Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xoloz (talk | contribs) at 15:50, 27 October 2006 (relisting one). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS:,[a] Event: and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
  • File description pages when the file itself is hosted on Commons
  • 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.

Notes

  1. ^ The vast majority of pages in the MOS: namespace are redirects, which should be discussed at RfD. MfD is only applicable for the handful of its non-redirect pages.

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 it is a userpage, or {{db-author}} or {{db-g7}} if it is a draft. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?
  • Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD
  • Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

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

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V Jul Aug Sep Oct Total
CfD 0 0 1 47 48
TfD 0 0 0 19 19
MfD Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil).
FfD 0 0 4 11 15
RfD 0 0 1 30 31
AfD 0 0 0 1 1

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

Archived discussions

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


Discussions

Active discussions

Articles currently being considered for possible deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed.

Purge the server's cache of this page

2006-10-27

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. I will mark this as an essay, though: not withstanding the basic close, I think there is a consensus in the comments to mark the page with some sort of "this is not policy" tag. Xoloz 13:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Episode summaries

Delete "This page simply states that episode summaries should follow the same rules as all other articles." is something that is already noted on all relevant guidelines, policies, etc. This essay does a bad job of what existing guidelines (such as WP:FICT and WP:WAF) and policy (WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #7) already do. Ned Scott 17:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I almost forgot, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. -- Ned Scott 20:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, keep the essay. This is harmless, it's relatively new, I'd like to give this more time to see if it goes anywhere. Don't care if any shortcuts to it are re-appropriated. The centralized discussion thing seems dead but why not keep it for historical value? --W.marsh 13:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First of all, this is one user's idea pushing- the author of the essay wrote it because he frequently attempted to AfD episode summaries with no success (and by "frequently", I mean that he nominated Family Guy episode articles for deletion, and after they were kept nearly unanimously, AfD'd them again less than one month later). The note that states "This page illustrates a part of the concept of other policies in Wikipedia. The nature of the page, however, makes pinning it down as 'official' or a 'guideline' unhelpful and possibly paradoxical. Hence, it should be considered an example of a specific part of those policies, not a rule or a guideline." makes it seem as if this is a simple off-shoot of an official policy, and an off-shoot that many people agree upon; this, of course, is untrue. Also, WP:NOT covers episode summaries, so it's not as if this page is even necessary. Finally, the essay is only a few sentences long, yet is repetitive and poorly written, and it takes up an WP: name that could be put to much better use. -- Kicking222 03:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey. First, the reason i nommed the articles twice was... because.. I was an idiot. Mostly. Second, I wasn't planning on using this as rationale for a third AFD, but I was going to amke a template saying that "Per WP:EPISODE, this section needs references or sources, as it is not simply a summary, but an interpretation." However, I neglected/forgot about WP:EPISODE,so... yeah. I'd say Keep in WP space so I can adopt and expand it soon. -- Chris chat edits essays 23:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move, or userfy This is an essay, and so shouldn't be deleted or rejected unless written in bad faith. If the essay's name is taking up a slot that needs to be used for something else it can always be renamed. If it's deemed to be really bad by consensus (my view is that it's somewhat redundant but harmless) it should be userfied to its creator's userspace rather than deleted outright. --ais523 13:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This MfD is being relisted for further consideration. Please share your opinion if you haven't already done so. Xoloz 15:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep, and fairly strongly, too, since this is the sole real record of the block. Xoloz 13:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Enforcer

This user has been indef blocked (see the old block log) and has made nothing but legal threats during his/her tenure at WP. What reason is there to let this legal threat-filled page stay? Scobell302 03:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if this page goes, so should the talk page. Scobell302 03:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Note that Jimbo has made a comment on that user page. Derex 03:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This page was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/UserEnforcer. The decision at the time was to "keep". Rossami (talk)
  • Keep per the arguments made in the previous debate. This page provides evidence of the dispute and previous behavior and has been useful in finding sockpuppets of the banned user. Because this user's ban predates the Special:Block log and for some reason does not show up in the manual listings of blocked users, this page is the only concrete evidence we have of the block. By the way, I would have no objection to blanking the pages with one of the blocked-user templates. Just preserve the page history in case we need to reopen the investigation. Rossami (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2006-10-26

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

The result of the debate was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 19:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Tamil

