Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mahagaja (talk | contribs) at 09:57, 22 May 2006 (→Active discussions: User:The Wasted Spades). 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:

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 May Jun Jul Aug Total
CfD 0 0 6 33 39
TfD 0 0 2 14 16
MfD Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil).
FfD 0 0 0 2 2
RfD 0 0 0 60 60
AfD 0 0 0 10 10

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]


2006-05-22

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 17:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Wasted Spades

User page exists only to promote nonnotable band. User has made no contributions except to this page. Delete. Angr (t • c) 09:57, 22 May 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 17:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:James1990

User's only contributions are to this page, to upload an image of himself, and to add himself to the defunct Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Australia. User has made no contributions in the last year, therefore I don't see the point of keeping this. Graham talk 06:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not to sound clichéd, but "Wikipedia is not myspace." If he's been inactive for a year then there's really no reason to keep this stray userpage around. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:49, 22 May 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 17:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wildhorses

User's only edits are to this page, and deleted edits to Jay anthony, about himself (now protected against recreation). See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elisa Villar. Chick Bowen 04:29, 22 May 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.

2006-05-21

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/default keep. It seems agreed by all that this should be deleted in a few months if user remains inactive. Xoloz 03:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Faryal

Appears to be a text dump into user space. Probably a copyvio. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. User's only contributions are his userpage, and an attempt to create it as a mainspace article, which is heading for deletion. Stifle (talk) 22:11, 21 May 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 The result of the debate was Speedy close. Articles go to WP:AFD, two doors back up the corridor on the left. You'll know it because the door's almost off its hinges. Stifle (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Svidersky

As sad as Anna Svidersky's death is (and it is), I don't feel that Wikipedia should devote a page to her. In the spirit of being diplomatic, I would like this matter discussed. Mitch 17:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it is extremely sad but I also agree that there shouldn't be a page devoted to her. Her death did get a lot of attention in the Washington area, but there are a lot of high profile murders that happen elswhere. (In the Los Angeles area alone a lot of media attention is given to many crimes but they don't have a wikipage and L.A. is the second largest media market in the US next to New York). If you look at the edit history of this article, it was written as a memorial page to her. What is even more telling that this is a memorial page is that no article of the suspected murderer, David Barton Sullivan exists. It is, I believe, the sole "victim only" article on here. Other articles of victims such as Natalee Holloway at least mention in detail, about the suspects. Wikipedia is not a memorial and this article is being treated as one which is evident by the constant POV assertions. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 18:11, 21 May 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 03:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elisa Villar

This is a detailed user page for an editor with no contributions except to it. The question has been raised whether this is a violation of WP:NOT (Section "Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site"), and I think we need a proper review in order to establish precedent. Are we willing to keep such pages when the editor has done no work on the encyclopedia, or not? Chick Bowen 16:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The "What wikipedia is not" page has a section on free hosting, blogging, webspace provision and social networking which says that user pages should be "used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia". The first line of WP:USER#What can I not have on my user page? says "your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian.". It says that "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants" (emphasis added). Of course everyone shouldn't be forced to have a userpage as boring as mine, but this is just a personal homepage. If we don't want to turn into a free webhost, then this has got to go. --Hughcharlesparker 16:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT and the comments above. I think deletions like this shouldn't be done rashly, as very often the first thing a user does is set up their user page. However, given a certain period of time that the user shows no intention of contributing to the encyclopedia, deletions like this are necessary to prevent our servers as being used as a free webhost. In this case, the user page has sat there for more than 2 months, and I feel that is enough of time. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yep. Definitely a vio of WP:NOT. Not sure that this should be used as a "precedent" per se. As EWS23 said, we need to be careful with this stuff. But yeah, it's obvious that they are using Wikipedia as webspace. Btw, if this is deleted, it should probably be protected from recreation. Very open to abuse. --Woohookitty(meow) 17:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per above. Should we also include Image:ElisaVillar1.PNG in this vote as it only serves as part of her user page? --Charlie( @CIRL | talk | email ) 17:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What wikipedia isn't#...personal websites etc... says that uploaded files not used in encyclopedic content will be deleted, so I'd say yes, we should. (My comments above about latitude stand here as well.) Go for it. --Hughcharlesparker 18:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, this discussion is a roundabout descendant of Hughcharlesparker's listing of that image on IFD. I processed that day's IFD and didn't delete it because this page still existed, but if this page ceased to exist, I think that the original IFD listing would allow the image to be deleted. Or is that too convoluted? Chick Bowen 18:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should have said that it was me who originally listed the image for deletion. I originally listed this user page for deletion too. I don't think that's too convoluted, it seems like a logical approach. --Hughcharlesparker 19:07, 21 May 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.

2006-05-20

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 Delete. Xoloz 17:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Encyclopædia BJAODNonica

Let me put it this way. I've actually broken the rules for MfD listing here, because I haven't put an MfD alert tag on the article itself. I'm not able to: this is what happens...

  • Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 83886080 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 10683867 bytes) in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Parser.php on line 3862

(10.0.5.3)

I'm told this is an amalgamation of all BJAODN, past, present (and future). If so, that would explain the page crashing due to article size. So why don't we just get rid of this unviewable (literally) article?

Delete, full list already exists at Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Naconkantari 21:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd be uncomfortable deleting this until a developer looks at the issue and comments: do we know it's a MediaWiki issue? On the other hand, it is just a mega-transclusion page (IIRC), so it hardly matters. -- stillnotelf is invisible 23:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was told that this had to do with the page being too big with all that transcluding, but I too would be very much obliged if we could get a dev on the record. TheProject 23:37, 20 May 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 15:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Videoboxstudios

User page used only for advertising. User has made no contributions but an identical article also used for advertising. Angr (t • c) 15:47, 20 May 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.

2006-05-19

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. Xoloz 15:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Major Kong

User page consists only of lists of favorite movies, and (until I removed them just now) a dozen copyrighted images from movies. User has made a grand total of two contributions to article space (none since January 1), otherwise has focused on editing his user page. Delete. Angr (t • c) 13:15, 19 May 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. — May. 23, '06 [00:48] <freak|talk>

