match other "List of Russian [...]" (artists, explorers, etc.) Tempac3 (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 16:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

User:T1980/Music in Brainiac: Science Abuse

WP:STALEDRAFT, not created by T1980, not touched in years. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

User:TenPoundHammer/The Devil's Wiktionary

I don't want this anymore, but I can't G7 it since others have contributed. I just think it's a little cynical. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep I little cynicism can be healthy sometimes. However, if you don't want it in your userspace anymore can I have it? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Move to Project space. Interesting, relevant, worth it's space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Move to project space. Insightful and funny. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Move to project space, tag as humor, snowball close this MFD and copy the MFD nomination message of TPH to himself to WP:TPH Ibicdlcod 06:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Understandable that you'd maybe want to distance yourself from this, but I think there's strong enough sentiment to make a move to projectspace the right call here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - If each entry was linked to some editor making a particular (albeit misinformed/mistaken) assertion, it might be worth keeping as a (presumably semi-humourous) essay. But as it stands? I'm sure any of us can come up with supposed statements which we consider satirical. And that's all that seems to be here. - jc37 14:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Userfy to Ron Ritzman who wants it. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Move to Project space funny we need it definitely, ill be glad to link this page to encourage dejected users to give them a -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Move to Project space Nothing wrong with the page...moving to Project space would be useful and more reachable.ƊṨṫƦⓘ₭ϱ 𝝨Ƌǥɭϱ ^Ω 11:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Move to project space - perfectly fine satire, but if TPH no longer wants it, it doesn't need to stay in his space. LadyofShalott 12:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:Userspace

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

The result of the discussion was delete as housekeeping Bencherlite ^Talk 18:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Help:Userspace

This is not a help page. The draft article has been posted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Environmental impact of Uranium mining in Namibia and again at THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF URANIUM MINING IN NAMIBIA. John of Reading (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom, and then redirect to Wikipedia:User pages which better corresponds to this page's title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2012 (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.

May 24, 2012

User:Exit2DOS2000/Mountaineer Mall

WP:STALEDRAFT, untouched in nearly 5 years except by an unrelated IP. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

User:YifeifeiLiu

Draft article by COI account, posted as userpage Orange Mike | Talk 22:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved there by admin User:MBisanz; could be moved to sandbox, probably the intended destination. Dru of Id (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I moved it there when renaming him, so it was already on his userpage. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is the user blocked? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

They were blocked for an improper username and I neglected to unblock them when I renamed them. I've corrected that, thank you. MBisanz ^talk 13:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Offski/Candle in the Dark

WP:FAKEARTICLE, untouched for nearly three years, created by an editor who hasn't edited at all for nearly as long. Calton | Talk 11:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Nowhere near suitable for mainspace and years obsolete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Siva sasank

User page being used by ip and users for article. Shriram (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Mikef1023/LTjg Robert Keller

No significant edits other than userpage and violation of wp:resume Shriram (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

User:ElMa-sa/sandbox

User sandbox used by multiple IPs. Shriram (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm User:ElMa-sa, I don't sign in when I edit the sandbox, I have dynamic IPs... Can't really do anything but sign in everytime I edit the sandbox. 92.80.19.79 (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep: I don't know if I can actually vote on this, but since it's my sandbox and I'm the only one who's edited it (through various IPs), I don't really see the point of this nomination for deletion. ElMa-sa (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep-Even if the IPs weren't ElMa-sa, I'd still be saying keep. The nominator has offered no valid reason for deletion.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Awaken (film)

Incubation was originally requested for this film at the AfD discussion for it. At the time, the request was because the movie was due to have its first showings shortly. That's done now, and I still really can't find anything on it beyond "teaser" blurbs or IMDB. No one's touched it since incubation, and I don't think this one has any chance of legs anymore. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Could we extend WP:Prod to cover the Wikipedia:Article Incubator? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Moxytom/Enter your new article name here

Untouched since 2010, WP:STALEDRAFT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete, a clear example of a stale userspace draft. JIP | Talk 05:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - User has only edited the draft once, and made no edits since. Achowat (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Suzannepak

Using WP for promotion/as a web host. Attempted to resolve on User Talk, to no avail. Arbor8 (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. This user page is a resume, in violation of policy WP:What Wikipedia is not, specifically WP:NOTLINKEDIN #1. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

