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. If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done. Save the page. III. Add a line to MfD. Follow   this edit link   and at the top of the list add a line: {{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}} Put the page's name in place of "PageName". Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. Save the page. If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add {{priorxfd|PageName}} in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions. If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page. For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add {{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~ to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion. If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages. If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	9	49	0	58
TfD	0	0	14	0	14
MfD	0	0	0	0	7
FfD	0	0	2	0	2
RfD	0	2	28	0	30
AfD	0	0	2	0	2

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.

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.

September 11, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:Wiki.png

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Help:Wiki.png Help:Wiki.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Do we really need this page? -Porch corpter (contribs) 09:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - No clear nor helpful information on this page. A comment on its purpose by the author would be appreciated. CT Cooper · talk 11:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Keep Informative and no actual grounds for deletion given ("Do we really need?" applies to almost every page outside of major articles in mainspace). Collect (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC) This is a duplicate, unused transclusion in the wrong namespace. Please engage brain before posting boilerplate procedural keeps. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Please "engage brain" before using that phrase about other editors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, completely unnecessary. This information belongs on the file description page. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per above. No useful purpose served by this kind of page. --Kleinzach 14:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per... all deletes above... I don't like it when pages are redundant. In my opinion, redundant pages are bad. When a page is redundant, I don't like it. Redundant pages are bad, in my opinion. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 22:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC) To clarify, what I meant wasn't that help:wiki.png was redundant, but that I don't like to make XfD pages redundant. When I make a comment on an XfD page, I try not to be redundant to other comments. I try not to repeat other comments when I'm commenting on an XfD page. If I'm saying something on an XfD page, I try not to say the same things others have said. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 12:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Delete – This page serves no particular purpose, and the information given on the page can be found elsewhere. —mc10 (t/c) 04:48, 14 September 2011 (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.

September 10, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User non nobis sed omnibus

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 procedural close to allow a more thorough discussion.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User non nobis sed omnibus Template:User non nobis sed omnibus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 23:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Keep I agree with the above that this is currently an unused userbox, but that isn't a reason for deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 11:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Keep I agree with the above that this is currently an unused userbox, but that isn't a reason for deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 11:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC) I agree --Uncle Scrooge (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User nottingham high school

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 procedural close to allow a more thorough discussion.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User nottingham high school Template:User nottingham high school (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 23:13, 13 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User nostalgia

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 procedural close to allow a more thorough discussion.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User nostalgia Template:User nostalgia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 23:13, 13 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User pageantfan

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 procedural close to allow a more thorough discussion.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User pageantfan Template:User pageantfan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 23:12, 13 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User qx

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 procedural close to allow a more thorough discussion.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User qx Template:User qx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 23:12, 13 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User random thoughts

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 procedural close to allow a more thorough discussion.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User random thoughts Template:User random thoughts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 16:03, 13 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User restoration

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 procedural close to allow a more thorough discussion.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User restoration Template:User restoration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 16:02, 13 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User spooning

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 procedural close to allow a more thorough discussion.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User spooning Template:User spooning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 12:56, 13 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User sociopath

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 procedural close to allow a more thorough discussion.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User sociopath Template:User sociopath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 16:02, 13 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User too many

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 procedural close to allow a more thorough discussion.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User too many Template:User too many (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 16:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Keep I agree with the above that this is currently an unused userbox, but that isn't a reason for deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 11:37, 17 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User student nurse

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 procedural close to allow a more thorough discussion.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User student nurse Template:User student nurse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 12:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Keep I agree with the above that this is currently an unused userbox, but that isn't a reason for deletion. Especially in this case where use will be temporary and indicates an area of editing that the user may be interested in. ϢereSpielChequers 11:39, 17 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User sudoku

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 procedural close to allow a more thorough discussion.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User sudoku Template:User sudoku (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 12:37, 13 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User userbox:cool

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 procedural close to allow a more thorough discussion.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User userbox:cool Template:User userbox:cool (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Comment: it actually is used. By searching for "this user thinks userboxes are cool" I saw that it is substituted on user:Izmaster3000. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 02:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Keep and move to {{userbox cool}} or something similar. The current name should be changed, and it's not unused anymore. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 18:27, 13 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User yoshimi

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 procedural close to allow a more thorough discussion.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User yoshimi Template:User yoshimi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 02:35, 13 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tfmurphhk/Sandbox

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC) User:Tfmurphhk/Sandbox User:Tfmurphhk/Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:FAKEARTICLE not edited since 2007, hardly differs from Aguadilla City Police Department, no useful information to be salvaged as this is all unreferenced. Acather96 (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Keep This should not have come to MfD. You could have asked the editor to request a U1 speedy, or if you felt very strongly about it blanked the page yourself and left a polite note on his talk page. Either of these would be much more polite than MfD. Editor can revert a page blank, but MfD means the content is lost. --Surturz (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Keep Current active editor - and valid sandbox of an active editor. Collect (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT and WP:NOTWEBHOST. I think it has served its purpose. And I wouldn't call 2 edits since late June "active".   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Quite obviously a stale draft. The keeps and almost certainly indicate that the editors behind them didn't do much as click the link to the page history. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC) It is a sandbox and not an article - and I looked at both the sandbox history and editor history, thank you. Collect (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Thumperward, admins are expected to behave better than that. I certainly looked at the editor history and the page history. You appear to have forgotten that when a page is deleted, non-admins lose access to the content. Blanking the page is far more polite, and could be done by any editor without wasting everyone's time at MfD. --Surturz (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per WP:UP#COPIES, which states (my bolding): "'Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Because this page violates WP:UP#COPIES and WP:NOTWEBHOST, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC) That the page is titled "Sandbox" does not detract from the fact that it violates the letter and spirit of WP:UP#COPIES, which I quoted above. I note that this draft is a copy and paste from Aguadilla City Police Department (specifically this version). As the page is misleading, with the name "Aguadilla City Police Department" changed to "Palm Beach Gardens Police Department", it is best deleted. Cunard (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:209.178.175.191/sandbox

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC) User:209.178.175.191/sandbox User:209.178.175.191/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This IP hasn't edited since 2005 and an IP should not have a userpage like this anyway. Especially one called sandbox in a subpage as it is. Kumioko (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Merge to Wikipedia:Sandbox :) Bulwersator (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per nom and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Acather96 (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete due to lack of activity. However, I dispute that IP's should not have user pages (See WP:HUMAN). Also, is there any reason why you could not have simply blanked the page yourself rather than raised an MfD? --Surturz (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Well no not a huge reason but I see no need to treat this anydifferently than another trash page. If it has no value to the encyclopedia (and clearly this user has long abandoned this page) then we should get rid of it rather than blank it. Thats just my opinion though. --Kumioko (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Delete There are a number of good IP editors, their contributions should not be discounted because they don't have a "registered" account. At any rate, unused/edited pages shouldn't be kept around forever as per WP:NOTWEBHOST.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, WP:NOTWEBHOST, has been abandoned for ages. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per above — except I don't agree with "an IP should not have a userpage like this anyway." Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 16:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Delete – Mainly per WP:NOTWEBHOST, and because the IP has not edited since 2005. —mc10 (t/c) 04:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, but purely per NOTWEBHOST. Policy doesn't prohibit IPs from having a userspace. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2011 (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.

September 9, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:118.93.6.36/Arch Hurd

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC) User:118.93.6.36/Arch Hurd User:118.93.6.36/Arch Hurd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) No activity since February 2011 by IP user, page creator or on the page itself. No need for IP editor subpages for this long. House cleaning Kumioko (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete: It was created by Gregory NZL (talk · contribs), not the IP. 118.93.6.36 (talk) has only made 2 edits, unrelated to this. It hasn't been edited since its creation in February 2010. So if Gregory NZL wants it, move it to user:Gregory NZL/Arch Hurd. Otherwise, delete. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 01:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete as per nom, though I think nom mean Feb 2010, not 2011. Also, this seems to be a WP:STALEDRAFT of the actual Arch Hurd article. --Surturz (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:118.210.25.218/Las Vegas'10

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC) User:118.210.25.218/Las Vegas'10 User:118.210.25.218/Las Vegas'10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) No activity since February 2011. IP's shouldn't have a subpage like this for this amount of time. Just housecleaning. Kumioko (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC) I don't understand why a registered user has created a userpage under an IP userspace. Is it sockpuppetry or something? --Surturz (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete. This page was created by a registered user, not by the IP address whose userspace this is in. In fact, this page has never been edited by the IP address whose userspace it is in. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sean Peyton Ross