Wikipedia:Snowball clause

This page is consistently used and abused all over the wiki at this point. The essay lacks any sort of consensus support, yet it is consistenty invoked in deletion discussions, RfAs, and among DRV as having any sort of weight in the discussion. On a personal note, I believe it a) insults and belittles those of us who'd like to make an effort at improving things, regardless of an early "snowball's chance in hell" of anything changing, b) violates, semi-ironically, our typical reluctance to engage in so-called "crystal ballism" in articles by predicting the future in situations that would otherwise be governed by policy, and c) ditches policy in an attempt at a quick fix, as opposed to working toward a workable consensus in many areas of the wiki, such as working together to help articles meet various guidelines in a deletion debate instead of invoking WP:SNOW since it, allegedly, doesn't have a snowball's chance. I know I'm making absolutely no friends by adding this to MfD, but I don't think that's the point here. Enough of this. If it passes, the wiki is better off. If not, no one will hear me bitch about WP:SNOW again. badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The policy has intentions that are good if followed. It promotes Be bold, however, it should never be referenced in a deletion debate or review as any sort of reason. It will be clear in the relevant cases whether it applies or not. Ansell Review my progress! 02:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Policy? Essay? Guideline? Proposal? This would be easier to discuss if it didn't change (it seems like) every day. But that's Wikipedia for you. --W.marsh 02:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this really just restates WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. Historically those involve some personal responsibility. Rather than blaming the page they cite, perhaps we should deal with people who ignore process and hurt the project... because that's not WP:SNOW at all to cause damage by skipping process. But calling for responsibility is easier said than done. This is a complicated issue that I fear will turn into a pile-on vote any second now, sadly. --W.marsh 02:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My reasoning has been laid out clearly many times on the talk page of WP:SNOW, but I'll try to summarise it briefly here: as W.marsh says, this is a restatement of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. The difference is that the page (as it stands) lays out limits on the application of WP:SNOW. I find it perturbing that we might not take terrible issue with one who cites WP:IAR or WP:BOLD as a rationale for their actions, but that we ought to with a person who cites a page telling you point-blank that if you're reverted, you ought to let process take precedence. If the issue is with people abusing the snowball clause, then the remedy is to take them aside and talk about it. As the page itself points out, if nobody is willing to undo your action, you did the right thing. Most decisions I've seen carried out under WP:SNOW (or at least the principle behind it) have not been undone; badlydrawnjeff either seems to look only at the wedge cases where people abused WP:SNOW, or just has a personal vendetta against the idea of people citing WP:SNOW. Either way, there is no real reason to delete this page. There is no substantial evidence that it is in the aggregate detrimental to Wikipedia, or that it forms the basis of a slippery slope which might lead to such a demise. Johnleemk | Talk 03:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:Travb.2FTactics_of_some_admins_regarding_copyright] shows what happens when people pile on votes solely using this criteria, leading to a total agreement with people ignoring the consensus model of XfD's. Because of this it should not be allowed on deletion discussions, pulling every one of the people who use it as their reason in a deletion review is not practical. Ansell Review my progress! 03:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I can ascertain, a good number (~2/3rds?) of those arguing that it be kept deleted aren't citing WP:SNOW or anything close to it. And as for those who do, I'm not convinced that they're in the wrong. This isn't a pile-on; it's people giving their own personal interpretation of events. Without WP:SNOW, the same people would still say pretty much the same thing in such debates, while those of us who apply WP:SNOW to other things would lose a page that explains our views very well. I remember people saying something along the lines of "Maintain the status quo, even if we redo process the result will be the same" (perhaps with less bombastic diction) before WP:SNOW became popular. Also, remember that DRV, etc. is just one page; we can't let the 1% of wedge cases define policy or convention for the 99% of ordinary and uncontroversial ones. Johnleemk | Talk 03:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It may seem like a strange thing to say, but in this particular case, are the 1% worth people using this policy as a reason in the other 99% of cases, or would the other 99% simply sit on the table for their deletion debate period and be peacefully deleted at the end without the policy ever having an influence. Without the policy we could reduce the confusion that comes from the false positive deletions, or rushed deletions. What is the rush to get things deleted in less time than policies state. Ansell Review my progress! 03:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly reasonable non-policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still undecided about whether the essay is a good idea or not. It is certainly popular but it does seem to be used as a replacement for actual thought at times. And the process wonk in me gets very uncomfortable whenever it's used. But whether it's a good idea or not, it's too widely linked to be deleted. If we ultimately decide that it's a bad idea, tag the page as {{rejected}} or {{historical}} but it must be kept. Rossami (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. I wonder if the creator ever intended people to war over whether it was a policy or not... Yet another lame sig I came up with T | @ | C 04:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an essay describing a current practice. --Carnildo 05:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an essay, not even a guideline. The essay itself can not be held accountable for its abuses. Loom91 05:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedurally, Speedy Keep, it should be kept historically - too many links in past discussions would become nonsense. On the question of content, I think the content has value, so keep on that level as well. -- stillnotelf is invisible 05:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On basic principle, I never cite WP:SNOW because it is usually used as a way of circumventing process when there should be an open hearing where people should be given a chance to voice their opinions and be heard. But this is an essay, is frequently cited, and as such, should not be deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as per WP:SNOW (sorry, I just had to).  ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A useful essay; if others mistake it for policy, that mistake is theirs. Certainly, like any respected wiki-essay, it may be cited in discussions; however, because it is neither guideline nor policy, it carries little weight when rebutted. Xoloz 21:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I will note that no one has really addressed the crux of the issue. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually, this is well grounded into policy: How to create policy states that ideal policies should "have sprung up organically, not imposed from the top down". If it is being cited that much, it must mean that it is an idea that resonates with many individuals. Additionally, this is a restatement of WP:BOLD, and most of all, WP:NOT, as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If users restricted its usage with a bit of common sense, there wouldn't be any problems; if they don't, well, go after them, not after the idea. Perhaps the fact that there's broad usage of the essay mean that there is some sort of consensus behind it? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly reasonable essay; really it's something of a guideline as it describes a lot of existing (correct) practice. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Christopher Parham. Computerjoe's talk 09:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and invoke WP:SNOW for reasons of self referential irony and the fact that this is a useful essay and anyone who mistakes this as policy or even a guideline is mistaken. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sometimes Gordian knots need cutting. Sometimes process should be bypassed. The lines keep moving (as is perfectly right and natural), and admins who mindfully and judiciously apply WP:SNOW help keep track of where they move. If admins abuse this clause, that's an argument for dispute resolution with those admins, not for killing the essay. Especially since it says: "If the action is undone, then the original assumption [of no controversy] was wrong, and process should take precedence." -GTBacchus(talk) 00:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't violate WP:SNOW. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kelly Martin. --TantalumTelluride 21:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. As with everything that relies on human judgement for an apropriate application, the proper use of WP:SNOW assumes a rational element and a will not to overstep the rights of others. Therefore, the fact that this clause is sometimes abused lies in those that make such abuse it, not in the clause itself. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 22:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per WP:SNOW. Mackensen (talk) 00:41, 23 May 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.

2006-05-18

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 Delete. Xoloz 17:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Airtranva

Giant vanity advert for a non-notable company. User's only contributions are unsourced photos and an article with the same text as the user page. cholmes75 18:33, 18 May 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 17:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Speedy redirection

Looks like some sort of request page for requesting that an article be speedy redirected, but this thing looks completely unnecessary because anybody can create a redirect. If a non-admin comes across a page containing patent nonsense, but thinks it can be a useful redirect there is no need to request permission to create one, or ask someone else to do it, just be bold and do it yourself. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:47, 18 May 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 17:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:ChadSmith

User page is nothing but a copy of the article Green Day, originally including fair-use images (now removed). Editor's only contributions to Wikipedia have been to make this user page. Delete. Angr (t • c) 09:12, 18 May 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.