May 23, 2012

User:Paternal Behavior

A direct copy of the deleted article Paternal behavior, proposed for deletion as original research. This user page, and the deleted article, are the user's only contributions ever. It is quite clear that the user is simply treating Wikipedia as a free web host. JIP | Talk 18:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Lovlyharis/sandbox

Delete as per wp:resume. Has done similar edits in the article Imran Khan (singer). Shriram (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - transparent violation of WP:FAKEARTICLE. Achowat (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:FAKEARTICLE -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Book:Editor war

Only three articles--not enough content for a community book. Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Book:Editor_war closed as no consensus. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Was the previous nom really closed as no consensus based on the complete non-reason that is "this is a subject and therefore needs a book"? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Not enough content for a useful book. If there is an editor who wants it as a user book, it could be userfied, but no reason to have it in the Book namespace. --RL0919 (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Darqwolff/Raocow

WP:STALEDRAFT. User's only edit from back in December. I love Raocow, but there's no way he'd survive on Wikipedia, especially not with an "article" like this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Jaguitar/MCGINNIS

This was last edited in 2008. SL93 (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete, userspace draft not touched in almost four years, a classic example of WP:STALEDRAFT. JIP | Talk 05:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Albinomonkey/F1 Aerodynamics

This was last edited by the creator in 2005. SL93 (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Kiro.e.m.s/This Week's Beats

This was last edited by the creator on November 7, 2011. Since then, there has been no activity and no notability shown. SL93 (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

May 22, 2012

User:Team Juve

UP#PROMO; user posted at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/questions#Wikipedia search requesting further self-promotion, did not acknowledge feedback or make changes given enough time to do so. Dru of Id (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Clearly an attempt at self-promotion by a non-notable individual. Autumnalmonk (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

May 20, 2012

User:Derek van radar

Stale draft up for nearly four years. Editor has long since left. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Hello - did you get revised edit as per below for this ? Thanks!

Jai Stokes is a Director, Editor and Producer.

Credits include Director : Fyfe Dangerfield 'Always a Woman' http://www.mtv.ca/music/video_browse_play.jhtml?vid=529477&aid=2127850 Director : Interpol 'Mammoth' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol_discography Editor : Graham Coxon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Travels_at_Illegal_Speeds

Jai used to be in indie brit pop band I Am 7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Seven — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.180.54 (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

May 19, 2012

User:Ja'ka Winka

Per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Magioladitis (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Harmless user page with only two sentences of text (and a partially broken infobox). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't know that the editor refers to themselves or if it is a joke page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep-This is far from being excessive for a user page. Nothing wrong here.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Argh. Sole contributions, two years old, and if the information is accurate the user is a minor. I will never understand the mentality of editors who would turn up at MfD to oppose the deletion of stuff like this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Someone born April 8, 1994, as the user claims to be, would be 18 years old by now. If this userpage had been nominated for deletion two months ago when the user was still a minor, I probably wouldn't have turned up to recommend "keep". But now that the user is an adult, things are different. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  - So you're fine with indefinitely keeping the vanity pages of people who have never edited the encyclopedia itself so long as they're a couple of months above the general age of responsibility? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    - What would be gained by deleting it? Its not as though it would free up disc space or any such thing.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
      - Shall we encourage every minor in the world to create such a vanity page, safe in the knowledge that some brave warrior will defend its existence for the sake of winning an argument? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. WP:NOTWEBHOST is not a particularly difficult concept to wrap one's mind around, one would think. --Calton | Talk 06:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Old business

Everything from here on down is old business; the 7-day review period that began on 20 May 2012 has ended. Open discussions below this marker should be either closed or relisted above. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions which have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically and need no further action.

May 18, 2012

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Billy Squier/Keith Price Is Right

The result of the discussion was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Billy Squier/Keith Price Is Right

Abandoned userspace draft about a blog. User has not edited since Feb 2011 and has no edits outside of the nominated page. The blog itself does not appear to be notable enough to move the page to mainspace. Should be deleted per WP:STALEDRAFT guideline. RL0919 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - WP:STALEDRAFT about a non-notable Stale Blog. Achowat (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:STALEDRAFT and per nom. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bombastus/Brownsea

The result of the discussion was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Bombastus/Brownsea

Also nominating

User:Bombastus/Mises (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Bombastus/Gentlemen's club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Stale user drafts from a user who has not edited since December 2010. The first two are French language copies of Audrey Hepburn and Ludwig von Mises; the third appears to be material to add to List of London's gentlemen's clubs. RL0919 (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete all per WP:STALEDRAFT and per nom. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gcrossan/pages/Redheads