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 Withdrawn. Without prejudice to future MfD's, based on page creator's statements that he intends to edit Wikipedia articles at some time in the future. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC) User:Sean Peyton Ross User:Sean Peyton Ross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Fails WP:NOTMYSPACE; also just about manages to fail WP:FAKEARTICLE. The page creator uses Wikipedia only for the purpose of hosting this page about himself; he has no other contributions whatsoever. Repeated attempts to discuss this with the article creator on his talk page have been ignored, despite the fact that he has edited since the first attempt was made. There are also possible BLP concerns as the page names (and links to) a notable female actress and suggests friendship between her and the editor, without any supporting reference (the page also gives the full names of six other living persons). (struck per page author's reply on my talk page and per WP:AGF) Wikipedia has been hosting this material since 20th July 2011, and there is no indication the editor ever intends to contribute to the encyclopedia itself; the page should be deleted as Wikipedia is not a webhost. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Greetings, How do i enter this pages data in the proper biography section ? I was planning to do more articles and editing of thing like homebuilt aviation amatuer and antique radio and electronics. Respectfully, Sean Ross Sean Peyton Ross (talk) 6:54 pm, Today (UTC−7) (edit conflict)Delete - Per WP:NOTMYSPACE and the user obviously has no intention of contributing to the project. Mlpearc powwow 02:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Sean, if you move it to article space, it will probably be speedy deleted, because there is no real assertion of encyclopedic notability., Please see WP:People-- what you need for a viable article are references providing substantial coverage about the individual from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. If you don't have this,why not instead contribute to some of our articles on your subject area? DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Note, I'm considering withdrawing the MfD based on Sean's statement that he intends to contribute to articles in the future, depending on Mlpearc's view and unless anyone else wishes to !vote delete. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)X2 I withdraw my "Delete" as user has communicated a disre to contribute to the project and in no way do I want to stand in the way with that. WP:AGF. Sean Peyton Ross jump in the water is fine :P. Welcome again. ( I would tone down your user page a bit ) Mlpearc powwow 02:36, 10 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User AllPeers

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 procedural close to allow a more thorough discussion.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User AllPeers Template:User AllPeers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - Unused userbox; no reason to keep. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Go ahead and delete it. I don't care. --Aliendude5300 (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Aer Lingus

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 procedural close to allow a more thorough discussion.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User Aer Lingus Template:User Aer Lingus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - Unused userbox; no reason to keep. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 13:01, 14 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Aikido

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 procedural close to allow a more thorough discussion.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User Aikido Template:User Aikido (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - Unused userbox; no reason to keep. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 13:02, 14 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User AdelUtd

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 procedural close to allow a more thorough discussion.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User AdelUtd Template:User AdelUtd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Ugly, unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - Unused userbox; no reason to keep. By the way, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :) ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 12:59, 14 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Acharts

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 procedural close to allow a more thorough discussion.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User Acharts Template:User Acharts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - Unused userbox; no reason to keep. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 12:58, 14 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User 40k SM

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 procedural close to allow a more thorough discussion.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User 40k SM Template:User 40k SM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - Unused userbox; no reason to keep. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 21:57, 13 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User 128k

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 Speedily deleted per WP:T3 (non-admin closure).   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User 128k Template:User 128k (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per G7.  Diego  talk  22:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - Unused userbox; no reason to keep. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:35, 9 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:94.23.201.171

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 keep.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC) User talk:94.23.201.171 User talk:94.23.201.171 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Not sure why this page exists with the block message. This IP user doesn't appear to have ever done even one edit let alone one to get them blocked. This tells me it happened so many years ago that it predatres Wikipedias capability to track the edit history. Kumioko (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Comment - this is a discussion very much in progress pertaining directly to the block on the IP in question. Yes it is blocked. There is no need to delete the discussion, even when it concludes, as it will likely remain relevant for some time. Thanks for closing this early. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC) I'm curious as to why they would block an IP and then discuss it when that IP appears to have never edited. --Kumioko (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC) It was pre-emptively range-blocked, and now the 'owner' would like to use it. I have verified both, and if you read the discussion in progress you would realise that, for example, one option is to softblock it directly causing an entry in its block log. Another option is that it might suddenly start editing like a bot. You'd appreciate the ability to read the background to it if that happened. True the same discussion could have been started elsewhere, but it didn't. And now that it has, it's going to remain relevant for some time yet. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete This has to be the first time I've ever seen someone nominate an IP talk page for deletion. Delete as an implementation of the spirit of speedy deletion criterion U2 (nonexistent user) — this user has never made any edits, so it shouldn't have a userpage for any purpose. As we know that the "owner" wants to use the account for legitimate purposes, we shouldn't worry about misuse of this IP address. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Keep Per zzuuzz, don't see any reason to delete a legitimate IP talk page being used for that purpose. Crazynas t 18:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Delete. Per Nyttend. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Keep - @"no edits" -> "I request the IP to be unblocked (it is static) so the scripts running on there may resume their tasks. - " Bulwersator (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User biswas med

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User biswas med Template:User biswas med (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Obscure, old, unused userbox from a user who has gone away. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - Unused userbox; no reason to keep. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:31, 9 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Story of Clare/x

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC) User:Story of Clare/x User:Story of Clare/x (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User subpage of an indefinitely blocked, thus violates WP:STALEDRAFT and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 10:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - Subpage of a indefinitely blocked user, and the article already exists. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per nom, not much more needs to be said on this one.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:36, 10 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User gratitude

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. JohnCD (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User gratitude Template:User gratitude (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC) "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)" Delete I created this page a long time ago, and haven't used it for quite some time. Shardsofmetal 12:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - Unused userbox; no reason to keep. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 16:17, 13 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User guardian angel

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. JohnCD (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User guardian angel Template:User guardian angel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC) "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)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulwersator (talk • contribs) 7:27, September 9, 2011 Delete - Unused, no reason to keep. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 16:52, 13 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User prince

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 without prejudice to the userbox being userfied upon request.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User prince Template:User prince (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Relist to TFD. -Porch corpter (contribs) 17:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Why? "Book:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including Wikiprojects), User:, the various Talk: namespaces, and userboxes (regardless of namespace)" Bulwersator (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Yes, this should have remained at MFD. Let's leave it, though; we may as well discuss it here to avoid yet another change of venue. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC) I've moved the discussion from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 9#Template:User prince back to MfD so there will be no procedural issues if this discussion is ever brought to deletion review. Cunard (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC) User:Userfy if the creator wishes it. He seems inactive though. --Σ talkcontribs 05:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete or userfy to narrow to be appropriate for public spaceCurb Chain (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete. The largely inactive creator has abandoned it. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Userfy - For an unused userbox. -Porch corpter (contribs) 10:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - Nobody uses it; it has been abandoned. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 16:16, 13 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikimania5

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User wikimania5 Template:User wikimania5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox Bulwersator (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused userbox. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 16:15, 13 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kyle Rankin

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 Deleted per WP:G3 (blatant hoax). — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC) User:Kyle Rankin User:Kyle Rankin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This isn't just a fake article, it's also a hoax--see the user's deleted contributions. Or check out all the gold and platinum albums. Perhaps the user should be blocked, since they don't seem to be aware that Wikipedia is not for this sort of thing. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2011 (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.

September 8, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:InproperinLA

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC) User:InproperinLA User:InproperinLA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Lengthy political manifesto and document farm; severely fails WP:UP#GAMES, WP:UP#POLEMIC, and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Appears to be part of this user's multi-year campaign to seek Wikipedia-brand justice for some guy named Richard Fine, a disbarred lawyer in California who is in prison in Los Angeles for contempt of court. No connection to the project.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - Wow. Definitely doesn't belong here. I really don't know what else to say. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 00:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per above. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. MER-C 03:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per above. --Weazie (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC) 'Abstain due to speechlessness. baa.. wuhhh.. fa.. zubuzzahah? --Surturz (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC) 'Abstain - I concur, particularly with the "zubuzzahah"... :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by InproperinLA (talk • contribs) 07:16, 11 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mac78

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC) User:Mac78 User:Mac78 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Hamham31 (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Because the user was blocked indefinitely in February 2011 for "creating and disseminating hoaxes", there is no need to retain this page. Cunard (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - I agree; there isn't any reason to let this hang around. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 00:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - This user tried to make an article, but all of his contributions is not true. It must be deleted immediately.Hamham31 (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User SSNCE

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User SSNCE Template:User SSNCE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox. (I have plenty more where these came from – see numbers 11752 to 12712 on this page – but I'll let up for the moment.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC) So that's where all those userboxes you're nominating are coming from! I was wondering about that. ☺ Dynamic|cimanyD talk·edits 16:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC) I noticed a while back on the WhatLinkHere pages for these that that page linked to all of these; that's a handy page you have there. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC) I noticed that earlier too, but didn't bother to look at it. Dynamic|cimanyD talk·edits 00:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, unused. Dynamic|cimanyD talk·edits 16:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - Unused; no reason to keep. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 00:13, 9 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:222.152.153.186/Method123

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC) User:222.152.153.186/Method123 User:222.152.153.186/Method123 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Appears to be an abandoned userspace draft article. This user however is an IP and the draft has been here untouched since May 2010. I think its safe to delete it as Housekeeping. Kumioko (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - Untouched for over a year; looks pretty stale to me. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 04:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Delete: It was created and edited by Rachnzl (talk · contribs), not 222.152.153.186 (talk). There have never been any edits from 222.152.153.186. It hasn't been edited in over a year. Based on that, it doesn't have any reason to be where it is. (If Rachnzl wants it, it should be moved to user:Rachnzl/Method123.) Dynamic|cimanyD talk·edits 16:57, 8 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Supuhstar/Pranked