2006-05-17

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 Redirect to maintain attribution history and for user-friendliness. Xoloz 17:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help:How to use Cite.php references

integrated into m:Help:Footnotes, multiple pages m:H:F + H:F + H:this + W:F + Template:Ph:F addressing the same subject are bad for maintenance. Anything relevant for Cite.php on Wikipedia is also relevant for other sister projects using m:H:F -- Omniplex 18:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion, per prior talk at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Proposed "How to use Cite.php" section for beginners. Also, as pointed out by the creator of the page, "Where my simplified writeup on how to use Cite.php was incorporated into Help:Footnotes it works very nicely. - But, where it was incorporated into m:help:footnotes it does not work because the Meta version of Cite.php still uses a vertical arrow instead of a caret ... and it uses 1.1, 1.2. 1.3, etc. instead of a, b, c, etc. for multiple use of the same references."ref. Further, the alleged complexity mentioned by Omniplex, is the creation of this editor. In other words, he can only maintain his own complexity, provided that he can claim ownership on help pages, and thus prevent that they be replaced by something simpler. The "Ph:" and "Phh:" (and other) templates system is nowhere described as law, and can easily be dispensed of to replace it by something simpler in the case of the help pages on footnotes. --Francis Schonken 19:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A simpler guide to a narrow matter is worth having for editors interested in that one thing. LotLE×talk 19:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the content has, in fact, been integrated into another page, then we must keep the page's contribution history in order to remain compliant with GFDL. The easiest way to do that is to keep it as a redirect. Rossami (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Rossami. Keep as redirect page. --Zvika 17:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but redirect if it has been integrated.--MONGO 07:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to redirect. If we keep both versions, sooner or later their contents will diverge and cause confusion. Therefore make the smaller into a redirect to the larger (and retain its history per Rossami). —CWC(talk) 15:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it permissible for the original author of Help:How to use Cite.php references to voice an opinion? If so, I just want to say that it doesn't matter to me whether or not it is deleted or re-directed as long as it is included in Help:Footnotes and m:help:footnotes. In other words, in my opinion, what does matter is to make the content available to beginners like myself who need a simpler explanation and a clearer examples of how to use Cite.php references. I would also like to repeat that Help:Footnotes and m:help:footnotes do not use the same version of Cite.php ... the version in used in Help:Footnotes was changed within the past few weeks so that the vertical arrow was replaced by a caret and, for multiple uses of the same references, Help:Footnotes uses superscript a, b, c, etc. rather than the 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. used in m:help:footnotes. This is an inconsistency that needs resolution. - mbeychok 16:20, 20 May 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 no consensus/default keep. Straight tally here is 9 del., 5 keep, 1 ambiguous vote, which is not sufficient to override the natural courtesy extended to regular users of allowing relative userpage liberty. Xoloz 17:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:CoolKatt number 99999's sub pages

User:CoolKatt number 99999/Grudges in the Pokemon anime
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Cultural references in Pokemon
User:CoolKatt number 99999/List of power ballads
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Louisville, Whore
User:CoolKatt number 99999/KNBU
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Ultimate Group Deal
User:CoolKatt number 99999/KATV Post-Group Deal
User:CoolKatt number 99999/KNXV Post-Group Deal
User:CoolKatt number 99999/KTUL Post-Group Deal
User:CoolKatt number 99999/WBMA Post-Group Deal
User:CoolKatt number 99999/WCPO Post-Group Deal
User:CoolKatt number 99999/WEWS Post-Group Deal
User:CoolKatt number 99999/WFTS Post-Group Deal
User:CoolKatt number 99999/WMAR Post-Group Deal
User:CoolKatt number 99999/WTSP Post-Group Deal
User:CoolKatt number 99999/WXYZ Post-Group Deal
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Alternate History WSTR
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Alternate History WLWT
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Alternate History WKRC
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Alternate History WXIX
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Alternate History KSAZ
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Alternate History KTVK
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Alternate History KNXV
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Alternate History WDAF
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Alternate History KMBC
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Alternate History KCTV
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Alternate History KSHB
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Alternate History WBRC
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Alternate History WVTM
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Alternate History WCFT/WJSU
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Alternate History WGHP
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Alternate History WXLV
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Alternate History WFMY
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Alternate History WXII
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Alternate History WNBT
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Alternate History WTWB
User:CoolKatt number 99999/The SF Television Network
User:CoolKatt number 99999/WPSG-AM
User:CoolKatt number 99999/More Fox VHF O&O's
User:CoolKatt number 99999/Musical Chairs of Station Ownership
  • It's obvious that everybody who voted (besides yourself) wants this deleted, because it breaks guidlines. Good luck finding an admin who will go against a 5 to 1 vote count. --CFIF (talk to me) 22:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, when did the vote count ever matter? The closer makes a decision based on the arguments given and what he (or she) feels to be the closest thing to consensus amongst the community after reading an xfD discussion. If the tally is 5 to 1, but the majority are making stupid arguments, then '1' will win. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response This does not qualify for a speedy keep in my book, please try not to take the mfd too personally (even those it's your subpages). A consensus is required for a deletion here, and the default is to keep as no consensus. — xaosflux Talk 18:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some, delete some, choose yourself. Could you agree to reduce the number of subpages in your user space to some reasonable number? I think about 5-6 should be enough, a whole alternate history with dozens of articles goes a bit far against WP:NOT a free webhost. I believe there is middle ground here that can be found. Please choose yourself what you wish to keep and tag the rest with {{db-owner}}. Kusma (討論) 00:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. God, this is a hard case. Nominator is right that this page does violate the spirit of WP:NOT. However, contributor is well-established and the pages are small and don't consume great space (I've seen much, much worse get kept). I really don't like this practice; but, courtesy and good faith still count for a lot, and I need more evidence of malice before I'll delete something from a regular contributor's userspace.--Firsfron 01:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please for the love of Bob no one look at how many subpages I have. I use them to practice table layout, understand how transclusion works, play with different coulours and displays. I sometimes ask for them to be deleted when I'm finished, but hey guess what: That doesn't do anything. Space is not saved by deleting pages. I'm unlcear on what the problem with these is. Silly and pointless and edges up on "Not MySpace" territory... but deleting them against the user's wishes? Whoa, why?
    brenneman{L} 03:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Among other things, these "articles" are bad because they show up very high on Google results. The #1 search result for "WGHP history" on Google is not our real article on the topic but this fabriacted one. Ideally, when people see Wikipedia as a top result for a reasonable search, they should not click on the link and discover "Disclaimer: This stuff is entirely made-up. It did not happen (yet). Therefore, this is not a real article." In case you haven't noticed, Wikipedia is in the business of publishing factual information; it would be undesirable for us to establish ourselves as a clearinghouse for fiction. Plus, I don't think we want people who search for "louisville whore" to find Wikipedia as the #2 result. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just want to point out that its possible the Wikipedia versino would not even show if it was not for CoolKatt's subpage. The standard article is given a high rating because its a subpage on the same network as CoolKatt's page. In this case her page which clearly states "alternate history" has helped a Wikipage get placed higher in the rating on google. The only real remedy to further differentiate the articles would be to rename them to "Fictional History of XYZ"? but Alternate History accomplishes the same goal. --Zer0faults 17:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oww oww oww... stop kicking me. ^_^ Ok, while that aspect of this hadn't been discussed before (at least not here?) I can certainly see why it would be considered sub-optimal. But, call me crazy, did we try just talking about it to CoolKatt first? Forcing someone to delete subpages should really be our last resort. And again, that information would have done well to go in the nomination for deletion. - brenneman{L} 11:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • CFIF did try to "talk" with CoolKat, but from what I saw, the majority of "talking" was notes in the form of "This is worthless!", "This is crap!", "Answer me!", "Answer me now!", etc. I can understand CFIF's wish to keep this encyclopedic, but I can also see why CoolKat wouldn't respond well to that sort of note.--Firsfron 11:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment looks like CoolKatt has gotten sneaky and combined this false and inaccurate info into 5 subpages. User:CoolKatt number 99999/Subpage 1 User:CoolKatt number 99999/Subpage 2 User:CoolKatt number 99999/Subpage 3 User:CoolKatt number 99999/Subpage 4 User:CoolKatt number 99999/Subpage 5. I think we should delete those also. --CFIF (talk to me) 10:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This all seems to be stemming from a vendetta it seems. I think CoolKatt's attempts to create subpages to condense their work was in good faith in attempts to reach a compromise. There is now even a RfC against CoolKatt, perhaps everyone just needs a break? --Zer0faults 17:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Stifle (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Yes, the disputes here may need some settling. But these untrue articles can sometimes show up above the real articles on Google -- see this Google search for "WGHP history". As such, these subpages are dangerous and may be a misuse of userspace. Remember, Google indexes userpages too. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:31, 18 May 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.