The result of the discussion was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Gcrossan/pages/Redheads

Also nominating:

User:Gcrossan/pages/biochem (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Gcrossan/pages/limers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User:Gcrossan/pages/kevin Arbuckle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Group of WP:STALEDRAFT pages from a user who has not edited since January 2010. The first nominated page recreates an article deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of redheads. The second is from a section of Red hair. The last two are drafts of The Limelight (Belfast) and Roscoe Arbuckle, respectively. RL0919 (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete all per WP:STALEDRAFT and per nom. --Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gmaxwell/seo

The result of the discussion was keep. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Gmaxwell/seo

"Below is a filtered list of search terms which many people have searched for but don't have a direct match in Wikipedia. In some cases nothing should be done... but in other cases articles or redirects should be created." This is 6 years out of date, hasn't been linked from anywhere, and more than half the links are blue now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It's linked from a bunch of discussions on wiki(p|m)edia mailing lists. Deleting it wouldn't serve any useful purpose, and it's useful in the context of the older discussions (not to mention— not all of the pages are blue now). --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Is there a basis listed on Wikipedia:User pages for deleting the page? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
keep no reason to delete, and this could even be a useful list to build redirects or articles from. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep; just a user subpage. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 07:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep – harmless. We do not delete pages just because they are out of date. Graham87 07:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
This is noindexed and thus as harmless (and random, and pointless) as all the other weird blobs of data in Gmaxwell's userspace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Did we once capture search phrases to use as ideas for wanted articles? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LandHawg/Starving the Monkeys

The result of the discussion was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

User:LandHawg/Starving the Monkeys

Abandoned draft for an article that was subsequently deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starving the Monkeys. User has not edited July 2009 and subject is unlikely to be considered notable enough to move the draft back to mainspace. RL0919 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Userspace should not be used to Indefinitely host article drafts. Achowat (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT and per nom. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WLmoviemakr/William Lange

The result of the discussion was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

User:WLmoviemakr/William Lange

Also nominating:

User:WLmoviemakr/The Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These two pages are abandoned userspace drafts of what is almost certainly autobiographical material. One is a bio of a high school student, the other is about "a facebook based improvisational sitcom" created by that same student. User has not edited in nine months and has few edits beyond the nominated pages. Should be deleted per WP:FAKEARTICLE guideline. RL0919 (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - it is inappropriate to user Userspace to host articles about non-notable people that take on the trappings of Article space. Achowat (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete all - inappropriate to user Userspace to host such articles . -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

May 17, 2012

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AmaruKR/Sandbox

The result of the discussion was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

User:AmaruKR/Sandbox

Early copy of David Newman (singer). Untouched in userspace since 2009, user has not edited anything since 2010. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per wp:STALEDRAFT -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

May 16, 2012

User:DNGK/Citizen exploitation

Essay, violation of WP:OR. I feel mildly guilty nominating this one, because a lot of work has gone into it, but I don't think it's salvageable. I can't find any sources that use the expression "citizen exploitation" as it is here, where it's being used to mean "exploitation of citizen journalists" (ie, by outfits like Huffington Post that don't pay their bloggers.) Maybe some of the content could be moved to the citizen journalism article, with care taken not to include original research/synth, but I don't think "citizen exploitation" is a plausible redirect to that page. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment Well it is quite the WP:ESSAY. Actually it does have some usable citations so the cited parts of it could make a paragraph in Citizen journalism under 'Criticisms' - perhaps a new section 4.5 'Exploitation'. We could call that a Merge I guess; if that's not feasible then it's plainly Delete. I'm happy to vote either way on that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Canada Education Program/Courses/Present/The Newspaper in Canadian Society (Michael Valpy)/Students. Note that quite a lot of the other essays are in userspace sandboxes, with a few exceptions such as this and the heavily opinionated newspaper commercialism. Uncle G (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a speedy-userfication with relocation of this discussion to MFD, as you mentioned on my talk page, Uncle G. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems to have been speedily userfied, so wish was granted. I've not seen one of these MFDs before - it appears that the entire class set of essays (as we used to call them at university) is up for deletion? Because they're indeed university essays (in userspace sandboxes or no) and therefore no part of a global encyclopedia, is that it? If those are proper grounds for deletion, then OK, we have to delete. Could someone advise me? Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