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. While some editors argue that this page should be kept, their rationales are rather weak, basically amounting to the opinion that this page is, all in all, pretty harmless; on the other hand, the delete !votes are firmly rooted in the relevant guideline, which states that the focus of user pages should not be social networking, or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. In weighing the various lines of reasoning, as consensus is not a headcount, I believe that the rationales of the people !voting to delete are far more convincing.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC) User:Supuhstar/Pranked User:Supuhstar/Pranked (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This page was linked from a fake "you have new messages" bar. Since you're not allowed to do that, this shouldn't exist either. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Keep - As far as I can tell, the fake new messages bar isn't used in his userspace. What does link to this is that fake warning box on his user page, which seems fine to me. If I am wrong, and the new messages bar is somewhere in his userspace, it could just be removed. I don't really see why this page should be deleted. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 04:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Keep, if any message bar pranking is currently going on it needs to be stopped immediately but saving this as a memento of the more wild west days does not hurt anyone. jorgenev 04:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC) I removed the fake "new messages" bar from his user talk page. I didn't realize the fake dialogue box on his userpage also links here. But isn't that still unacceptable pranking (not to mention completely ineffective on us Mac users)? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC) The fact that we (nice choice, by the way) don't get it doesn't mean others won't. Shall we go around removing all humor that someone might not get? :) Anyhoo, I don't really think that falls anywhere near unacceptable pranking. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC) This trite humor is outdated. When created it violated the editing guidelines and community consensus. There is no reason or basis to presume that this nomination will lead to the deletion of all humor pages. What distinguishes this page from acceptable humor pages is that the other humor pages do not endorse violating policies or guidelines. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Cunard, I was attempting humor in mentioning that. Anyways, the discussion relates to fake "New Messages" bars; this is not in use as one any longer. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC) It is still in use: User talk:Supuhstar/Header. However, it doesn't matter whether the page is currently in use. As the remnant of policy-violating material, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Keep Seems harmless. Crazynas t 07:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC) The promotion of disruptive behavior is harmful. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#GAMES. WP:NOTWEBHOST states: "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. Humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace, however." There is no evidence that this page has provided a "foundation for effective collaboration". The second sentence might have saved this page for deletion, save for the fact that it is an implicit endorsement of the violation of Wikipedia:User pages#Simulation and disruption of the MediaWiki interface and should be deleted. Jorgenev (talk · contribs)'s comment in support of preserving policy-violating content as a "memento of the more wild west days" is faulty. Having matured past unacceptable simulation and disruption of the MediaWiki interface, Wikipedia should send this nonsense to the digital dustbin. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC) With fake message bars finally being cracked down on, the resultant gotcha pages are obviously no longer going to be useful. Whether it is directly harmful or not isn't the point, as the existence of thes epages has been shown to encourage copycats. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC) The page is not being used with the fake "New Messages" bar any longer; it is linked form something else on the user page. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 22:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC) The page's intent is clear: It endorses the violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Because it is prone to encourage "copycats" as thumperward mentioned above, retaining it is harmful. Cunard (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Agree that these silly games are no longer tolerated. As it contains massages from others, it might be sufficient to archive it, noting that these sorts of games are not to be encouraged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#GAMES per Cunard. This has nothing remotely to do with writing an encyclopedia. --Kleinzach 08:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete Kleinzach and Cunard covered it quite well.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Weak Keep It is linked to in a non–policy-violating manner (the dialogue box on his userpage), so it is semi-useful, and I don't think one humorous page in userspace hurts the encyclopedia enough to warrant deletion. If you really think it should be deleted, at least archive it since it has messages from other users. I do note that the fake new messages bars are still present at the top of his talk archives, so those definitely should be removed. jcgoble3 (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Both User:Supuhstar/Pranked and the dialogue box on User:Supuhstar violate WP:NOTMYSPACE. How do these two pages provide a "foundation for effective collaboration"? Cunard (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Sandra for Gov

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User Sandra for Gov Template:User Sandra for Gov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused, obsolete userbox. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - Having trouble with nominating this one? :) Anyhoo, it is unused and obsolete, so there is no reason to keep it. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 04:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Yes, I was in a slightly flustered state at the time. Sorry for the inconvenience for those who had to clean up after me! — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Delete outdated and unused. jorgenev 04:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Delete outdated and unused. (Do I hear an echo in here?) Dynamic|cimanyD talk·edits 15:00, 8 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Rudy 2008

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User Rudy 2008 Template:User Rudy 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) Template:User RudyGiuliani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Practically identical userboxes, both out-of-date and unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - Both unused; there is no reason to keep, especially since it is now 2011. Template:RudyGiuliani should also be deleted. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 04:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per above. jorgenev 04:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Delete both, outdated & unused. Dynamic|cimanyD talk·edits 15:08, 8 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User SOCCER USA and Canada

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User SOCCER USA and Canada Template:User SOCCER USA and Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Template:User SOCR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Identical userboxes, both of which are unused.. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Delete both per TTO. Also, some template should be added to {{user SOCR}} to show it's been nominated for deletion. ...Dynamic|cimanyD... (talk|klat) ☺ 04:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - Both are unsed; no point in keeping. Also, Template:User Socr should be deleted. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 04:11, 8 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Anikingos/ATCW

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 speedy delete under U1. — ξxplicit 18:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC) User:Anikingos/ATCW User:Anikingos/ATCW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This is a hoax tropical cyclone season page within this user's userspace. I am making this nomination based on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dylan620/1985 Planet Ceres Atlantic Hurricane Season. HurricaneFan25 15:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC) That is a project. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC) It is a hoax. None of the storms (e.g. 'Tropical Storm Sandy') actually exist. HurricaneFan25 16:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Either delete (per HurricaneFan25) or, maybe, add {{humor}}. I think deletion would be better. Dynamic|cimanyD talk·edits 18:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - I smell a hoax. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 00:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles. As this does not appear to be a "potentially valid article and other reasonable content under development or in active use", this does not belong. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Alternatively, my suggestion would be that you voluntarily blank the page, Anikingos, and redirect it to your main user page. That way you will still have the editing history, if you wish. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC) My intention in having the sandbox is not for a hoax, but to count the number of tropical cyclones forming in the northern hemisphere during three months of 2011. I will add {{humor}} at the top so that it doesnt confuse people. And the real storms are just being renamed there. Thank you. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC) The end -- Nominating page for Speedy deletion U-One. Cant handle all the mess myself.--Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Well, that would end this discussion... Dynamic|cimanyD talk·edits 16:47, 9 September 2011 (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.

September 7, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiFun Police/Warning Templates

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiFun Police/Warning Templates Wikipedia:WikiFun Police/Warning Templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Same reason that I nominated all the HW templates. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 7#WikiFun Police warning templates. ...Dynamic|cimanyD... (talk|klat) ☺ 02:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Delete puerile; immature; childish; condescending04:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curb Chain (talk • contribs) Delete This kind of "fun" in just not nice. See my comments at TFD. JIMp talk·cont 07:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Delete: Childish. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk Contribs 09:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - It is a good idea, but these particular templates shouldn't ever be used. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 19:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - not much fun. --Kleinzach 02:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Delete as contrary to policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC) against the grain keep nowhere in wikipedia policy does it say we have to have one official version of a message for vandals and we are not allowed to deviate from it. HominidMachinae (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Yes, everyone is free to say something other than the WP:WARN templates, or even to say nothing at all to vandals, but if a user typed out one of these messages onto a vandal's talkpage, they would probably get accused of biting in a hurry. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 22:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Keep. Unpersuaded by all of the above. I don't find them confusing, condescending or contrary to any policy. I do see the little humour, and cannot understand why others do not. Each seems appropriate for the intended level of warning to a vandal. Perhaps some feel that there is absolutely no level of humour associated with vandalism. However, a common entry route to becoming a serious Wikipedian begins with vandalism that can be euphamised as "testing". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC) see WP:DON'T FEED THE TROLLSCurb Chain (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC) I don't get your point? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC) My point is using this template can encourage users to vandalize more.Curb Chain (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Keep. As per SmokeyJoe. I reckon these templates are less bitey than the standard ones. --Surturz (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC) And more humanistic, more personal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC) And less likely to make a vandal stop vandalizing, which is the main purpose of the warning templates. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 12:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Delete this isn't what an encyclopedia is used for.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Delete these templates as harmful. One template states (File:Eraser wedge.jpg): "Grrr! My eraser continues to wear down as you make those unconstructive changes". Another (with Image:Face-crying.svg) says: "Okay pal, we've all had a laugh, but like your mum said, it's all going to end in tears. Anymore of what you did at Article and we take away the toys." Condescending and puerile, these templates are unlikely to dissuade vandalism. They are highly unlikely to encourage new editors to cease vandalizing. They encourage users to continue vandalizing through goading ("like your mum said, it's all going to end in tears"). Owing to the template's juvenile and biting nature, I doubt that a new user who had received one of these templates will become a regular editor. A new user who is incorrectly accused of vandalism and mistakenly given one of the generic, bland warning templates would feel insulted. If a new user is incorrectly given one of the WikiFun Police warning templates, she would be completely offput. She would wonder whether Wikipedia was a serious encyclopedia project or whether it was a place for games and insults. Would an architect, an English professor, or a history secondary school teacher edit Wikipedia after being mistakenly given one of these templates? I think not. Because these templates are harmful, they should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC) I have adjusted the nominator's link to the TfD discussion so that it will be durable. Cunard (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks, I should have done that in the first place. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 02:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Delete – These templates are unprofessional, and should not be used over the standard UW templates. —mc10 (t/c) 04:56, 14 September 2011 (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.