.

2006-05-15

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 03:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mission BSS

Page is a blatant advertisement that I put up for speedy but was informed that despite the fact that it qualifies as a speedy it should be taken here as it is a userpage. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:54, 15 May 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 Speedy Delete, G4 applies. ^demon[omg plz] 07:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Eleventy-billion pool

Earlier debates here, here, here, here and here.

Was deleted months ago, but undeleted yesterday by User:Sj as part of his massive wheel warring spree (see WP:ANI for details). Of course, Astroguy is involved in this page as well. Suggest deletion once again; we have way too many of these mostly-identical pools, and the joke fell flat after the first few. >Radiant< 09:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

2006-05-14

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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:General Eisenhower/QRVS and User:OrtonFan2006/SCVF

These ideas is poorly thought through, and simply unnecessary. The CVU is an anti-vandalism organisation, and vandalism response is very rapid removing the point out of Quick Response Vandalism Squad. I am nominating this and User:OrtonFan2006/SCVF, a very similar organisation, due to the fact it is simply unnecessary. Computerjoe's talk 18:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion about whether we should keep it or not will generate about as much disk space as the pages themselves. And last time I checked, disk space for text usage was not in short supply. --Fastfission 02:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Vandalism is easily reverted quickly and immediatly by those who see it. I fail to see what a quick response wiki-project might be able to bring to the process. If anything it can only slow down the process. Ydam 11:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then don't participate in it! Why get involved with what others want to do? It doesn't affect you or anybody else on here, so why not just leave it alone? --Fastfission 02:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, its beyond the relm of userspaceishness, it has become a Wikiproject, if that makes any sense what so ever. American Patriot 1776 20:52, 16 May 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.

2006-05-13

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. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Penguins

There aren't many penguin related articles around to have a separate WikiProject for them. Originally this page was named WikiProject Save the Penguins, which leads me to believe that this project was created as a misguided page to garner support for the penguin's cause. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 03:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. On the surface why should not this Project remain if it can get more support. Then I see that the template for talk pages about penguins is on NO talk pages, not even on Penquins itself. It seems there is little or no activity, so maybe it is a joke and should be deleted. No clear opinion right now. --Bduke 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inappropriate material for a WikiProject. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Tough choice here. There are at least 16 species of penguin, according to the main article. I suppose a good portal could be made of those, plus penguin related things. Also, the project is new, and normally would deserve a little time to flourish. The factor pushing me to delete, but just slightly, is that (given the current membership), I can't be sure this wasn't created as a joke. If current members care enough to appear here with a reasonable plan for the project, I may change my vote; otherwise, I say to assume it was a joke, and delete it in favor of a future serious effort. Xoloz 16:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support If we expand on penguins in WIkipedia, people want to help them because they see they are innocent and need help from the oil spills.--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 00:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Xoloz. --TantalumTelluride♪ 19:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I concur with Xoloz that this has the earmarks of a prank. There is no evidence that this is a serious project. In particular, I note that the "project" page still has a reference to the "Wikiproject Politics of India" page, presumably from wherever the page was cut-and-pasted. The assertion on the original version of this page that it "is a Wikiproject devoted to saving Penguins from the evils of oil spills" seems to border on nonsense and does not appear to have any bearing on the creation or maintenance of encyclopedia articles. Rossami (talk) 04:19, 14 May 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. — xaosflux Talk 01:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism 101/Strategy

(moved contenious debate to Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism 101/Strategy) Dominick (TALK) 20:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC) (link provided by Richard)[reply]


  • NOTE: Moved votes below the line. Left DarthVad's vote above the line because it's about the process of nominating this page for deletion not the substantive question of whether to keep the page.
  • Delete This was unilaterally done by a user. The discussions should be page by page OR he should file a RfM. The discussions were moved back to the page where he snipped them away. Dominick (TALK) 18:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Articles and Categories regarding Catholicism/the Catholic Church are woefully disorganized and poorly linked or crossreferenced to once another. There needs to be a place where over-arching organizational matters should be discussed. Perhaps more care needs to be taken to alert the various talk pages inviting editors to join a conversation that concerns them. I am presently working on a plan for a topic-wide re-organization, and there is no central place to discuss this without such a project page. An encyclopedia needs to be coherent and well organized across wide ranges of articles, not just on the level of each individual article. This is not brain surgery. This is what we do at WikiProject Saints. If we do keep this WikiProject, we need to make sure it is well advertized to all the related Talk pages. --Vaquero100 12:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of "truth in advertising", the project Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism 101 has existed for some time. This "delete" discussion is not about deleting the project but about whether there should be a subpage of that project called "/Strategy". The idea of using subpages for discussion forums is suggested by the standard Wikiproject Template [[Template:WikiProject]]. I don't think this distinction would change Vaquero100's vote but I just wanted to keep things crystal clear. --Richard 16:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy (?) I don't see anything pernicious about the discussion ongoing at the page - it seems reasonable and in good faith, and should not be deleted. However, it isn't centrally located, and nominator is probably concerned about "forking" the discussion: it is hard to reach a meaningful concensus on a page so far removed from the topics it seeks to address. To remove the appearence that this effort has wide support, one solution would be to userfy. Xoloz 16:28, 13 May 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.