Hi - I nominate this portal for deletion. It was created on April 6, 2006 but has not been developed since. The scope of this portal is narrowed to the Tamil language, which also associates literature and a degree of cultural topics. There exists Portal:Tamil Nadu, which has a wider subject scope and a better information base that exceeds the coverage of the Tamil portal. Although it too has some development issues, it is in a far better position to serve as a portal for all aspects of Tamil culture than this one. Rama's arrow 20:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

2006-10-25

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

The result of the debate was closing early as keep, as the consensus of many editors is evident already. Titoxd(?!?) 06:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man

Well, since nobody, anywhere is willing/able to explain what exactly he or she finds so bloody fuck amusing about this page, I'm assuming it's some kind of a bluff. If it's alleged purpose is that of a canned retort similar to Godwin's law, well, the average talk-page junkie spouts enough non sequiturs without the help of this sad tripe. Even if that was the case, why doesn't somebody just say so? Why the stupid underpants-gnomes air of mystery? Delete and ban creator. —freak(talk) 11:07, Oct. 25, 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me how this is a troll magnet? 1ne 21:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2006-10-24

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

The result of the debate was Delete. I considered NY Brad's suggestion; however, I think it is probably best if the user learns rather decisively that "Wikipedia is not for roleplay." If he is confused, I'm sure the deletion will bring to my talk page, where I can give friendly advice, but the line against this sort of misuse should be fairly firm. Xoloz 12:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gewi

User page being used for some sort of role playing game, user has made no edits except to user page, this page also being nominated for deletion, and user talk pages. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Khatru2 02:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete user page and subpage but keep user's talk page-- if the user should happen to return, it seems fair to have a message posted on the talk page about what happened to the other two pages. Dar-Ape 03:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete userpage only per the great ape above. -- nae'blis 21:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete userpage only as per above. --Brad Beattie (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warn user, if no response then delete. Obviously an inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources per Khatru2 above, but absent an emergency, I would support giving this type of user friendly advice to move this type of content elsewhere before simply deleting it. Yes, the "being considered for deletion" banner at the top is a warning, but I imagine it might be a bit inscrutible to a newbie. A friendly message urging the user to find another webhost, and maybe even to also consider making a contribution to the encyclopedia, couldn't hurt. If there's no response after a reasonable time then it can be speedy'd with no argument. Newyorkbrad 00:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Wikipedia is not a forum for roleplay facilitation. Xoloz 12:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Gewi/Wars Between Native Americans and Other Nations

This article was originally in the main namespace, and when I wikified it, the author got upset because the page was meant to be used for some sort of role playing game. I reverted my changes and moved it to the user space (actually user talk by mistake), but I figure it should be deleted since the page has had no activity and Wikipedia is not a free web host. Khatru2 02:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (at the risk of repeating myself from above) Dar-Ape 03:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete both. Xoloz 12:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Secondary Schools in Noida

The creator of this project quit Wikipedia last month. There has been no activity ever since. The subject of the project is very narrow. I think this should go. -- Ganeshk (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

2006-10-23

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

The result of the debate was Delete, expanding to include other suggested related pages also. Xoloz 16:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:HyperBandGeeks

This is a page full of one or more people blogging/chatting/posting images. User has no other edits. Daniel Olsen 00:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete per WP:NOT and WP:USERPAGE. This deletion is WITHOUT prejudice for recreating this as an acceptable userpage. — xaosflux Talk 19:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Camaro4

Looking at the history, it appears this page is being used as a scratch pad for activities not apparently related to Wikipedia, by a user who doesn't appear to have any edits besides at this page. WP:NOT a free webhost. Luna Santin 05:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete all. Xoloz 15:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steinauf, et al

Part III of "Wikipedia is not MySpace". More userfied vanity articles for "editors" clearly who ain't here for the editin', but for the publicizin'. And yes, I left messages on their Talk Pages: Yet again, they ARE all similar, as these:

a) are user pages that were moved from article space by an admin/editor.
b) were originally articles that were originally speedy-delete candidates or speedy-delete eligible.
c) have page creators who have few/no edits outside user space.
d) have page creators who have not edited (with few exception)s since the initial page creation, last year.
e) are, prima facie, not user pages, but attempts to use Wikipedia as a free webhost/promotional vehicle. WP:NOT, stating that Wikipedia is not a free web host is applicable.
  • Total edits: - 14. Edits outside user page: 10.
  • Last Edit: November 2005
  • Total edits: -2. Edits outside user page: 1.
  • Last Edit: November 2005
  • Total edits: 4-. Edits outside user page: 3.
  • Last Edit: November 2005
  • Total edits: - 16. Edits outside user page: 4 (including uploading of own photo).
  • Last Edit: August 2006 -- 2 edits to his user page
  • Total edits: - 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last Edit: November 2005
  • Total edits: - 4. Edits outside user page: 1.
  • Last Edit: November 2005
  • Total edits: - 5. Edits outside user page: 4. (One to add self to List of drummers)
  • Last Edit: November 2005
  • Total edits: - 3. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last Edit: November 2005
  • Total edits: - 2. Edits outside user page: 1. (Uploaded user-page drawing)
  • Last Edit: November 2005
  • Total edits: - 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last Edit: November 2005
  • Total edits: - 2. Edits outside user page: 1.(Uploaded photo of self)
  • Last Edit: November 2005
  • Total edits: - 2. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last Edit: November 2005
  • Total edits: - 17. Edits outside user page: 1. (Uploaded photo of self)
  • Last Edit: November 2005
  • Total edits: - 9. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last Edit: November 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Consensus is spare, but this is almost CSD G1 material anyway. Xoloz 15:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Song/The Heroes and Villans of Wikipedia

Not funny. Which I guess is as good a reason as any to list a humor page for deletion. Oh, and WP:NFT applies per analogiam. Sandstein 20:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

2006-10-25

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, per WP:CSD G11 - "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic." --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Fleet Clothing

The user, whose name is fleetclothing, seems to be using this as advertising, and wikipedia is not an advertising service. Editor's only actions to date have related to this clothing line. Page creator is being notified of this action. B2T2 21:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

2006-10-23

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep. Deletion discussions are not deleted, they are preserved for historical purposes. If you would like to change this practice, a MFD is not the place to start, try WP:VPP. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_16

Clutter, old, indiscriminate information, no longer needed, save space, WP:NOT Vegeto634 02:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above --Vegeto634 02:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Nominator withdrawal, no delete !votes. — xaosflux Talk 04:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Morton devonshire/Mumites

  • Update This MFD is effectively closed. User has blanked the page, rewritten it within policy, and moved the offending material to an archive as per Gamaliel below. So, this MFD is moot. An admin should close and archive it. For reference, here is the original page. Derex 22:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a SoapBox. Article starts out with heading "Why I hate Mumia" and goes downhill from there. Morton has been warned under NPA on this page by Vriditas. Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for this sort of screed; perhaps MySpace would work better for it. Derex 21:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: The mfd tag was removed by user with the comment "delete trolling".[1], but an admin has now reinstated it. 22:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The user has moved the material on this page to User talk:Morton devonshire/Archive04. Gamaliel 22:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dislike of a person or groups is not a personal attack. Clean it up if there are personal attacks. Otherwise, his interest in Wikipedia articles regarding Mumia Abu Jamal and other cop killers is just like any other interest. We don't delete user spaces that talk about photography or travel or any other hobby that users express interest in. In fact, userboxes are an epidemic. --Tbeatty 22:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If I want to have a subuserpage discussing Mumia and related articles, that's my right on Wikipedia. BTW, I actually think Mumia is a genius in his use of PR. Morton devonshire 22:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly. You aren't entitled to a soapbox though. Seems like you know that too, since you blanked the entire article I listed here. Derex 22:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then what are you fighting me over? Morton devonshire 22:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not. See the update at top; I think what you have now is fine. The page I nominated was not, and I'm not the first to have pointed it out. But, since you have in essence deleted (by completely changing) the page I nominated, this nomination is moot as I said right up top. Derex 23:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm confused. Then what are we fighting over? Morton devonshire 23:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • What's the confusion? We're not fighting. I listed an article that conflicted with policy. You removed that article. I then stated the issue was moot as far as I was concerned. There is no present conflict of which I am aware. If an admin chooses to close and archive this nomination, they are welcome to do so at anytime. And I personally have no objection to that. Derex 23:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously WP:POINT violation as user has an issue with Mortons AfD habits and was recently told another page that would be a MfD candidate should be left alone. I am starting to think perhaps Derex just needs a few moments to cool off instead of attempting to delete pages of users he doesnt agree with. --NuclearZer0 00:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, it's not a POINT, and I'd ask you to AGF and refrain from such unfounded personal attacks. That the complaint was valid is I think pretty well established by Morton's laudable response of removing it himself. I'm not the first to have made the complaint either. Second, it is rather notable that the conflict to which you refer was over AFD votestacking. And predictably, only editors in the votestacking complaint (Tbeatty, Zer0, Aaron) are now over here votestacking a completely moot MFD, because Morton already did the right thing. Really, the irony is just about too much. Derex 00:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless of anything else, the page in its current version is unquestionably

within policy. --Aaron 00:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was N/A moved to WP:CFD. — xaosflux Talk 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Muslims