September 6, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User has no clue

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User has no clue Template:User has no clue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused, all caps userbox that doesn't appear to be useful. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC) {{Userbox Clue}} too probably. Juliancolton (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, per The Evil IP address. The same for {{Userbox Clue}}. If anyone actually wants to use this, then move to userspace as a subpage of User:UBX. ...Dynamic|cimanyD... (talk|klat) ☺ 23:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Delete both per above. --Kleinzach 23:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Delete Both - Unused; no point in keeping it. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 19:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Delete both. Userboxes like these should not be in the Template: namespace, and since nobody is using either one of these, there would be no point in moving them to a more appropriate namespace. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Current articles

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Current articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Current articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Looks like this page was going to be a list of topics once-upon-a-time, but never finished (or really started for that matter). It has not been edited in over 4 years. Zangar (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per nom. Obviously abandoned. --Kleinzach 23:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - Nothing ever came of it; it's most certainly abandoned. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 19:22, 7 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User WikiProject Contemporary music

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 redirect to Template:User WPClassical.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User WikiProject Contemporary music Template:User WikiProject Contemporary music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) After the merge of the comtemporary music WikiProject and the classical music WikiProject, this template is identical to {{User WPClassical}}, thus redundant and should be deleted to ease maintenance. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Redirect to Template:User WPClassical, assuming this doesn't cause any problems. Hut 8.5 15:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Delete or redirect to Template:User WPClassical. Contemporary music wasn't actually merged, it became a taskforce of WP:CM. --Kleinzach 23:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Redirect - Since so many people still use it. If it is redirected, Template:User WikiProject contemporary music will have to be changed to prevent a double redirect. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 19:21, 7 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User PlayStation 2 Fan

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 userfy.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User PlayStation 2 Fan Template:User PlayStation 2 Fan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Only usage by a retired user, unlikely to receive much more usages because hardly anyone still plays Playstation 2. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Keep - Actually, the user is semi-retired, having edited as recently as four days ago. Also, can you provide proof that "hardly anyone still plays Playstation 2"? ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 19:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Userfy to the userspace of anyone who wants to take it, per Wikipedia:Userbox migration. This kind of userbox should not be in the Template: namespace, but it would be fine in the User: namespace. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC) userfy seems a good compromise. As a side note I'd love to put this on an ACTUALY PS2 fan, you know like the one used to cool down the console. HominidMachinae (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't lie

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 no consensus to delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Don't lie Wikipedia:Don't lie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This essay is incredibly short (two mere words), to the point that even the essay template and shortcut were removed to make it shorter (so don't expect an expansion). There is no idea being explained, or a description of things to avoid, just an idea of civility we have all learned at our childhood. Thus, this page (it's not even an essay) is completely useless and redundant Cambalachero (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Keep - I like the short simplicity of it. Common sense or not, it is interesting, not because it is verbose, but because it gets right to the point. This also adds a little humor to the point as well. -- Avanu (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Delete trivial and amounts to a rephrasing of the title. Hut 8.5 14:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Delete. This essay's content should be obvious and is already covered by WP:HOAX and other policies and guidelines. LovesMacs (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per Hut 8.5 and LovesMacs, also, this apparently isn't even an essay. ...Dynamic|cimanyD... (talk|klat) ☺ 23:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC) See my comment below. ...Dynamic|cimanyD... (talk|klat) ☺ 12:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, yes trivial. --Kleinzach 23:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Keep per Avanu. Killiondude (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Its hilarious that we are having this whole debate over two words. If this is to be deleted move it to my userspace instead; I like it and I will shelter it from the world as a userspace essay if I must. jorgenev 05:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Good lord; if that is necessary, then something really is wrong with Wikipedia. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 18:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per Hut 8.5 and LovesMacs, or move to userspace if anyone wants it. ...Dynamic|cimanyD... (talk|klat) ☺ 12:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC) "Don't lie, just don't" is common sense, and because of that, any page telling Wikipedians not to lie is kind of silly. But as an essay, which no one really has to follow, it's pointless. ...Dynamic|cimanyD... (talk|klat) ☺ 19:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Forget it. Too much debate, not enough importance. I have no opinion about whether wp:Don't lie should be kept or deleted. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 15:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Keep - The shortness and simplicity is the entire point of it. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 18:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC) The problem is precisely with that "point", it is completely useless and redundant. Who didn't knew it before even coming to wikipedia for the first time? Cambalachero (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Often, people need reminders of such things; common sense doesn't seem to be so common any more. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 04:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC) The people who tell lies did not "forget" that it's wrong to lie, they know it and don't care. So, telling them "don't lie" will have no effect anyway Cambalachero (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Unless lying is something they do without thinking. Besides, being reminded that it is a bad thing here cannot jurt anything. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 00:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC) It doesn't say that lying is bad, it says not to do it. Dynamic|cimanyD talk·edits 00:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Keep. Erring on the side of succinct is not so great a problem around here. Consider merge to a new section of its own at Wikipedia:Liar Liar Pants on Fire. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC) What would the point of merging be? I really don't see any reason why that would be necessary. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 04:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC) It's certainly not "necessary". A reason to merge might be that it reduces the number of finely sliced essays. One more coprehensive essay about lying may be better than several containing only slogans. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC) I didn't disagree with that; I was more thinking something along the lines of "What is there to merge?" ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 00:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Delete I can only see this being used as a link in WP:NPA-violating flamewars. --Surturz (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Wow, delete. Someone could easily have made it funny, like WP:HORSE. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Keep Merger failed. Terse is fine. Collect (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mimata

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC) User:Mimata User:Mimata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Mimata was last nontrivially edited on 2 May 2009. WP:UP#COPIES states (my bolding): "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Because this page fails WP:UP#COPIES and WP:NOTWEBHOST, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Speedy close and blank the page. This is the minimum intervention required to bring the page into policy. Users do not own their userspace, and in the unlikely event that the user returns, their content is still available in the history. --Surturz (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC) blank sounds like a sensible idea. In the unlikely chance that this version is needed it can be recovered by the user without misleading all those search engines indexing copies of Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Because this page exists at Satchel Paige, there is no need to preserve this "old revisions" version of the page. The changes in this draft were instituted in the article but rejected as "redundant". Whereas the userspace version contains 12 references, the article contains 128. Far outdated, this GFDL violation should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - The article already exists, and this has been sitting there untouched for quite some time. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 19:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Delete or Speedy close and blank (as per Surturz). WP:STALEDRAFT comes into play also.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC) I agree with deleting the page. Blanking a GFDL-violating draft that exists at Satchel Paige is unnecessary. Cunard (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2011 (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.

September 5, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dalina66/Why should we buy a membership in some games

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC) User:Dalina66/Why should we buy a membership in some games User:Dalina66/Why should we buy a membership in some games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Not sure what this had to do with building an encyclopedia. WP is not your blog. Quinn ░ RAIN 23:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - This has no place here, especially in the userspace of someone who hasn't contributed to the encyclopedia at all. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 02:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Bitey much? Rich Farmbrough, 09:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC). Wow... I didn't notice that at all. I suppose the ending bit of my comment doesn't rreally apply. However, there isn't any way this will fly; it really doesn't have anything with Wikipedia. I don't really think it is being BITEy to get rid of it. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 00:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Keep as per WP:BITE. User is a new account. --Surturz (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Keep per WP:BITE. It would be better to wait a few months to see if the new user becomes productive. If not then Mfd might well be appropriate. --Kleinzach 23:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Jeesze guys, well I guess I'm not AGF here for spotting a page on NPP that has absolutely nothing to do with anything encyclopedia related, and could easily be hosted an numerous free blog pages. Just because I think it's not relevant to the project doesn't mean I'm "biting" anyone. Keep it if you want, I don't care. Just don't mark me as a bully, OK? Quinn ░ RAIN Not our intention to be rude to you, Quinn, for which impression I apologize, and obviously you are right that this page is unlikely to make the "big time". The user had previously created an article "Why turtles are so slow" and been advised to develop content in user-space. It seems to me likely that this user is may not yet be ready to write new articles from their own knowledge, but they write clearly and spell well, so there are certainly things they can help with, I would not wish to be discouraging, even at the cost of a few userpace pages (which after all we would be replacing with MfD pages). Rich Farmbrough, 07:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC). Delete. I'm not tyring trying to be mean to new users, but I agree with Quinn and Hi878. ...Dynamic|cimanyD... (talk|klat) ☺ 03:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Delete – I'm sorry, but this would never make it to the mainspace in any way, shape or form. Exclaiming WP:BITE is not going to change any of that, and that is not an exception to keep such drafts. –MuZemike 05:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per above. There is no reason to keep this. If the userpage consisted of HAGGER?!?! written 9001 times and had a link to Goatse, would you still be saying "baww, you ish so mean, you huwting da new user wif da bites"? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC) There is no social comparison between deliberate vandalism and a good faith but inappropriate contribution. This user might not be expected to be writing articles for another few years yet (but I wouldn't rule it out) but may be fixing typos and such anytime, the example you gave is an almost certain sock who can be blocked on sight. Rich Farmbrough, 07:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC). While the content isn't really salvageable, seven minutes between an account's first (and only) edit (which seems to have been in good faith) and XfD is deserving of a serious trouting. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Keep Userspace. 7 minute mark before being MfD'd. Collect (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC) I think you all are just being way too freaking cautious. This obviously won't fly; why should "aw but the editor is new" get a pass? Ever? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC) The point the keeps are making is presumably that biting an editor this hard virtually guarantees that said editor leaves the project disheartened immediately. That's precisely why new editors are given lee-way even when their early contributions have problems which mean we can't use them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC) The hell they do. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Delete While I sympathize with the arguments of those supporting retention, I note that the user has been made aware that her creations are inappropriate. She created the original research article Why are turtles so slow which was deleted as a "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic". She created How do we read japanese books, which was prodded as an "unencyclopedic how to", and which was deleted as a "test page". Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) has explained why these pages are inappropriate, and I hope Dalina66 listens to his words. If she understands Rich Farmbrough's explanation, she will understand why this page does not belong in the encyclopedia. Because this unsalvageable original research page is unfit for mainspace, and because Wikipedia is not a webhost, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Trading card game (2nd nomination)