2006-05-20

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 under criterion G8. Rossami (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of TV channels that air The Simpsons

Talk page from deleted article, no content except PROD notice and an edit explanation -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 06:23, 21 May 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 by Enochlau. — xaosflux Talk 03:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki talk:HugoPreece

It looks like a misuse of a MediaWiki talk page.--Jusjih 13:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subject in question is not notable with less than 10 Ghits, so I do not consider it worth redirecting to the article.--Jusjih 13:40, 20 May 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.

2006-05-18

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 Speedy delete per CSD:U1. Stifle (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Urthogie/curious

This is from my userpage, I used it to take notes. People follow my contributions around so I no longer feel comfortable using my subpages as a todo-list.--Urthogie 14:39, 18 May 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was invalid nomination. sjorford →•← 20:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sandbox

Because I said sooooooooooooo and I belooooooooooong in the loooooooooony bin!

  • Delete---BrenDJ 21:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Used for Wikipedia tests. What's wrong with the sandbox?? Georgia guy 21:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • chuckle I'm pretty sure someone was merely testing the sandbox. Or pulling a prank. Of course we don't want to delete it. (Note: The above comment was made by Baylink on 15:35, 5 Apr 2005)
  • Keep since the VfD template was most likely put in here as a joke or just a test. Zscout370 18:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup this article is what, three years old, and is the constant target of vandals and blanking, etc. Perhaps a protection is in order here ... — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: if this is placed into a protection mode, then all meaning full tests are gone. Plus, the bot comes in every 12 hours and fixes it, or unless the header has been toyed with. I do not mind going in and fixing things manually if things like the Weinnie Hut Jr's show up again. Zscout370 16:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep: Also, there should be a link to the test-wiki. Does that exist anymore? MessedRocker 23:25, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

2006-05-16

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 James F. (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia movement for democracy

Another uprising of trolls and puppets, in gross violation of WP:NOT. — May. 16, '06 [14:05] <freak|talk>

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, attack page.--Sean Black 20:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a page for discussion of an issue is great and welcome. But inviting some, while excluding others, in this manner is factionalism. Rob 14:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you are not willing to discuss it there, either, since you removed my comment. Hence my vote below...--Stephan Schulz 15:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete do I have to type utter nonesense out again? -- Tawker 14:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the proper place to express dissatisfaction with Wikipedia policy is on the talk page of the relevant policy. Angr (t • c) 14:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#A6 ("Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject"): I see no particular reason why this criterion should be restricted to the main namespace. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We preserve incivility in userpages for the record, unless the incivility involves threats or violation of privacy. Deletion in effect "hides" past incivility on the part of an editor from the Wikipedia general population, a very bad thing. In general, sins are not whitewashed around here. Xoloz 17:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Angr. Also see my comment above. --Stephan Schulz 15:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems that it could turn into a bit of a witch-hunt, almost to the extent of violating NPA -- certainly violates AGF. The JPS talk to me 15:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a forum for like-minded wikipedians to organize effective resistance against untrained wikipedians who have no understanding of the law is not how to make policy. Take it to WT:FU. Dr Zak 15:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reword. I rather doubt Travb's analysis of the issues is right, but who am I to impose that. If he and whoever is likeminded want to develop a policy alternative, that's great. The talk page of the relevant policy (per Angr) is so cluttered up with (largely naive) discussions on individual instances that it is unlikely to happen there, and Trav should be free to use his User page to the betterment of the encyclopedia with a wide degree of latitude. Let's AGF and hope this evolves to constructive learning and/or discussion and not just disparagement...it's too early to tell, even if the first sentence is rather suspect (per Dr Zak). Note, I have never used any fair use images and I personally don't plan to. Martinp 15:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Angr. There is a much less disruptive process for suggesting changes to Wikipedia policy. --TantalumTelluride 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is asking for trouble └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 15:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I must be crazy, but what is disruptive about this article? There are no personal attacks, no threats of disruption (At least right now)... Just a want to organize a group against strict copyright. No different than Inclusionist/Exclusionist, Userboxen and No Userboxen... Etc. If he continues to remove comments, bring that to WP:ANI. Until then, let's WP:AGF. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 16:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Finding ways of intentionally running counter to policy approved by the Wikimedia Foundation is disruptive. (One of the two foci of the page is the fact that admins speedy orphaned fair use images that were only used in userpages; this runs counter to the 9th clause of fair use policy designed to keep the Wikimedia Foundation out of legal trouble. Every dollar spent on legal advice is a dollar not going to the servers.) Johnleemk | Talk 17:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reword per Martinp. There are complaints on this page, but no obvious personal attacks that I can see. The page may be incorrect in its analysis, but it is not uncivil: no admins are named directly, and the worst charge leveled is that some people don't know what they're doing. This is a potentially valid way to criticize, although the critic is wrong on the merits here. I am a little worried about the "conspiratorial" tone, but no else has signed this yet, so we're dealing with an essay at present. Incidentally, CSDA6 does NOT apply, nor should it. We do not delete userpages strictly for incivility: often, a record of that incivility needs to be kept, so that it might be rebutted. We have deleted userpages for threats, but here there are none. Xoloz 17:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's the attack? The page looks, at the moment, like a place where things are to be discussed, not an attack page. It seems to want to discuss changing policies, something for which there are no rules against here. --Fastfission 20:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that this is coming a bit late, and the discussion is closed, but it would be worthwhile trawling through Travb's messages to many, many editors. One example can be found here:
"Hello, this message is because of your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2. Because of the abuse of authority of User:Ta bu shi da yu, Tens of thousands of images have been deleted by a small handful of wikipedians, citing "fair use".
Would you be interested in joining a group on wikipedia which counters the heavy handed tactics of the copyright police. We can't fight them on our own. User talk:Ed g2s has began deleting fair use image on every person's user page and on several other pages, inspired by WP:FUC which was written by another paternal copyright policeman with absolutly no legal training and little understanding of copyright law. User:Ta bu shi da yu created the WP:FUC page and was responsible for deleting hundreds of Time magazine covers and refused to stop even after Time magazine sent an e-mail allowing wikipedia to use the images."
I think that this is somewhat instructive of why it might be construed as an attack against an admin (myself). - Ta bu shi da yu 14:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any divisive policy issue promotes some degree of "factionalism", that shouldn't be a pre-emptive way to shut down a discussion. It doesn't seem to be advocating the violation of copyright laws -- it seems pretty clearly to say that it wants to review whether our policies are in line with copyright laws. No harm there. --Fastfission 20:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At the moment I don't see this as an attack on any particular admin but a forum on whether or not policy is being properly applied and whether or not the policy adequately reflects the law. Those are perfectly fine questions, no matter what one thinks about either the law or the policy. The page currently points out that a number of admins have been deleting a lot of content based on their understanding of the policy and the law. It does not identify anyone in particular, nor does it assume malice on their part. --Fastfission 20:22, 17 May 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 speedy keep, no valid reason for deletion.--Sean Black 19:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle

Talk page of indefinately banned user. Last edit was on April 7, 2006. As this user is sysop of an attack website for banned users, user is unlikely to be welcomed back. User has stated on numerous occasions that she intends not to do so in a productive manner. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 18:18, 16 May 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 16:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jose Arellano

Not a real user. A copy of User:Jose and Ricardo, more or less. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:26, 16 May 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.