May 15, 2012

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Juggs4/sandbox

The result of the discussion was keep and history merge. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Juggs4/sandbox

Per WP:FAKEARTICLE. This content was deleted by AfD (link). The original creator has userfied it. QU ^TalkQu 16:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Inquiry - Could you save us all the 30 seconds searching and link to the AFD in question? Achowat (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's already linked. ~~Follow the blue Wikilink above ("AfD" in the sentence that starts "This content was deleted by...").~~ I guess it isn't very visible actually so I've changed the format. QU ^TalkQu 21:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I moved the article here to do further work on it. This is my own sandbox page, that's what it's for. --Juggs4 (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. According to WP:FAKEARTICLE "short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable". So it's a question of whether the article, deleted via AfD, can be enhanced to make it a valid article in the "short term". Given the band that is the subject of the article has been inactive since 2003 and isn't notable now this seems somewhat unlikely (IMO). Of course FAKEARTICLE is a content guideline, not a policy so it is a matter of judgement whether it should be applied or not. QU ^TalkQu 13:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
This was created with a cut paste move and does not preserve attribution. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- A separate matter, but still one which should be dealt with. Regardless of the result here, the page histories should be merged. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - It was userfied 9 April 2012‎, a little more than a month ago. Short term hosting is about three months IMHO, or at least it's not a little more than a month ago. Yea, there were a lot of SPAs at th AfD and the band has been inactive since 2003. However, seems reasonalbe to give editor another month or two to improve it. Keep and relist on or after 9 July 2012 if needed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep for now and history merge Amphora (band) to User:Juggs4/sandbox. This seems to be a good faith attempt to work on the article. If no work is done on the draft, I recommend renominating this page for deletion after six months, or after 9 October 2012. A nomination after three months, after 9 July 2012, as suggested by Uzma Gamal (talk · contribs) may lead to another "keep" because some editors define "short-term hosting" as at least six months. Cunard (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

May 14, 2012

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Buddhism/Revised

The result of the discussion was keep. In my capacity as an editor, however, I'll follow Cunard's advice. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Buddhism/Revised

Delete. Abandoned draft. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep – its history contains 149 revisions and its mentioned quite a bit at Talk:Buddhism/Archive 9, especially in the sections "Regarding the sandbox version" and "can we please make the neutrality dispute more visible on this talk page?". I just can't understand what harm it's doing and why all its edits need to be made inaccessible to non-admins. Graham87 10:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep, its mention in the talk page means we need to keep this. Make sure any article specific categories and maintenance templates are deleted, though. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Violates Wikipedia:Subpages. Also, there a time limit on writing drafts of major article revisions. Since the last edit to the Buddhism/Revised article was 9 November 2010, that time limit ended long ago.‎ Any Buddhism/Revised consensus material was incorporated into the Buddhism article long ago. It's important to turn the editors attention to the article itself rather than memorializing how things could have went differently. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep, blank, and tag as {{historical}}. Because the material at Talk:Buddhism/Revised may have been used to formulate the current article, it should be kept to satisfy the GFDL/CC-BY-SA licensing requirements. Blank because as Uzma Gamal (talk · contribs) notes, it violates Wikipedia:Subpages in its current form. Keep because of the licensing requirements and because of Graham87 (talk · contribs)'s argument that the page is referenced many times at Talk:Buddhism/Archive 9 and should not be made inaccessible to non-admins. Cunard (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Cunard solution - seems like to easiest way to deal with the issues at hand. Achowat (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

May 13, 2012

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Littlebum2002/Racial MArriage

The result of the discussion was moot. Basically, the userbox has been edited and, now, the original deletion rationale no longer applies. This closure does not prevent anybody from renominating the userbox for deletion immediately, if they believe that it still should be deleted. Lastly, speaking as an editor, I admit I like Achowat's three-prong test to determine the acceptability of a userbox, but, as he recognises, this is not the appropriate place to discuss such an innovation... $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Littlebum2002/Racial MArriage