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 keep.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Trading card game Wikipedia:Trading card game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The store page is obsolete on meta: and this project is inactive. Made in 2009. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk Contribs 18:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Keep mark as inactive at worst - As mentioned above 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. Jimbo's comments Moxy (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Keep as per Moxy and also, this seems a great project and it would be a great waste if all that time and effort was to be deleted. Mark as inactive, but, if possible, get this project going again! Rcsprinter (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Keep we don't delete pages for mere inactivity unless the page has very little content, and there is plenty here. If someone wants to restart the project then there is lots of useful material. Tag it as inactive instead. Hut 8.5 19:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Preserve There were 2011 edits. It is semi-active but not completely active. Don't nominate uselessly. James1011R (talk, contribs) - That's ridiculous. It's not even funny. 01:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Keep - Forgive me if I sound rude, but this nomination is a joke. First of all, using "Made in 2009" as a deletion rationale is quite possibly one of the stupidest things that I have heard. Second, lots of work has been done, and throwing it away would be a waste. The others that have been working on it with me have been inactive on it for a while as well, because we have been busy with other things, but we fully intend to keep going with it. Deleting this project would do absolutely no good; it would just lose the WMF a chance at a fundraiser that could quite possibly do very well. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 02:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Question. Can someone familiar with this explain what exactly it has to do with the encyclopedia? It has a membership, but that doesn't define it as a WikiProject. There isn't much substance. Perhaps there is a better option than delete or keep? Detail-based reasoning as ever would be good. Nominator baiting is so much less productive! Thank you. --Kleinzach 11:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC) This was proposed back in 2008 (?) as a fundraiser for Wikimedia Foundation to be distributed through the Cafepress. It's been contributed to since 2009 when we composed a complete ruleset and began working on starter set cards. The trading card game itself is our effort to reincarnate in an offline manner the daily life of an active Wikipedian citizen, primarily article improvement and vandalism countering. And anyone who says it's inactive ought to take a look at the subpages, particularly Wikipedia:Trading card game/Action plan/Phase 2:Cards/Individual card proposals (with over 2400 edits), the current phase of the game's design, as well as our off-wiki image repository. Being a regular contributor, I'd be biased to say keep, but I will anyway. Keep. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 18:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks. I understand it's a Wikipedia Game. Why is it categorized as a WikiProject? --Kleinzach 23:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Interesting question; we certainly don't treat it like a WikiProject. I'll kill the category now. It should be evident from the page title that it isn't a WikiProject; it's actually one of the Department of Fun's initiatives. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 02:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Keep per Hut 8.5 and James1011R. Project is ongoing and has recent activity, even if it has become semi-active in the last few months. I am sure activity will pick up again in the near future. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Keep. OTRS recently received an email from someone with some interesting ideas very similar to this. I was going to refer them to this page until I saw it was up for deletion. Maybe this person would be interested in reviving this project. -- œ™ 03:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC) I wouldn't call it dead yet; we are still planning on continuing it. However, there are very few of us working on it, and we have all become somewhat busy as of late, but I think that it will pick up again soon. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 00:09, 9 September 2011 (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.

September 4, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jabbear

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC) User:Jabbear User:Jabbear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User page masquerading as an article. Subject is nn. Article hasn't been worked on for two years. Found via "What links here" from AbleNET. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - I am inclined to agree. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 06:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Can you just move it to articles? Seems they meant to make an article. It's fairly well laid out and just needs some english edits. Simstick (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC) As an article it would go to PROD/AfD. A non-notable product with zero references. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) Delete, actually three years old. No reason to keep this. --Kleinzach 06:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Cunard (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2011 (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.

September 3, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Edwardtbabinski

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 no consensus. As an editorial decision, I'm going to blank the page, however.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC) User:Edwardtbabinski Relisted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC) User:Edwardtbabinski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Using userpage as a blog. User has long since departed the project. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Keep - It looks to me like an acceptable use of user space for someone who was an active contributor. Am I missing something? ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 20:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - It appears that I was. Copyright infringement seems like a pretty good reason for deletion. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 18:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Speedy delete per the copyright infringement of articles from http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/2006/10/20/an-alternative-to-wikipedia and http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/internet/0,39044246,39299490,00.htm. Delete also per Sven Manguard's nomination of the page for deletion per WP:NOTBLOG. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Keep. The copyright violations have been removed from the page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Sven Manguard (talk · contribs)'s nomination implicitly referenced WP:NOTBLOG. His deletion rationale remains applicable after the removal of the copyright violations. Cunard (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC) In regard to the WP:NOTBLOG issue, I note that while the chronological format may bear some resemblance to a blog, most of the content on this page is Wikipedia-related; besides a listing of the pages the user has worked on, much of the rest consists of comments about whether certain links should have been allowed on a Wikipedia page. Since most of the content consists of "Notes related to [the editor's] Wikipedia work and activities" which is allowed per WP:UPYES, the page should be kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC) A BLP violation on the page ("The only question remains, why have I wasted such an incredible amount of time, on such a wee tiny little troll?"), which is placed below the name of a living person and a link to the living person's website is unacceptable. Using a Wikipedia user page as a blog to denigrate others is highly inappropriate. WP:UP#POLEMIC prohibits "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons". Because of the BLP violation and the copyright violations on the old revisions, this page and its history should be oversighted. Cunard (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. "Suppressible material and links to it should never be posted on-wiki or in other public venues." Copyright violations do not require oversight. If you feel this page contains BLP material requiring oversight, you should request oversight and not advertise the issue publicly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC) I am well aware of the policy. I have reported content at MfD to oversight before (such as user pages of minors with excessive personally identifying information), and they have told me to let the MfDs run. I no longer bother to notify oversight when a page is at MfD. Cunard (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2011 (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! 14:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Keep. Wikipedia related content. jorgenev 03:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC) User:Edwardtbabinski contains a BLP violation and and a berating of an editor "who removed the two non commercial links which were in dispute for over 12 hours of my time ..." Below the editor's comments, the user page mocks the editor with "This is hilarious" and calls the editor as someone with "notable immaturity" on Wikipedia. Per WP:UP#POLEMIC, "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons" is forbidden. Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Non-article space and Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy #2, the BLP violation mentioned above should be oversighted. Because of the page's current problematic content and the copyright violations in the history, the page is best deleted. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Delete. There might be something appropriate on the page, but its not obvious. There are however obvious problems. Given that the user is inactive for years, just delete. If the user returns, he can request emailing of the deleted content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Keep: Relates intimately to Wikipedia, entirely appropriate for a userpage. Buddy431 (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per SmokeyJoe. This is a 2007 page and given the specific objections explained above, I can't see any good reason to keep it. --Kleinzach 03:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Comment: The attribution tag, {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, placed on the user page may give the closing admin pause when closing the debate. However, the user has duplicated the statement on the user talk page. The user page therefore contains no useful content and due to the heavily problematic content I mentioned above, should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vashtihorvat (2nd nomination)

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 keep.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC) User:Vashtihorvat User:Vashtihorvat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vashtihorvat - there was an expectation that the editor would work on this but there have been no edits since the MfD. Marquis and the International Bibliographical Center]] are not sufficient to show notability Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Keep - Actually, the expectation was that the user would contine making positive contributions to Wikipedia, not that page. The user has edited as recently as July 4. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 20:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Keep After the user trimmed the user page, apologized for her negligent edits, and pledged to become a contributor, she has fulfilled her pledge. In its current form, I don't believe the page violates Wikipedia:User pages. However, the older forms contain promotional content that was userfied from Horvat, vashti. This content violated WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTWEBHOST. I understand Dougweller's expectation that Vashtihorvat (talk · contribs) would work on the content after userfication. However, she has now decided not to promote herself on Wikipedia by creating an autobiography. Given the circumstances, I would support a selective deletion of the old, promotional revisions of her user page that were once in the mainspace and a retention of the page in its current form. Cunard (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Actually, there was no expectation after that MfD that the user would work on that page; the only thing that I saw that was close to that was Lankiveil (talk · contribs), saying "So long as the user continues to make at least vaguely positive contributions, I don't see any harm in keeping this." Am I right, or have I missed something? ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 18:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC) I referred not to an expectation after the MfD but to an implicit expectation after userfication. I am glad that the user has now ceased self promoting herself and instead contributed to the encyclopedia. I believe that the promotional content should not have been userfied. The promotional content in the history should be selectively deleted per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Cunard (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC) I agree I misread that. I presume if the decision is keep there will be no objection to the usual userspace & noindex templates? Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC) I agree with adding the {{user page}} template to the user page to noindex the page from the search engines. Cunard (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Geoffrey Chaucer (2nd nomination)

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Portal:Geoffrey Chaucer Portal:Geoffrey Chaucer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Orphaned portal. Was nominated 2.5 years ago, where it was given a chance. Nothing happened since, unlikely this will ever change with such a rather minor topic like book authors. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - Only one article links to it, and it seems very much unfinished. It has been abandoned for quite a while; no reason to keep it around any longer. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 20:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Delete as stillborn portal. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Delete as a false start. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Delete Nothing has ever come of this. Rcsprinter (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Delete: This seems a bit like a P2. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk Contribs 20:51, 10 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:OverlordQ/Portal of Evil