An anon tried to delete this by blanking it, and was reverted by AntiVandalBot. They left a message on AntiVandalBot's talk page, and I think they have somewhat of a point. Following are some quotes from their message: "a page that held religiouly charged views of a violent nature", "I ... attempted to delete en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_Muslims but your bot has prevented that. I'm left with no choice but to report that wiki is allowing itself to host what could be a terrorist hit list." and their edit summary, "if i see this up agan , i'll forward it to homSec as a terrorist hit list" (sic on all of those) ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep First of all, I would love to see someone try to contact Homeland Security regarding a Wikipedia page under the assumption that it's a list of people whom editors want to murder. Second, I don't see the anon's point- if some of the info is not verifiable (i.e. it can't be shown via reliable sources that someone used to be a Muslim, but rejected that faith), then remove names from the list. Otherwise, I don't see how this isn't a perfectly viable (and interesting) category. -- Kicking222 03:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN this debate! It's hilarious! -- Chris chat edits essays 12:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been moved to Categories for deletion (I hope I did that right). ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

2006-10-20

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:Mike 7. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 18:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chemprocessing

Spam article acting as a userpage. cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete page and images. Xoloz 16:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:E1foley

Wikipedia is not a free hosting service. User has made no edits except to his user page and the images on it, and even then no edits since July. Delete. —Angr 17:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 16:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Bohemian Shinobis

Considered speedy deleting as blatant advertising, but not entierly sure, so listing here just in case. Either way it's not apropriate use of a Wikipedia userpage, in leu of a "move to myspace" option I say delete it. --Sherool (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep unless there's a policy against these sort of jokes. --Kjoonlee 04:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Xoloz 16:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Khorshid/Misconceptions

Page appears to be a misconcepion of WP:NOT. I sincerely fail to see the point of the page. --Cat out 00:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A further note, page was subst to its userpage some time ago and hence is actualy redundent... --Cat out 01:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2006-10-19

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

The result of the debate was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 03:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hystaeminblumen and year-old vanity pages

Digging even deeper (hey, it's a slow day around here) turns up more stuff from October -- 2005.

Part 2 of working on the theory that Wikipedia is not MySpace. More userfied vanity articles for "editors" clearly who ain't here for the editin', but for the publicizin'/vanity. And yes, I left messages on their Talk Pages:

To recap, they ARE all similar, as these:

a) are user pages that were moved from article space by an admin/editor.
b) were originally articles that were originally speedy-delete candidates or speedy-delete eligible.
c) have page creators who have few/no edits outside user space.
d) have page creators who have not edited since the initial page creation, ONE YEAR AGO.
e) are, prima facie, not user pages, but attempts to use Wikipedia as a free webhost/promotional vehicle. WP:NOT, so the rule about Wikipedia not being a free web host is applicable.
  • Total edits: 2. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: August 1, 2005
  • Total edits: 4. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: October 3, 2005
  • Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: October 3, 2005
  • Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: October 4, 2005
  • Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: October 7, 2005
  • Total edits: 2. Edits outside user page: 1. (uploaded a photo of self in his underwear (shudder))
  • Last edit: October 9, 2005
  • Last edit: November 14, 2005
  • Total edits: 2. Edits outside user page: 1. (uploaded user-page photo)
  • Last edit: October 14, 2005
  • Total edits: 1. Edits outside user page: 0.
  • Last edit: October 16, 2005
  • Total edits: 3. Edits outside user page: 1. (uploaded photo of self)
  • Last edit: October 16, 2005
  • Total edits: 4. Edits outside user page: 1. (uploaded photo of self)
  • Last edit: October 24, 2005
  • Total edits: 8. Edits outside user page: 2. (uploaded 2 photos, one on user page)
  • Last edit: October 26, 2005
NOTE: this appears to be a course description from, I'm guessing, Cornell University.
  • Total edits: 6. Edits outside user page: 4. (uploaded photo of self, plus adding and reverting nonsense on Manatee)
  • Last edit: October 25, 2005

Oops. I intended to leave this one off because it was created in November 2005 (making point #d above technically untrue), but since I actually added the tags:


(My source was trawling through this list. If some admin wants to BE BOLD and cut out the middleman for the stuff less than a year old, be my guest.) Calton | Talk 02:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 15:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Diegolcr

This user page fails WP:NOT as WP is not a free host, webspace provider, or social networking site. The only edits by this user are to his talk page and to upload his resume. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

2006-10-18

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

The result of the debate was Deleted per author request. NawlinWiki 20:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Cbrown1023/pschemp

This page should be deleted. If Chris has an issue with my work he should take it to true dispute resolution, rather than publishing it. This page adds nothing to the wikipedia project and it does not contribute to resolving any dispute. Instead it is basically an attack sitting around. Note the reply by Mindspillage here making it clear that I didn't act contrary to any policy, thus making this page further harassment. Precedent for this deletion can be seen in a similar case here. pschemp | talk 03:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cbrown1023 mentioned the situation to me at User talk:Kylu#User:Essjay, and me, worrying about Essjay, encouraged him to put the notice up. I'm sorry, mea culpa. I do know however that both Pschemp and Mindspillage know Essjay very well, and if they say he asked Pschemp to remove the banner, then let her remove the banner. It's certainly not worth all this trouble. I'd ask that Cbrown1023 tag it for deletion himself voluntarily using {{db-owner}}, but if that fails I'd like to endorse a swift delete of the page as an archival of a matter that shouldn't have gone anywhere near that far. For the record, if Pschemp or Mindspillage do the same to my userpage and say that I asked them to, it'd be best to assume good faith and think that I did in fact ask them. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like a tempest-in-a-teapot to me: I don't know about big notice boxes, but Cbrown clearly acted with good-faith in tagging the page, as Essjay has been inactive at En. WP since August. It seems as if the situation could be resolved by adding Essjay to category "Inactive Wikipedians" -- he's listed as such at WP:LA already. Cbrown might have done better at assuming good faith, but Pschemp's responses to him were not the model of civility either -- I think this page can be deleted by owner's consent once Essjay's page is appropriately, more subtly, tagged, and then everyone can let bygones be bygones. Xoloz 03:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My responses were due to a request from Essjay to protect his privacy. Don't mistake lack of information for incivility. There is no obligation for me to explain the minutiae of Essjay's personal wishes when he doesn't want them revealed. Essjay doesn't want his page tagged, he feels the explanation left there by Robbie is sufficient, so why can't people just respect that? I explained more than once to Cbrown that users are allowed to remove things from talk pages, yet he persisted in harrassing me. After that, yes, my response wasn't perfectly polite. pschemp | talk 04:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One might convey Essjay's desire for privacy without sarcasm. When dealing with people one does not know well in a dispute of any kind, sarcasm is almost always bad. Good thing to remember! :) Essjay's desire to avoid a big clunky box is understandable; the desire that his "away" status be made obvious, so that unknowing folks won't be confused, is also very understandable. When one sees two useful positions presented on a relatively trivial question, one should seek calm compromise. Xoloz 04:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't sarcasm. It wasn't intended as sarcasm. "because he asked me to" is in no way sarcastic, it is a simple statement of truth. That was *the* reason. What else is there to say? If you think that's sarcasm you are way too sensitive. pschemp | talk 13:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as stated, the dispute (if it is such) should go to a dispute process, although I agree entirely with Xoloz's last comment. Yomanganitalk 09:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Was this dispute brought to ANI in the end? -- lucasbfr talk 15:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I decided to just leave it. Cbrown1023 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete - housekeeping or db-owner, take your pick Yomanganitalk 01:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:DiscoSphicter

Please delete this as it is the talk page for a non-existent user. I left a comment on this page due to a spelling error, and I'm the only one who's contributed to it. ... discospinster talk 21:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete all. Xoloz 16:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ioannes Festusis etc.

This user claims to be an alternate account of Hephaestos (talk · contribs) (which is not an uncommon occurrance), but his upload log suggests otherwise, and his only non-image edit is what is shown on his talk page (sans the mfd tag). In addition, I think this user is likely the same user as Von_Van (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), based on their upload logs. Scobell302 04:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, after investigating further, I have discovered more such pages (their contribution logs do not match that of the real Hephaestos):
As such, I'm adding these pages to the discussion as well. Scobell302 04:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it isn't necessary, but I thought it was considered courteous to inform a user when something about them was happening on the wiki. I, personally, would like to know. Anyway,
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=84064775"