I came across this userbox as it was used as part of a userpage vandalism campaign (diff). This userbox isn't used anywhere and basically exists to prove a point (see User:Littlebum2002).[1] Not sure there's any point keeping it just to prove a point about how radically open we are. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ewww. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Offensive and unrelated to the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't like it, but other stuff exists. If it is the case that a "one man, one woman" userbox has survived, and as we can see from Littlebum's userpage, a number of equally questionable religio-political userboxes are in use, then...how is this one different? None of these "I believe X" boxes really seem to fit WP:POLEMIC - they're not phrased hostilely, they don't attack others (except by inference of those reading them), and they're not negative information about other users. I'm having a hard time separating my personal dislike of this sort of userbox - I would happily support an abolition of userboxes declaring religious or political affiliation (as well as those about which fruits people like, for that matter...) - and the fact that myriad other equally-political boxes exist, from policy here, but as this box stands, the only possibly-valid deletion reason I see seems to be WP:POINT, and I'm not sure if that's enough to take out a userbox that's really no different from many others which are widely used. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Mayhap you've missed the point of OTHERSTUFF? Keeping this out of some ill-advised sense of consistency does not improve the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  - No, I get the point of it (that's why I ironically linked the essays myself!). What I was saying is that generally, religio-political userboxes like this seem to be kept at AfD from what I've seen, and I don't see anything having to do with this one that's not also true of any number of userboxes that have been kept due to not actually violating policy. Believe me, I will shed no tears if this one is deleted (I find the opinion it expresses ugly in the extreme, and as I said, I think we would be well-rid of all userboxes about religious or political opinions), but I was basically expressing that the deletion nomination (and policy itself, as I read it) doesn't give a lot of ground for actually deleting this. The question seems to be whether this falls under "propaganda" or "advocacy", and since I, personally, am not sure whether it does or not (certainly it expresses an opinion - but does it urge others to take that opinion? is it an "opinion piece"?), I think previous community opinion about userboxes like this is useful for determining that. Considering this box in a vacuum and taking into account strict policy only, I would go weak delete - I'm not convinced it's much of a violation of our userpage/userbox guidelines (that is to say, it seems to be largely in line with other boxes that are felt to adhere to our guidelines, with the main difference being the unpleasantness of the opinion), but the more I consider it, the more I think it smells a bit too much of political advocacy. Considering the box in context of actual community practice regarding boxes like this (and to my mind, "here's what the community has actually ruled in the past regarding whether these boxes step over the line" is somewhat distinct from "other stuff exists", my ironic linkage notwithstanding), I'm not so sure - consensus seems to be largely either nonexistent or slightly in favor of allowing political opinion boxes.
    Mind you, I haven't read every MfD ever - if there's a basis for "the community generally, or at least sometimes, feels that boxes like this are unacceptable" that I've missed in my wiki-travels, please point it out to me and I will absolutely reconsider my !vote here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - per Wikipedia:Userbox#Content_restrictions (Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive, propaganda, advocacy, political, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics) and per wp:point. A message conveying a thought that -- if you don't believe in gay marriage, you are a racist -- is not a good one for a userbox. Also, Otto4711 brought up Loving v. Virginia [2] (linked in the User:Littlebum2002/Racial MArriage userbox) and "race" in the MfD that sought to delete the "This user believes a marriage consists only of one man and one woman," Junglecat userbox. Otto4711 also brought up the specific wording of the above userbox in that MfD discussion.[3] It was sufficient to make the argument in that prior MfD discussion and there now is no need to additionally illustrate that as a point via a userbox. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm pretty sure "if you don't support gay marriage, you are a racist" is not the intended message of the userbox. It might instead be "if you oppose gay marriage, your views are as anachronistic and unreasonable as those who opposed interracial marriage back when that was an issue"... which isn't the same thing. Of course, without the user in question clarifying whether that is the view it is advocating, I'd be hesitant in claiming that is the political message it is attempting to send. Rather, the user who created the userbox claims they are doing it to basically test the radical openness of Wikipedia. Which seems POINTy, and against the point of what Wikipedia is: it's an encyclopedia, not an sociological experiment per WP:NOTANARCHY. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

We're not all cut from the same cloth and different people may take different meaning from the userbox and there is no reason to subject them to any of them per the reasons listed above. WP:NOTANARCHY is a good reason to delete as well. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete If this user or any other sincerely agreed with the userbox's sentiments I might !vote differently, but this is a straightforward example of disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. – hysteria18 (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I guess it is time for me to weigh in on the subject.

First of all, I do not believe “creating a userbox” is “disrupting Wikipedia”. Userboxes always have been and always will be an optional area of Wikipedia, and hidden to most users. Considering that no “real” Wikipedia page has been altered by this, I do not see it disrupting the site.