2006-05-15

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 Belongs on AFD, db-author, and sounds like a candidate for redirecting anyways Kotepho 03:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia home for boys and girls

There are two pages for this link. This one did not get capitalized. The other one with capital letters is more up to date and thorough. Cjrlauve 03:19, 16 May 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 Speedy keep. Ian13/talk 17:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

The following was moved from AfD.

extremely inflammatory, bites the newcomers, and oversimplifies the policies. --M@rēino 15:08, 15 May 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. As suggested, I won't delete the other Drjarf at this time. Xoloz 16:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr jarf

There is no user of this name; page was created in a mistaken attempt by User:Greatgavini to userfy a vanity page. Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, and I think we should delete User:Drjarf as well because it is spam. —Mets501talk 21:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the redirect as an uncontroversial page-move error. The target is more difficult. While it was in the main article-space, it could have been speedy-deleted under case A7. It is an autobiographical vanity article with no assertion of notability. It is, furthermore, the user's only edit to date. Now that it's in the userspace, we can afford to give the user the benefit of doubt for a while. I note that the page was only created yesterday. I'd like to assume good faith that the user will return to the project and make positive contributions. Rossami (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this redirect for sure. Wait a few weeks on User:Drjarf to see if he comes back and makes any useful contributions. Angr (t • c) 08:36, 19 May 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 no consensus/default keep. Xoloz 16:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)}}[reply]

Portal:Cannabis

This portal was rejected at Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals on grounds of bias and because of preference for Portal:Drugs. cj | talk 07:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The objection in this case is not about the content of the portal, but its subject and that's very un-liberal. If anyone wants he can balance the content, this is a free encyclopedia. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me edit) 06:35, 21 May 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.

2006-05-14

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 Included at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:Quadrillion_pool_.28and_all_larger_number_pools.29 below.. — xaosflux Talk 17:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Hundred-million pool

Trivial pool, not of any use in progressing the encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 14 May 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.

2006-05-13

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 22:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dardania

A project needs to be deleted. I'm talking about Wikipedia:WikiProject Dardania, here's a thorough explination why the project should be deleted:

  • The founder of the project has been declared a vandal; we're talking about User:Hipi Zhdripi
  • Hipi has been blocked indefinately and all of his sockpuppets have been blocked.
  • The project is an exact copy of WikiProject Serbia, very little was altered.
  • Finally, the project serves no purpose, since Hipi was the only contributor, noone else joined. Well, actually, one person joined after this issue was reported here, and his edits are remarkably similar to those of Hipi, which show that he's still continuing with his policy of vandalism on this Wikipedia.

Therefore, I ask you to delete this ridiculous project. --serbiana - talk 19:08, 13 May 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 per unanimous consensus. Xoloz 21:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Keithgreer/mrducky

Nonsense, using Wikipedia as a free webhost for nonsense. Cyde Weys 06:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I quite agree. :( --Andy123 talk 11:29, 18 May 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.

2006-05-11

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. - Mailer Diablo 09:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Signature Poll

Time wasting, doesn't help build the encyclopedia, apparently an attempt by users with long signatures to "justify" their disruption. Polls are evil, Don't be a dick.

From the Community portal: A new helpful poll has been created for users with long signatures to justify themselves. For example, if someone has a 20-line signature, and they win one of the polls, then when someone complains about it, the user can just link to their poll, and the people can't complain anymore. Read More: Wikipedia:Signature Poll. --Commander Keane 18:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but no long-signatured people win the polls. That was just meant to attract people, like an advertisement. It wasn't actually meant to help long-signatured people, just attract them to nominate their own sig, then they will lose. --GeorgeMoney T·C 19:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. I didn't vote yet. So, I vote keep --GeorgeMoney T·C 02:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems far too m:instruction creepy. If you think someone has too long a signature, ask him/her to change it. If he/she doesn't want to, ask around on the pump or something. We don't need such a bureaucratic process for such a simple procedure. Johnleemk | Talk 14:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't mind deprecating it, actually. Come to think of it, that might even be a better idea, considering this page has been used quite a bit already. It wouldn't make sense to keep the subpages but delete the main page, and I think it'd be a bad idea to delete them all. Johnleemk | Talk 15:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If User:GeorgeMoney's explanation is accepted, then this page exist to make a sarcastic point at the expense of other editors. Even if the first few "nominees" are in on the fun, I worry about the day someone is nominated without understanding the poll's humorous intent. (I agree this doesn't amount to a WP:DICK, but I think that is where CommanderKeane's worry originates, and the worry is valid one.) Also, per Johnleemk, an unnecessary poll is instruction creep. Xoloz 15:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ot at least mark it as historical. Not funny, could spread bad sentiments and the like. Does not advance the encyclopedia. Etc. BrokenSegue 19:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close polls and mark {{rejected}}... it's funny as in bad. Ashibaka tock 04:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Brokensegue. If kept, then reject and archive. If deleted, transwiki to BJAODN. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per everyone else. --Mark J 19:24, 13 May 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Community

Not a portal, and neither active or maintained. cj | talk 04:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Either this is redundant with the Wikipedia:Community Portal, or it serves a very vague purpose, inappropriate for portal space. I would also recommend a redirect to WP:CP, but it be cross-namespace, which is frowned upon. Xoloz 15:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's redundant. Plasbar 01:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inactive and redundant. - Pureblade | Θ 18:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a Portal for Community-related encyclopedic articles and categories and has nothing to do with the Wikipedia Community Portal. Its construction is slow, but continuous. CQ 18:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Community Portal, keeping is pointless. MaxSem 11:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The definition of "portal" that Cyberjunkie links to say that a portal "help readers and/or editors manoeuvre their way through Wikipedia topic areas". I disagree with Cyberjunkie that this page does not meet that definition. While its clearly not complete, I think the Community portal currently provides a useful beginning framework for a new reader in finding different articles on community. This is especially important because the term can be vague. And finally it has nothing to do with WP:CP. WP:CP is specifically about the Wikipedia community whereas the Community Portal is an attempt to look at communities in general from a sociological and practical perspective. Deleting it now would cripple the potential for future growth and development in this broad subject area on wikipedia. mennonot 23:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Completely different to the Wikipedia Community portal, serves a useful purpose in grouping together articles on this subject. --Black Butterfly 07:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The portal has been altered since nomination. I happened across it when it appeared as a substandard replica of Wikipedia:Community Portal. Still, I see no reason not to delete it - anything it might cover could be equally done at Portal:Society.--cj | talk 09:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One good thing about nomination for deletion is that it inspires people to put more work into a page as seems to be the case here.
I disagree with your suggestion that the it covers the same ground as Portal:Society. I think society and community are distinct enough that it is useful to have separate pages. Both the community portal and the society portal explictly differentiate between the two terms. The society portal says "A society is also sometimes defined as an interdependent community, but the sociologist Tonnies sought to draw a contrast between society and community." The Community portal says "Gemeinschaft — often translated as community — refers to groupings based on a feeling of togetherness. Gesellschaft — often translated as society — on the other hand, refers to groups that are sustained by an instrumental goal."
In practical terms, the community portal gives users the opportunity to look at specific examples of communities like the Catholic Worker communities, whereas the society portal looks at broader groupings such as the Tamil people. mennonot 23:25, 16 May 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.