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 move to User:Buddy431/Portal of Evil. This draft has the potential to become an article, as was the case with Old Man Murray; a recent discussion on WT:UP highlighted the importance of striking a balance between the opportunity to preserve the content which can be rendered encyclopaedic and the need to remove that which has no hope of ever being salvaged. In this case, an editor has expressed his willingness to try and improve this draft; should he fail to do, any person will be allowed to renominate this page for deletion per WP:FAKEARTICLE.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC) User:OverlordQ/Portal of Evil User:OverlordQ/Portal of Evil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) WP:FAKEARTICLE. Article was deleted in February, and was restored and moved to userspace in early March. Six months later, no attempts have been made to improve the article for a potential return to userspace, and so it would be reasonable to believe that the intention of userfying was to not improve the article on the subject, but rather to preserve content on-wiki that was previously deleted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC) The user only edits about once every two weeks, so how about we give User:OverlordQ a change to respond about his intention. In the mean time keep as not actually harmful and only been there 6 months. User:OverlordQ can restore the file again anyway himself if further editing is needed. The only reason given on previous restore was userfying. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC) If OverlordQ wanted to improve the article, he would have made time to go in and do it by now. Six months is more than enough time to do that. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Keep - I think that giving drafts a year is what should be done, generally. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 20:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Six months is already very generous. I don't see what difference letting a page languish around for another six months is going to make. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC) SchuminWeb, I agree with you that six months is "already generous". Six months is sufficient time to revise the draft and move it to mainspace. If there are special circumstances such as a WP:CRYSTAL album from a notable artist that is due for release in 18 months, keeping it for longer than six months would be acceptable. I see no such circumstances here. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Comment Nice WP:AGF there. I dont care either way, it was userfied along with Old Man Murray since they were related and both nom'd for deletion. I userfied them so they could be improved, as you can see OMM was improved and moved back into article space. I saved PoE to let others similarly improve it, but evidently it was not deemed to be worth the work, so saying the only reason I userfied it was to prevent it's deletion is laughable. It also appears that Schumin has a vendetta against OMM and the PoE judging by the deletion history and the nomination history. Q T C 22:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC) So as you say that "it was not deemed to be worth the work", can we count that as a !vote to delete? SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC) By your comment above, I take it that you don't intend to work on the draft. OverlordQ, I will rescind my "delete" vote and support retention if you pledge to bring the article up to the notability standards and move it to mainspace . Cunard (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per WP:UP#COPIES, which states (my bolding): "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Cunard (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC) OverlordQ states: "I dont care either way" and "... I saved PoE to let others similarly improve it, but evidently it was not deemed to be worth the work ..." Because this page is not being worked on, and because OverlordQ does not oppose deletion, the page can be deleted. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Move to my Userspace, if OverlordQ doesn't intend to improve it. I'll try to work on it some. Buddy431 (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC) What's the difference between having it in OverlordQ's userspace or yours? You've got five more days until this MFD closes. Prove to us that you are serious by introducing substantial coverage in reliable sources. Nothing is preventing you from editing it where it is now, so if you truly are serious about it, let's see some sources. Otherwise, I see no reason to let another person babysit a WP:FAKEARTICLE for another few months. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Move to User:Buddy431/Portal of Evil per Buddy431 (talk · contribs)'s good faith pledge to work on the article. Quoting RL0919 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marine 69-71/Tony Santiago: "the usual WP:STALEDRAFT provisions will apply in the future if the page sits unchanged for an extended period." Cunard (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability

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 no consensus.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Current page says direct opposite of what Verifiability policy says. This seems to only serve to confuse the reader. While I recognize that the page is merely an essay, and that the author is likely making a reasonable point about 'veracity', Verifiability is a core policy and as such, pages that comment on it should be written to a higher standard than this page. It is poorly written and not an essay that I can see as actually being helpful to guide people toward a better understanding of Wikipedia policies. Avanu (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Userfy. Essays contrary to policy should be in userspace. jorgenev 03:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Keep - I read the essay, and it seems to be pretty much in line with WP:V. The title is somewhat misleading, but beyond that, the essay doesn't seem to contradict policy. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 03:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Move to userspace - sufficiently different from policy that it should not be in main space. --Surturz (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Keep. Valid essay. Consistent with, and even explanatory of the opening line of WP:V. It has widespread support, and challenges to the startling phrase are not a reason to delete, but to edit. The essay has strong support, not just as-is, but to be linked from WP:V, evidenced both at WT:V (before someone removed the section) and again in the poll at Wikipedia:Verifiability/First_sentence. This essay clearly expresses a view opposed to one held by the nominator here, and so this is a disruptive nomination that should be a speedy keep. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Are you certain you know what my point of view is, SmokeyJoe? The insinuation that I am opposed to this because I'm opposed to the nominator or his goal is not only against our "assume good faith" motto, but it is incorrect as well. Exclusive of how you might feel about any of the issues at the WP:V page, this is simply a very poorly written essay. That and the fact that in its beginning it directly contradicts an existing policy in its lead, make it worth Userfying or just removing. Our author here can make whatever points he likes, but if he's going to put it up as an essay for others to embrace, it needs to be written better than a 5th grader's essay on bears. -- Avanu (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Also, I just reviewed the diffs you posted, SmokeyJoe. This isn't even the same essay as what you are referring to in the diffs. Maybe you saw the similar name and thought it was? -- Avanu (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Sorry Avanu. Wrong tree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Delete Although there may be some support for the critics of the first sentence, by reversing the order of the concepts the essay begins with a self-contradicting sentence. "Whether reliable sources state it to be true, not whether individual editors think they can verify it." If there are reliable sources that state something to be true, then the second line is pointless, as it is something that may be verified. It is highly different from "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." from the policy page, because thinking that something is "true" is highly subjetive (thus we do not rely on it), but verifiability is not: either you can bring reliable sources to support an assertion, or you can't. "editors think they can verify it" means "editors can not provide reliable sources, but they are sure there are", which is nonsense, wikipedia can not find out the "real truth" of things, but it can find out (we do that all the time) if there are reliable sources supporting a given assertion. I vote for deletion because expansion will hardly improve an essay based on a wrong isea: it should be started from scratch, under a a more general name. Cambalachero (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC) I wrote this thing, mainly in order to show that the wikimantra "verifiability, not truth" is nonsensical, or at least fails to express properly what it is trying to say. You'll note if you read this essay that it isn't against policy - it says exactly the same as what the policy says, but in different words. (You need to remember that "to verify" something doesn't mean, in real English, to show that reliable sources say it.) I'm happy for this to be userfied, though feel it's a pity that Wikipedia is becoming this kind of Orwellian world where proper explanations are replaced by meaningless slogans, and anyone who dares question those slogans is silenced. A better solution would be to merge it with WP:Verifiability, not truth, allowing that essay to point out, correctly (but probably blasphemously), that many editors dispute the appropriateness of that phrase as a description of Wikipedia's aspirations.--Kotniski (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC) It amazes me that nobody else realized this; it was pretty obvious to me that it was just explaining it in different words. It seems that some people just have problems reading further than the title. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 19:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Actually, my critizism is not formulated over the title, but over the sentence defining it. Not that there is much more than that that may had been left unread... As for the term "verify", do not forget either the common usage within wikipedia: unless it is noted otherwise, when we say that something can be "verified", we are saying that we can find reliable sources supporting it, not that we can verify it ourselves. Besides, before merging there should be something to merge, besides a mere play on words. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth does the work of explaining why "truth" is such a problematic concept, and why when "reliable sources state it to be true" we can't yet take it as the final word on the topic. There are opposing points of view (each one stated as fact), half-truths and other rethorical tricks, outdated knowledge, simple mistakes; you choose it. Cambalachero (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Keep, the essay actually clearly says that it's not policy ("You may have noticed that the Wikipedia policy on Verfiability puts this the other way round – "verifiability, not truth" –..."). This seems to be an understandable position, and there's no reason not to keep essays that go against Wikipedia policies. In fact, it should also be pretty clear from {{essay}} that it's not a policy. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Any comment on the fact that it is just poorly written as well? To comment on your statement above, it may say it is an essay but it declaratively says "The primary criterion for the inclusion of information in Wikipedia is truth, not verifiability – whether reliable sources state it to be true, not whether individual editors think they can verify it." It declares this as if its true, and then tries to act as if it has fooled the reader, who obviously must know the wording at WP:V by heart to get the joke. Overall, the essay is barely 3 paragraphs that spend too much time setting up a joke that most people won't get. -- Avanu (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC) The essay doesn't go against policy, actually. It is just a different way to word/explain it. Avanu, if it is badly written, go edit it and fix that. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 21:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC) If there was anything to save, I would certainly try to save it, but this is just a poorly made point. While I see the point that people should be able to write essays on whatever they like, shouldn't we also have a standard for how well written something is? -- Avanu (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Keep  I glanced at this essay when it was previously mentioned and nothing grabbed my attention.  I believe that nominator is engaged in attention-seeking behavior regarding the first sentence of WP:V.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC) I've made a perfectly reasonable argument and I'm not biased for or against the first sentences of WP:V. I'm wondering if you read the essay; it's only 3 paragraphs and SmokeyJoe rethought his opinion when he realized which essay this is. Personal attacks, like claiming that I'm doing this for attention, don't have a place in this debate. Please stick to the issues. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC) To repeat, "I glanced at this essay when it was previously mentioned and nothing grabbed my attention".  I don't have any records to refer to to document exactly how much, if not all of it, I have read.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC) OK, but it's just 3 paragraphs, not even long ones. A glance should be enough time to read it completely. -- Avanu (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC) (responding to the edited version of this comment) I thought I'd already made a thorough response to this question, I don't have any records that will tell just how much of the essay I read when I looked at it before, why is this not clear?  The fact remains that there was nothing of importance to pay attention to, there was nothing startling, nothing incomprehensible, nothing that raised a concern that it was other than an appropriate essay.  I hope this clarifies this issue.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Do you want to delete WP:LIE, then? The fact that an essay is short is not a reason on its own to delete an essay. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 18:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC) I was not saying the length was the problem. It is poorly written and makes its point in a way that intentionally confuses the reader. -- Avanu (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC) (due to edit conflict, the version of the text to which I responded is being inserted)::::OK, but it's just 3 paragraphs, not even long ones. -- Avanu (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Essay is purposed as a serious statement and serves to promote understanding of Wikipedia.  I wondered if irony was the rhetorical technique being used, but I'm not sure.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC) I get what the essay is trying to say. If you look at it, however, about exactly half way through, it refutes everything it said previously. 'truth and verifiability don't matter', and then starts talking about WP:RS and unsupported editor claims. Its just a mess, and if I could improve it, I would, but there's barely anything there to save, and the other essays do a much better job of explaining the same thing this one is trying to explain. -- Avanu (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Here you say that you get what the essay is trying to say, but in your nomination you claimed that it was too confusing to be understood, while acknowledging that there was "likely" a reasonable intent.  Seems inconsistent.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Here, editor Peter Strempel makes an excellent argument about the same thing this essay is trying to say. I would actually say his 1 comment would make a far superior substitute for the language in this essay now, and would express the points better. -- Avanu (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC) That essay-like comment concludes, "My conclusion about all of this is to leave the word truth alone, or excise it completely from the verifiability stipulation."  Yet the author of the essay here states that the essay exists "to show that the wikimantra "verifiability, not truth" is nonsensical, or at least fails to express properly what it is trying to say."  I see no way to reconcile the conclusion of the comment that the mantra could be left alone, with the basic idea of the essay that the mantra is poor writing.  You state that a substitution "would express the points better."—what are the points that would be expressed better?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC) The core of this essay at MfD is "Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, not its editors' private thoughts and unsourceable personal knowledge" Peter Strempel expresses this same thought in more interesting and persuasive terms, bringing it together in a way that provokes thought, rather than muddles it. Unscintillating, you took one sentence from a lengthy post/comment and used it as a comparison to a short three paragraph essay. I'm baffled by the responses here that find this essay worth inclusion in the Wikipedia namespace, perhaps we just don't have a wide enough crowd reviewing this. -- Avanu (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Keep. It's in project space, not mainspace, for one thing. The essay is not confusing, and makes valid points. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Re-title; the monologue makes sense, but the title is likely to throw off new editors, or users, or cause confusion (evidenced by this discussion here). —Sladen (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Keep but add banner to say that it an essay and move the essay somewhere else if necessary to a place it won't confuse anybody. Also change the first line from "The primary criterion for the inclusion of information in Wikipedia is truth, not verifiability" to "The primary criterion for the inclusion of information in Wikipedia should be truth, not verifiability". --bodnotbod (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Rename and rewrite. The gist of this essay makes a good point, but both the title and the way it is currently written can lead to confusion. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Keep It's a legitimate alternative viewpoint. Perhaps it could be enunciated more clearly, but as long as it doesn't pretend to be policy or a consensus summary I have no problem with it. ThemFromSpace 16:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Userfy Garbled nonsense essays that directly contradict policy belong in user space. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Keep and rename. The argument in the essay is valid, and Wikipedia space holds numerous essays, so userfying doesn't seem necessary to me (though perhaps we need an "Essay" userspace). That said, the title is incorrect, as the essay, imo, argues truth and verifiability. ergo, should be renamed Wikipedia:Truth and verifiability. Resolute 23:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Keep I think the essay is a useful reflection on policy, it makes it very clear that it is not the policy by linking to the policy it was made in response to, and it isn't really inconsistent with policy. Monty845 00:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Delete or RenameI was going to say delete as hopelessly confusing, but I suppose a rename would take care of the confusion; when one figures it out, it's not against policy--it merely pretends to be, in order to get the reader's attention. The question is , whether it would have the necessary impact if under another title ? ` DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC) It seems obvious that it should be renamed or reworded to eliminate confusion (simply having an {{essay}} tag isn't quite enough), but other than that it's a pretty standard user essay and it's certainly not deletion material. How about Wikipedia: it all comes down to truth in the end or the like? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Keep. Defenders of the "verifiability not truth" line often say that its chief value is not its logical perfection, but the "jolt" of thoughtfulness it gives. This essay is in line with the same philosophy and is no more illogical. If the aim is to make people think beyond this jolt, then it is not bad. Also see WP:IAR.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Delete or rename per DGG and per a comment I have not too long ago, in which I say that many people tend to conflate "teh truth" with "what they want to hear. Other than that, we're hopelessly confusing users with a pair of contradictions. –MuZemike 15:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Delete. I'm opposed to allowing permanent essay pages as platforms for advocacy that Wikipedia policies are wrong. (Especially this one which, as written, would be read by a newbie to mean the exact opposite of what a core policy is.) Editors should make their case for change in project talk space with the usual give and take, and then let it be archived. This is a novelty we do not need. patsw (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Userfy per author Kotniski ("I'm happy for this to be userfied"). Needs to be rewritten before it's suitable for Wikipedia-space. --Kleinzach 00:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Delete as fundamentally contrary to policy, and hugely confusing to newbies. New editors can be easily manipulated by editors posting essays and claiming them as policy. This is just a bad idea in general, and even worse if it misleads editors. Dzlife (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Keep. The title and opening lines are nothing more than eye-catchers. Otherwise, the content actually seems to support rather than oppose the verifiability policy. At any rate, reasonable essays are usually not deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Delete as confusing and misguided. None of the paragraphs are correct. As stated above, the first paragraph makes the false assertions that verifiable sources indicate the truth, and that what editors can verify is somehow not what we're after. These are patently incorrect, we do indeed want 'what editors can verify', regardless of whether it's the truth or not. The second paragraph suggests the distinction is 'not really between truth and verifiability at all', but rather the distinction between the content of reliable sources and the unsupported views of an editor. This is exactly the distinction of verifiability, such that this entire paragraph contradicts itself. The last paragraph contains the only truthful statement, that Wikipedia 'is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say', which is by definition our requirement for verifiability. It has nothing to do with truth whatsoever. Put simply, 'whether reliable sources state it to be true' is not 'truth', but it is verifiable. Perhaps the author intended to convey a clarifying message in this essay, but no such clarification exists. The essay in its current form serves only to confuse and contradict. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Keep. It's quite amusing to see how many editors either have an impaired sense of humor or are perhaps challenged by reading English. older ≠ wiser 02:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Userfy or Delete, as we all know there is only a single truth supported by the one true supreme deity. There is already enough confusion between truth and verifiability, lets try not to add to it. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Userfy and decategorize from essays this directly contradicts policy in "Wikipedia" namespace. People are entitled to their opinions, but not entitled to express them anywhere. The essays at Wikipedia namespace should enrich policy, propose policy, or be humorous. This is none of that and that is that.--Cerejota (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Keep. What "serve[s] to confuse the reader" is the "verifiability, not truth" line in the policy. This essay pretty much gets it right, in a slightly humorous sort of way. Neutron (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2011 (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.

September 2, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:115.248.114.51

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC) User:115.248.114.51 User:115.248.114.51 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User page for an IP editor. Mtking (edits) 11:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Keep, IP has edited articles. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk Contribs 15:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Move to talk. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk Contribs 11:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - Ebe, look a bit more closely; someone else created that page, probably mistakenly thinking that it was a talk page. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 16:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC) That happened to me once. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk Contribs 17:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Disintegrate This article is a userpage for a shared IP. Disintegrate it. Userpages are really just for logged-in users. James1011R (talk, contribs) - That's ridiculous. It's not even funny. 02:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per Hi878. ...Dynamic|cimanyD... (talk|klat) ☺ 16:03, 7 September 2011 (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.

Old business

September 2, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:DisneyFriends

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 User vanished.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC) User talk:DisneyFriends User talk:DisneyFriends (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Vanishing from Wikipedia. DisneyFriends (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Talkpages, unlike userpages, are not usually deleted, though they can be blanked or archived. If there is a specific privacy or similar problem that you think warrants making an exception, please e-mail me or another administrator you trust. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC) I blanked this page with {{retired}}. MER-C 02:16, 2 September 2011 (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.