Second, I am NOT saying that everyone who opposes gay marriage is racist. I am saying that, if Wikipedia allows divisive userboxes such as “marriage is one man one woman”, then they should also allow divisive userboxes like mine. Wikipedia says it does not allow divisive userboxes, but it clearly does. So the decision should be made: Do we allow ALL divisive userboxes, or NO divisive userboxes?

Third, nowhere does it state that you must agree with a userbox to create it. Many users create similar userboxes in a variety of political beliefs to cater to most people. Whether or not this userbox agrees with my personal beliefs is irrelevant to whether or not it should be deleted.

Of course this userbox is divisive. But it is no more, nor no less, divisive than the many userboxes opposing same-sex marriage. I can see no reasonable argument as to why it should be deleted but they be allowed to remain, unless Wikipedia is to declare that gender-identity discrimination is somehow more acceptable than racial discrimination. Someone opposing interracial marriage has just as much right to display their beliefs as someone opposing same-sex marriage.

Lastly, I say KEEP. Either all divisive userboxes should be deleted, or none should. There is no Wikipedia standard which says gender discrimination is more acceptable than racial discrimination. littlebum2002 12:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

We specifically account for that argument. If you think that other userboxes are inflammatory and divisive then take that up with those templates: creating your own divisive template to make a point only causes more antagonism. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I make the request that this be removed out of consideration for deletion. The issue of divisive userboxes has been already raised numerous times (for instance here and here, among numerous others), and for me to do so again would simply waste everyone's time. The consensus will remain the same: there is no consensus. I see no reason why the debate on mine would be any different. Anyone who opposes divisive userboxes, for whatever reason, would almost certainly oppose mine, and anyone who supports them, for whatever reason, would almost certainly support mine. If you read these archives, you will see why I say this: most arguments discuss simply whether divisive userboxes are appropriate or not. Only very few address the actual subject in the userbox itself. Therefore, the subject in the userbox is irrelevant, and the debate is simply whether or not divisive userboxes should exist or not, which, as I said, has occurred numerous times.

The only userboxes which have been deleted for divisive reasons are those which personally attack a person or group, or those which present an opinion in an inflammatory way. SInce this does neither, I again say we skip the exact same debate which has occurred countless times and give it a "no consensus" and leave it at that. littlebum2002 15:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Or we can let the closing admin decide the consensus once the MfD has had time to be discussed rather than pre-empt the discussion less than 36 hours in. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ because this is a userbox that apparently nobody wants to use. It was created almost a year ago but it is transcluded onto exactly zero userpages, nor does it reflect the views of its own creator. I don't see how it helps anything to maintain this userbox. If the userbox creator wanted to create another userbox that stated his actual views, that would be a different story. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see when I am in the minority, and I can see when I have made a bad judgement. Perhaps I did, in fact, cross the line of Wikipedia's guidelines when trying to prove a point. While I still believe that all divisive userboxes should be treated the same, and not allowed only if the divisive opinion contained is a popular one, I believe changing the userbox is the best course of action for me to take. SO I have modified this userbox so that it does, in fact, correspond with my beliefs, is a sentiment expressed by a fair number of people, and may actually be used in the pages of users in the future. I hope this change can settle this matter. littlebum2002 16:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Close MfD as moot. The content of the userbox has now been changed from "This user believes a marriage consists only of one man and one woman of the same race" to "This user believes that telling someone what gender they can marry is no different than telling them what race they can marry". Since the userbox now expresses the userbox creator's views, my earlier recommendation no longer applies. If any editor still wants this userbox to be deleted despite the complete change of content, they can renominate it on different grounds. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as the content has changed, it seems slightly pointless to carry on with this. I withdraw this MfD nomination. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments - I'm of two minds here, and the closing admin, I'm sure, will weigh my opinions accordingly.

First, XfD should not be a place to determine consensus. By that I mean, XfD should ask what our policies are (and apply them accordingly). Especially MfD (which is generally low-traffic) should not be used to determine what our consensus should be.

That being said, my second point is this: Political Userboxen are inherently divisive. In fact, every Userbox (save "This user is a Wikipedian" or the like) is divisive. It says that I am either included in or excluded from a group, and that makes me unique. But clearly some Userboxen are acceptable, and some are not. "This User supports Manchester United FC" is, by all accounts, okay. "This users supports the social policies of the North American Man-Boy Love Association" is, by most accounts, not ok.