2006-05-10

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. The JPS talk to me 18:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:A-town

Userpage full of attacks. Jet Engines 13:54, 10 May 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 Speedy close, misfiled request. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todd_Wills_Lockwood

Author does not wish his middle name to be listed. Another page Todd_Lockwood has been created. MDouglasWray 05:27, 10 May 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 Redirect to Portal:Islam. The histories have not been deleted, so that anyone wishing to merge information will have easy access to them. — xaosflux Talk 00:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Sunni Islam

No maintenance or updates are being done on this portal. Efforts should be made to improve the Islam portal before making subportals. BhaiSaab talk 23:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Portal:Islam is sufficient.--cj | talk 04:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Portal:Islam. Jet Engines 13:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Portal:Islam. Without a doubt, there is sufficient reason and scholarship to make separate portals for Sunni and Shia Islam eventually; in the current state, however, it is best that work be directed to the parent portal first, as that portal is hardly exhaustive. Consider this "merge and redirect" comment as a temporary expediency only: first build the foundation, then the branches. Xoloz 15:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both (Sunni and Shia) portals. We do not have a large number of wikipedians that contribute to either portal (with the exception of vandals of course) and the main portal (Portal:Islam) is sufficient enough. We can instead have mini-sections for Sunni and Shia info if the differences between the two sects really needs to be placed somewhere. Stoa 17:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete. I can do the updates and articles for the sunni and shia and islam portals!
  • Delete Portal:Islam is sufficient. Beno1000 12:17, 14 May 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 Redirect to Portal:Islam. The histories have not been deleted, so that anyone wishing to merge information will have easy access to them. — xaosflux Talk 00:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Shia Islam

No maintenance or updates are being done on this portal. Efforts should be made to improve the Islam portal before making subportals. BhaiSaab talk 23:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Portal:Islam is sufficient.--cj | talk 04:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Portal:Islam. Jet Engines 13:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Portal:Islam. Without a doubt, there is sufficient reason and scholarship to make separate portals for Sunni and Shia Islam eventually; in the current state, however, it is best that work be directed to the parent portal first, as that portal is hardly exhaustive. Consider this "merge and redirect" comment as a temporary expediency only: first build the foundation, then the branches. Xoloz 15:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both (Sunni and Shia) portals. We do not have a large number of wikipedians that contribute to either portal (with the exception of vandals of course) and the main portal (Portal:Islam) is sufficient enough. We can instead have mini-sections for Sunni and Shia info if the differences between the two sects really needs to be placed somewhere. Stoa 17:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again, Portal:Islam is sufficient for this. Beno1000 12:18, 14 May 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.

2006-05-08

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 History Deleted only to remove personal attacks, the last version has been kept. — xaosflux Talk 22:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Goethean/Examples

Just an attack page in which this editor logs his opinions of other editors, mostly in a disparaging manner. Violates WP:NOT and WP:CIVIL. Does nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia.--MONGO 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The editor took the sardonic comments out since the nomination[2], but the links remain...userspace is still the property of Wikipedia and is for the most part still bound by the same rules as in article space, with only a few more leeways. The page violates WP:NPA just by it's very nature.--MONGO 02:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page violates WP:NPA just by it's very nature.
Could you expand on that? Exactly how is does a list of internal links constitute a personal attack? — goethean ॐ 14:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That shouldn't even be justified with an answer. Everyone here knows that the page was edited to appear less controversial after the MfD was posted. There's no guarantee the personal attacks won't reappear if the page is left alone. Wikipedia is meant to be a resource for the world, and pages like the one being discussed do nothing to help that cause, even if it is a user page. I reiterate my vote as above, and strongly recommend that the page be deleted.WikiPrez 22:16, 9 May 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.

2006-05-07

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 22:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Singularity

A sole and relatively unknown theory is hardly a subject for a portal. cj | talk 07:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because it's unmaintained. There may be enough content to sustain such a portal, with biographies of leading figures, major organisations, the philosophical concepts, the various technologies that might lead up to it, some of the science fiction that's been written about it. It wouldn't be hard to get a list of 20 or so articles on the subject, although many of those articles might not be well developed. Delete it quickly, but without prejudice, before I get carried away and volunteer to maintain it.-gadfium 08:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a portal topic. BD2412 T 16:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I question the suggestion that this is a "relatively unknown" theory, but the current framework appears pathetic, and I cannot see the case for portal maintainability. Xoloz 23:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per gadfium and Xoloz. Barno 14:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above. Jet Engines 13:12, 11 May 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.

2006-05-06

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 22:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of Wikimedia Projects and Wikias

Was nominated on AFD, moving here. Nominator's comments below. Stifle (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's some crazy way of uniting Wikimedia and Wikia projects, but you have to dance through a hoop first. It's completely ridiculous. Why don't we throw Yahoo Groups and Myspace accounts into the mix, a unite the whole darn web. We have meta to communicate within Wikimedia, Wikia is seperate, and it's fine that way. -- Zanimum 15:04, 4 May 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.

Wikipedia:Quadrillion pool (and all larger number pools)

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 (after discounting many, many anons and sockpuppets). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the User:Science3456 sockpuppet! (Vote in small font) —Ruud 23:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This pool is outright absurd. How are these numbers talked about outside the world of science and astronomy?? Georgia guy 14:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could have included a bit more information in your nomination? At the very least, you could have omitted that ugly bold "vote" thing. Are you nominating or voting? 61.68.93.85 20:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it's not late enough to have so many pools with huge numbers when Wikipedia now has just over a million articles. I think having just a 5M pool and a 10M pool is enough for right now. Georgia guy 20:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. After Wikipedia reaches 1M articles, the 2M pool is closed and a 10M pool is open.
  2. After Wikipedia reaches 2.5M articles, the 5M pool is closed and a 20M pool is open.
  3. After Wikipedia reaches 5M aritcles, the 10M pool is closed and a 50M pool is open.
  4. After Wikipedia reaches 10M articles, the 20M pool is closed and a 100M pool is open.

And so on. However, the many pools some Wikipedians have been creating is much more absurd thing. Georgia guy 20:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Following debate merged from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:1,234,567,890 pool)

User:Shoxer has a thing for "pandigital numbers". It seems that even Wikipedians in a silly enough mood to visit the pools don't share his enthusiasm. Some of these are even so close to the million, billion, or ten-billion pools that, given exponential growth, they'd probably happen in the same week. But mostly if we open a pool for every number someone likes, we'll have a whole bunch of pools with one person participating. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:35, 10 May 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.

2006-05-03

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 ambiguous.