September 1, 2011

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Chiropractic Admin log and subpages

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 keep. While there are various editors arguing in favour of deletion, their rationales are not rooted in policy — and consensus is not merely a headcount —. In weighing the various lines of reasoning, I believe that Hut 8.5 hits the nail on the head: WP:UP#POLEMIC is not violated, because this page is not in userspace, and neither is its spirit — assuming, for the sake of the argument that it would apply with regard to this page —, because this is not a mere laundry list of wrongs, but a log of warnings or sanctions issued pursuant to an arbitration decision, which is part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, and, as such, it serves a useful purpose, not only for admins, but for non-admins too.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) The hills no longer ring with the sounds of the editing war. Red links spread like poppies, and our children wonder what enmities are buried here. Only the Jimbo tree knows. Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log has not been edited since May 2009. It has served its purpose and, despite being a talk page, is now violating the spirit of WP:UP#POLEMIC. Its continued existence is contrary to the precedent at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Surturz/AdminWatch: if ordinary editors are not allowed to keep lists of admin wrongs in perpetuity, then neither should admins be allowed to keep similar lists of editor wrongs around forever. --Surturz (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Keep - Take a look at the second sentence of the decision in the "precedent" you have referenced. Besides that, this is not at all the same type of thing as your page that was deleted; the page was used in keeping track of what was going on with that article, to help deal with the edit warring. It is not a list of mistakes that editors have made; it is a list of editors involved in that page, uninvolved administrators helping to manage disputes with that article, and actions administrators have taken in that respect. By the way, while the page itself hasn't been edited in a while, the page transcluded into it has changed; see here. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 03:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC) (copied from User_talk:SoWhy#AdminWatch_redux) There are no admins on the list, only non-admins. The ArbCom judgement gives no authority to keep shit lists, nor does it allow admins to create pages to make it easier for them to gang up on individual users. The page does not purport to resolve disputes, its sole aim is to make it easier for admins to coordinate the gathering of evidence against non-admins so that they can be blocked. (new bit) I agree that the Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log/log was recently edited. However, a two year gap between edits to the group of pages is proof positive that the admin corps intend to keep the pages around forever. --Surturz (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC) I don't think that I could give a response any better than the one SoWhy left in response to what you said. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 21:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Keep this list has a fundamentally different purpose from the one cited in the nomination. Not only is it not in userspace, and thus not under the control of one editor, but it is a list of editors who have been warned or sanctioned as part of enforcement of an arbitration decision. The reason we don't allow lists of editors someone doesn't like in userspace is because it is antagonistic without being productive or useful. Arbitration decisions are part of our established dispute resolution process so the page does serve a useful purpose (in much the same way that a block log does). WP:UP#POLEMIC does not discriminate between admins and non-admins, and if an admin wanted to maintain a list of editors they don't like in their userspace then that page would be deleted via MfD, but that's a completely different set of circumstances to this page. Admittedly the page hasn't been edited in a while, but the arbitration decision is still valid and is still being enforced through sanctions and age isn't considered a reason to erase records of sanctions (we don't wipe old block logs, for instance). Hut 8.5 12:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Delete (or alternately Archive) - as Surturz correctly points out, the consensus (barely) has been that indefinitely shit lists aren't considered kosher on Wikipedia, user page or not. While this page has a different purpose and a legitimate purpose, indefinitely recording such things isn't probably helpful to the encyclopedia. If no one is maintaining this list on at least a yearly basis, it is difficult to say that its really a help. In addition, such lists ought to be placed in a central location that is not directly editable by editors or their socks. The idea that we're keeping a bad-users list in a place that is editable by anyone is a bit pointless, even if we can look up histories. Just archive the old stuff on this page or delete it. -- Avanu (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC) The MfD linked to in the nomination didn't produce a consensus that shit lists aren't considered kosher on Wikipedia, user page or not, it produced a consensus that indefinite retention of a particular list of administrative actions one user doesn't agree with violates WP:UP#POLEMIC. WP:UP#POLEMIC cannot possibly apply to this page because this page is not in userspace, and nobody here has pointed to a single policy or guideline which even applies to this page. The whole nomination is a WP:POINTy attempt to "consistently" enforce a decision the nominator doesn't agree with. If keeping lists of people who have been subjected to sanctions isn't "helpful to the encyclopedia" then by extension we ought to delete old block logs or even old arbitration cases, even if the blocks or arbitration cases are still in effect, which would be nonsensical. Hut 8.5 10:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC) The page has three lists: 1) Editors that have been sanctioned warned/sanctioned, 2) Editors that have been warned notified that sanctions can be applied with the onus of proof reversed (ie. the sanctioned editor is assumed guilty), and 3) Editors that have edited the article. Explain to me how an editor seeing their name on list 3 isn't going to wonder how long it takes before their name is on lists 2 or 1. Also please explain why this list needs to be kept on wiki. Finally, as per WP:ADMINACCT, I should be free to question or criticise administrator actions without being accused of WP:POINT. No need to apologise, you're forgiven. --Surturz (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC) I agree the third list isn't essential to the page, and I wouldn't object if it was removed. This isn't grounds for deleting the page however. The other two lists have clear purposes. If we don't have a list of people who are subject to ArbCom sanctions then it will be extremely difficult to enforce these sanctions, and the arbitration decision requires editors to be notified of the existence of discretionary sanctions before such sanctions are imposed (as do almost all such arbitration decisions) and keeping a list of who has been warned also aids in enforcement. Being warned doesn't imply an editor's conduct is inappropriate, as is explicitly stated. WP:ADMINACCT is a red herring here. The fact that administrators are accountable for their actions doesn't mean that you can criticise administrator actions in any way and in any location, and in particular it doesn't mean you can violate WP:POINT when doing so. In addition this MfD isn't really a criticism of administrative actions at all, it's a criticism of a particular process of enforcing arbitration decisions (you're not contesting the validity of any of the sanctions imposed in this topic area). I get the impression, reading your comments here and at SoWhy's talk page, that you don't really want this page to be deleted at all. You've repeatedly maintained that the fact that this page exists while your own user subpage was deleted is a double standard and that to be consistent this page should be deleted as well, but that doesn't mean that you want the page to be deleted. If this is the case then you should not have nominated the page for deletion. Hut 8.5 20:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC) OK, now you are accusing me of being dishonest. If there is any ulterior motive here, it is that my name appears on the "warned" list, and I think there should be some sort of statute of limitations on such things. At this stage I would not feel safe editing the Chiropractic article for fear of being blocked by an admin who read that page and decided on the basis of a single edit of mine that I should be blocked. I fail to see how going through the proper MfD process on a stale non-article page is disruptive as per WP:POINT, particularly when I was encouraged to do so by admin User:SoWhy. --Surturz (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC) I'm not accusing you of being dishonest, I'm saying that the recent deletion of your subpage seems to be a major factor in your decision to nominate this page for deletion. I never claimed you tried to conceal this. Being listed as "warned" only means that you are aware that discretionary sanctions exist in this topic area, which doesn't ever expire (unless you're very forgetful). It is true that if you make inappropriate edits to the chiropractic article then it is possible (though unlikely) for you to be blocked, but being listed on this page has nothing to do with that - if you want to change this situation you need to get the arbitration decision reversed. And since you asked it is possible to violate WP:POINT while following proper process (indeed most of the situations in WP:POINT#Examples are of this type). Hut 8.5 14:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC) well you will just have to take my word that I really truly want the page deleted because (as my whimsical verse above indicates), this page is a stale reminder of long gone edit wars, and its continued existence does not further the aims of the project. --Surturz (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Delete per Surturz and Avanu. I don't see any good reason to keep this page. --Kleinzach 00:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Proposer comment - I will note that even if this page is deleted, then admins will still have access to its content via their tools. They can also undelete the page if it becomes necessary again. I withdraw the "and subpages" (ie.Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log/log) component of the proposal, as it is transcluded at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Sub-log_of_blocks_and_bans_for_Chiropractic (though better would be to cut-paste the content over and delete the page too). --Surturz (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC) The fact that administrators will still be able to view the page makes the page much less useful because non-administrators will not be able to use it to report people for violation of arbitration sanctions. Making the process or arbitration sanctions less transparent is not a good idea. I should also mention that the developers have repeatedly stated that the logs kept of deleted pages are there on a temporary basis only and can be removed without warning at any time. It isn't anywhere near as easy to overturn an MfD decision as you imagine and if anyone wanted to recreate the page after it has been deleted they would probably have to go through deletion review first. Hut 8.5 17:30, 9 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Swedish Officer OF1A

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User Swedish Officer OF1A Template:User Swedish Officer OF1A (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) And another unused Swedish military user box, in this case the image doesn't even work anymore. The Evil IP address (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - I very much doubt that this will become widely used. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:28, 1 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Swedish Officer OF2

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User Swedish Officer OF2 Template:User Swedish Officer OF2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox, unlikely to receive more usages. The Evil IP address (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - I very much doubt that this will become widely used. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:27, 1 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Swedish Officer sergeant

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Template:User Swedish Officer sergeant Template:User Swedish Officer sergeant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Unused userbox, I doubt there are many users from the Swedish military around to use this box. The Evil IP address (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - I very much doubt that this will become widely used. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:28, 1 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NorthRefractories/sandbox

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC) User:NorthRefractories/sandbox User:NorthRefractories/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Chinawolf2007/IFB - Independent Fashion Bloggers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Spam WP:FAKEARTICLEs created solely for search engine optimization purposes by spam only accounts, See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 07:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - I agree; these should go. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:11, 1 September 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC/Sandbox/Z-Net (2nd nomination)

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.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC/Sandbox/Z-Net Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC/Sandbox/Z-Net (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Looking at things that link to ablenet after nominating it for deletion. This is a project sandbox that is stale. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Delete - Almost two years is long enough for them to have started working on it; no point in keeping it. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:31, 1 September 2011 (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.