When dealing with Userboxen, the question shouldn't be "Is the opinion expressed here a. Legal, b. Acceptable, c. Reflexive?" Those are three tests that I'd propose. NAMBLA is an organization that, in the State of Florida, it may be counter to the law to be an "active" member of. Acceptable is trickier, but I know we've recently removed Userboxen that talk about National Socialism, I'd be in favor of removing overtly sexual Userboxen, etc. There is some grey, but cooler heads can prevail and a rational line can be drawn in the sand.

Reflexive is the easiest one to demonstrate (and, in my opinion, where this box runs counter to what we should do). Does the box explain details about the User or the Reader. Essentially, this page reads "Users who disagree with me, personally, are not-good people". I know it doesn't exactually say that and there might be valid, rational, legal arguments against miscegenation (though I've never, personally, heard any) and a Userbox saying "This user believes that marriage should be between one white man and one white woman" would probably be removed. But the connotation is there. The only reason to make that statement is to ask the reader to re-evaluate hir opinions on same-sex marriage after being called a racist.

Ok, so that long-winded response being said, (and the WP:WAX and WP:POINT issues brought up notwithstanding) I firmly believe that any change in Userbox policy needs to happen in a broader spectrum and, unfortunately, this box, as well as "This User recognizes the kind of marriage his/her parents entered into as the only valid kind of marriage", while being hosted in Userspace, is in keeping with out current procedures on Userbox migration. Achowat (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I still think it is as simple as I said above. And XfD is one of the best places to accumulate evidence of policy in practice. Similar userboxes mentioned above are welcome to be discussed at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Butthurt much? GTFO. Keep. SkyBon (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

May 10, 2012

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Codename Dark Spyro

The result of the discussion was delete. There is no reason to keep this page around for another month or two, considering that there is no chance it is going to be kept then, as it is an unsourced autobiography of an entirely unnotable living person. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Codename Dark Spyro

Userspace bio. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete and open up an SPI for this user and User:Kris McDonald. Achowat (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- SPI is unnecessary. They're obviously the same editor, and the other user name has never edited since this one started. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Troutslaps all round. Why not engage with this new editor, who clearly has an interest in and talent for writing? Encourage him to contribute, offer to mentor him (or point to places where others will do so) and help him become a useful and productive contributor? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep and userfy to one of his/her subpages. The page was created 18 April 2012‎, about a month ago. Three months seems a more reasonable time to give the editor a chance to edit the article, especially a new editor. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE and per the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kris McDonald, which contained similar content to this page. The page is an unsourced autobiography of a living person. Cunard (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

May 5, 2012

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is serious business

The result of the discussion was keep and tag as an essay. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is serious business

It just is? Surely this needs a better explanation of 'serious business' or else it would suffice to all our other essays, guidelines and policies outlining that the place is for 'serious business'. This page is useless. Rcsprinter (state the obvious (or not)) 15:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to Wikipedia:Real Life (which is probably close to what the creator had in mind). meshach (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Uh, no. Not funny. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Strong meh I could see this developing into a humorous essay (with lots of lolcats and such), but seriously, I don't see how "unfunny" and "short" are violations of WP:ESSAY. I suppose WP:HARMLESS isn't a very good argument for keeping something, but as that page notes, it's potentially very relevant in MfD... Honestly, I'm unconvinced that this page is worth the effort of deleting. --N Y Kevin @110, i.e. 01:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Userfy-Little gags like this don't need to be in the Wikipedia namespace.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Presumably because Wikipedia is serious business. Killiondude (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world (as suggested by Meshach). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Inappropriate use of Project namespace that should dealt with appropriately. I have no prejudice against expansion, deletion, redirection, or userfication; really, any solution but "Keep". Achowat (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep: Not convinced by any of the discussion here that this page should be deleted. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Have restored the humour tag in line with the Two truths doctrine Leutha (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep I really do not see how this harms the Wikipedia, or how WP is helped by even discussing the deletion of pages like this. When I consider all the copyvio and promotionalism we really need to get rid of ... DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Per MZMcBride and DGG. Killiondude (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Userfy - I'm not particularly convinced by the deletion rationale, as it is part of Category:Wikipedia humour, but is there a situation where this could be used for a purpose other than to mock someone? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the humour tag was added after the MfD was started. Rcsprinter (message) 19:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
FYI, the humour tag was restored after the MfD was started.Leutha (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Meets Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays: addresses some aspect of working in Wikipedia, personal or minority view, contains enough advice and opinion of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is a short essay but the message comes across in several ways. The humor tag needs to be removed because the tag is not based on policy or guideline (there is no policy or guideline for keeping a page because it is considered humorous). Instead, tag the essay with one or both {{guidance essay}} {{humorous essay}}. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep and tag as an essay per Uzma Gamal.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