The majority opinion is against the use of this page. Serious concerns were raised during the discussion that this could be perceived as a precedent for a non-standard method of citations. Several users further argued that the facts which are being cited are common knowledge and, as such, do not technically require citation either according to our policy or according to the traditional standards of citation for encyclopediae. Reviewing the current contents of the page, I have to concur with that assessment though I admit the possiblity that less self-evident facts might someday be included on the page.

So, returning to the deletion discussion... After reviewing the discussion several times, I do not find the necessary consensus to delete the page. I do, however, find a rough consensus to deprecate the page in favor of more traditional uses of the article's regular Talk page and/or of the regular citation process. Accordingly, I am going to redirect this page back to Talk:United States. Anyone wishing to merge some of the contents of this page to another destination may do so by pulling the content from the page history. I explicitly decline to "merge and delete" because it unnecessarily complicates the problem of maintaining attribution history - a requirement of GFDL.

Please note that redirect decisions are not considered "binding" in the sense that normal deletion decision are. If there is a discussion by the participants of the Talk:United States page which concludes that this will be a useful and sanctioned tool for the improvement of the main article, the redirect can be reversed at that time. If there is such a discussion, I would strongly recommend that the page remain in the Talk-namespace. Sub-pages in the main article-space are strongly discouraged. Rossami (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States/References

N.B. this is now Talk:United States/References. — xaosflux Talk 13:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is well intentioned, but some of it is rather comical ('"situated primarily in central North America". Infered from the physical layout of the country.'). Any references which are required should be in the article itself, as for every other referenced article I have ever seen. Delete Sumahoy 01:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and Delete per aeropagitica. Could even be speedied per CSD:A3 (No content whatsoever: . Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title.) -- ReyBrujo 17:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and delete per aeropagitica. TheProject 19:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this is not an article, and has such been moved to Miscellany for deletion.--Sean Black (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you basing that on? It is in the main namespace, so it is posing as an article and it remains an article unless it can be demonstated to belong to some other established class of page. Scranchuse 00:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not an article. It is not part of the encyclopedia, in the same way that Talk pages are not part of the encyclopedia. It is part of a method to make sure the content in the encyclopedia is accurate. By going through the sources listed in the article, and writing down the exact bits of them that back up the specific facts stated in the article, we can make sure that the article follows Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is on a seperate page from the article for the same reasons that the Talk page is on a seperate page - it would take up too much space in the article; it is a behind-the-scenes method for improving our content, not directly a part of the content, etc. Merging it into the United States page is not a meaningful suggestion - it would be like suggesting that a Talk page be "merged" into it's article. Thanks for your attention. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: aren't the purpose of the new reference style to prevent this kind of "offline" linking where you need to remember a section of the text to search into another page? Also, this page is hidden from the casual user, this way it serves no purpose. Newbie questions, sorry. -- ReyBrujo 23:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your questions. In order: The purpose of the new reference style (by which I assume you mean m:Cite.php) is to allow footnotes to be included inline in the text, so they don't have to be edited in two places. This is good and useful, but is unrelated to the purpose of the Talk:United States/References page, which, as I said above, is a tool for editors to colaborate in making sure that the sources given in the article actually do support each and every one of the statements in the article. As for it being hidden, the page was linked from United States(although someone removed it) and is now linked from the top of Talk:United States, so it should be findable by those who wish to locate it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers, they are pretty useful. -- ReyBrujo 04:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and it should have stayed on articles for deletion. Saying that it is not an article when it is in the article namespace is totally wrong and seems to lend false credence to the idea that this is a legitimate way to reference. If someone wants to do this sort of thing, it should be in the User space. Scranchuse 23:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a "legitimate way to reference; and, now, it is not in the article namespace. Please explain what leads you to think it was not a "legitimate way to reference"? What do you mean by "legitimate"? I look forward to your explanation. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The necessary referencing should be done in the usual way. Anything else should be deleted. The project should also be deleted unless the people behind it can get a separate namespace created. Golfcam 00:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't delete project pages, we, assuming there is consensus for it(which is not shown by one XfD, btw) put {{rejected}} tags on them. And as for trying to reject a useful way to make sure that our articles are actually well-sourced, by colaborating on checking the statements in an article against the sources provided, good luck - I don't think Wikipedia is going to throw out WP:V anytime soon. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
      • MfD does delete project pages if they are ill-conceived or mal-formatted; see April MfD debate for "History of the US Timeline". Xoloz 13:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are correct. Is this page "ill-conceived or mal-formatted"? If so, please explain further what is wrong with it. I look forward to your response. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deprecate, possibly delete Now that this page is in talk-space, I'm not completely opposed to it; however, it should not be viewed as an alternative to the typical (in-text or footnote) methods of citation in WP. Additionally, as written, the page provides sources for items of information at or near the level of common knowledge. (The US is in North America; there are 50 states...) These simple facts are not those which most urgently need citation. The final item on the list is an example of an different class of assertion, that demands citation before inclusion. Xoloz 13:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly agree that this type of detailed verification is not, and should not be viewed as a replacement or alterative form of in-article citation for controversial or disputed points - thanks for suggesting this, I'll add it to the description. As for the page providing sources for "common knowledge", I also mostly agree with this - the introductory section of the article (which is the only section verified by Talk:United States/References) does consist mostly of "common knowledge", as it should. I also agree that such more-or-less obvious, uncontroversial facts are less urgently in need of citation than other, controversial facts.
    • However, I strongly reject the idea that the detailed verification of such uncontroversial facts is in any way harmful to the encyclopedia, or that such work is worthless, or that the results of that work (such as Talk:United States/References) should be thrown out, as various commenters on this page seem to propose. Being able to provide clear, written-down specific sources for as many of the statements in our encyclopedia as we can is a Good Thing, and assists us in maintaining the accuracy of our material. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The reason I am somewhat in support of the deletion of this page, and the reason I believe it may qualify as "ill-conceived" (per the above) is that it sets an example I am not sure I'd wish newer, unsophiscated editors to follow. The best investment of their time, if they wish to research, is to provide citations for details outside of common knowledge or for controversial facts. Additionally, they should always provide citations first within the article -- this page is a duplication. It isn't that I wish to "throw out hard work": I don't hate the page, I just worry about the example it sets, especially since I'd imagine "United States" is an article attractive to new editors. Xoloz 16:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have added a clarifing and warning section to the page, to hopefully address your concerns. It is not, in fact, a duplication - the facts that are cited in that page are precisely the citations which would be removed from the main article as "unnecessarily confusing the reader", which is why they are seperated out to this page so they don't "confuse the reader". While I am sure you are acting with the best of intentions, I don't think that deleting detailed citations is a useful way to set an example to new editors that researching and referencing is valued. It certainly is making me feel much less inclined to put in my time and effort only to see it disparaged as "comical" and "an amateurish hack". If you are truly concerned with creating a culture of sourcing and referencing at Wikipedia, deleting the work of people who are doing that is not a good way to get there. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Don't delete. — Instantnood 19:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a perfectly reasonable way to compile specific citations that do not need to be included in the main article. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:38, 8 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=54501755"