April 29, 2012

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PuppyOnTheRadio/score thing2

The result of the discussion was no consensus. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

User:PuppyOnTheRadio/score thing2

We're not a webhost. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The coding in it has been designed for use across various wikis, including Wikipedia. I've left it there as it may have a use here later on, and it's inclusion was not doing any damage from what I could see. If there is a concern with it beyond the fact that it's taking up server space (which it will still do if it's deleted) I'm happy to address the issue. Of course, making amendments to it to remove the links that are in there at the moment would just add more to the XML, so I chose not to change it at this stage as it was not an issue, and apparently using server space here can be a problem. Although I'm surprised that Wikia have not limited users potential edits here further if server space is such a concern for them. PuppyOnTheRadio talk 04:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The long and the short of it is that the English Wikipedia is not a general hosting space for neat bits of MediaWiki code. I'm not sure if by "Wikia" you mean the WikiMedia Foundation, but there is no particular need for them to enforce some "don't use the English Wikipedia as a general hosting space for neat bits of MediaWiki code" when our own userspace guidelines do that well enough anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. Wikia and Wikimedia foundation used to run off of the same servers back in 2007, and I was unaware that this was no longer the case. As I was referring to the servers I used the incorrect term. PuppyOnTheRadio talk 07:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. I'm sure this is not what the writers of WP:NOTWEBHOST had in mind. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep - to quote WP:UP#What may I not have in my user pages? (y'know, the page that says what we should delete from Userspace) "you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia...your user page is not a personal website. Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project." This page is clearly in keeping with that principle. Achowat (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete. WP:NOTWEBHOST says specifically that If you are interested in using the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on something else, even if it is just a single page, there are many free and commercial sites that provide wiki hosting. You can also install wiki software on your server. This is something else, part of a project of PuppyOnTheRadio's on Uncyclopedia, and is not relevant to this project. — Isarra ༆ 19:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? If it is intended for a purpose on Uncyclopedia, and not intended for a purpose on Wikipedia, then it should be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

According to the page history, it was created and used for his scoring of the previous Happymonkey contest on Uncyclopedia, functioning as part of the larger container template [[User:PuppyOnTheRadio/score thing2]] which has since been deleted. As Wikipedia does not have contests of this nature and the required container does not exist, I also find it unlikely that this even could serve any purpose here. — Isarra ༆ 00:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Issara is accurate in that the secondary purpose was for off site use. The primary purpose is to create a tool for use here, that when completed may be usable. Having a look at the RFC for Muhammed recently, there were two templates that had been created for use here that did not have a use here yet. PuppyOnTheRadio talk 07:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep: This isn't an unreasonable use of userspace, especially for someone as active as this editor. Not everything in userspace has to be directly related to Wikipedia. Buddy431 (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Where is this used on Wikipedia, do we have examples? If it's not used anywhere useful here then delete per WP:UPNOT and WP:WEBHOST.--Otterathome (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per my previous comment and ones below, author is unable to disclose its purpose.--Otterathome (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking for examples where a WIP is used on WP? If so, then in most regular users user spaces, including User:Otterathome/Template. If you're asking for examples of where a completed template is used, then I'd draw your attention to here. PuppyOnTheRadio talk 07:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I asked for an example where the code on that page is used, or intended to be used. Not an example where WIP is placed in user space.--Otterathome (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

An example where a template that allows qualitative and quantitative feedback on individual articles. WP:PR springs immediately to mind. I'm sure that there are other areas where a feedback system could be used where a quantitative analysis of content could be desirable. Uranium also had limited use prior to 1945 - potential value and immediate value are not the same thing however. PuppyOnTheRadio talk 11:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Doesn't seem particularly useful, but so long as something in userspace looks vaguely wiki-related, then I'm inclined to let it stay. Especially template-y stuff like this. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:NOTGAMEHOST. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Weak keep: per Achowat and Buddy431. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. A page with so little content doesn't constitute a major violation of WP:WEBHOST. Who knows, in future it may prove to be useful. Super Mario Man 15:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.