Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
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: and the various Talk: namespaces
- Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
- Pages in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
- Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.
Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.
Before nominating a page for deletion
Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:
Deleting pages in your own userspace |
|
Duplications in draftspace? |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
Alternatives to MfD |
|
Please familiarize yourself with the following policies
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
- Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
- Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
- Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
- Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes
How to list pages for deletion
Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:
Instructions on listing pages for deletion:
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted) Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.
|
Administrator instructions
V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 12 | 15 | 27 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 8 | 33 | 41 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.
Archived discussions
A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.
Active discussions
- Pages currently being considered are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.
Purge server cache
2010-04-04
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Smashbrosboy/Talk |
---|
The result of the discussion was No consensus. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC) User:Smashbrosboy/TalkDelete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#Games. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. There has been a longstanding consensus to delete secret pages. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezero/Secret Page and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vinsfan368/^^ for two examples. Cunard (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I should also note, if concern stems from time wasted doing fun things instead of working on the 'pedia, then everything in {{Wikipediholicism}} should also be removed. The Wikipediholism test has been
nom'd before, and was not deleted. (This took me like an hour when I did it - not "productive" use of my time.) The questions posed at WP:EM (Not policy, but seems a good guideline to me):
Plus the following, from Wikipedia:Why do you care? (Again, not policy, but also seems a good guideline to me): "Some editors may focus on removing non-encyclopedic userspace pages, rather than on building articles. Don't be a busybody. Consider: If a user is contributing well to articles, why do you care how good or bad their userspace pages look? As long as that user makes good contributions to the article space, and their interactions with other users are polite, why do you care what else they do on Wikipedia, or why they're here?" Avicennasis @ 18:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SpeedyReturn/SP |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC) User:SpeedyReturn/SPDelete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#Games. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. There has been a longstanding consensus to delete secret pages. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezero/Secret Page and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vinsfan368/^^ for two examples. Cunard (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following page:
Cunard (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Spider1224/SandboxOWL |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. The main difference with other similar pages (which were deleted) is that this user is inactive and have too many edits in the userspace. There seems to be a consensus at this point in favor of deletion. In addition, this user was inactive since 2008—for a very long by wikipedia standards. Ruslik_Zero 19:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC) User:Spider1224/SandboxOWLDelete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#Games. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. There has been a longstanding consensus to delete secret pages. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezero/Secret Page and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vinsfan368/^^ for two examples. Cunard (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following page:
Cunard (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Though I have no interest in secret pages myself, I'm unconvinced that they count as social networking, games or any other thing forbidden by The Rules. The longstanding consensus to delete secret pages is neither longstanding nor a consensus. The previous times large amounts of noise were made on secret pages were a MfD on them as a whole, which gave no consensus, and an arbitration case on their improper mass deletion attempt, which found that there is no policy or precedent, and there are reasonable arguments for both sides. I find the pages valuable as one of the few ways editors can connect positively, and where they can be reminded that one does not always have to worry about rules and conflicts while editing Wikipedia. You know that that's all too valuable. If you find this effect insignificant, there is another: it is very much significant that we do not become a community where even such small deviations from The Complex And Proper Order Of Things are set upon and crushed. --Kizor 01:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:RogueMad2/Userpage 3/? |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC) User:RogueMad2/Userpage 3/?Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#Games. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. There has been a longstanding consensus to delete secret pages. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezero/Secret Page and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vinsfan368/^^ for two examples. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following pages for deletion:
I am also nominating the following pages for deletion; though they are not secret pages, they do not contribute to building an encyclopedia and also fail WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#Games:
Cunard (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Onceonthisisland/Secret page |
---|
The result of the discussion was Speedy delete U1. Ruslik_Zero 19:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC) User:Onceonthisisland/Secret pageDelete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#Games. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. There has been a longstanding consensus to delete secret pages. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezero/Secret Page and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vinsfan368/^^ for two examples. Cunard (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I should also note, if concern stems from time wasted doing fun things instead of working on the 'pedia, then everything in {{Wikipediholicism}} should also be removed. The Wikipediholism test has been
nom'd before, and was not deleted. (This took me like an hour when I did it - not "productive" use of my time.) The questions posed at WP:EM (Not policy, but seems a good guideline to me):
Plus the following, from Wikipedia:Why do you care? (Again, not policy, but also seems a good guideline to me): "Some editors may focus on removing non-encyclopedic userspace pages, rather than on building articles. Don't be a busybody. Consider: If a user is contributing well to articles, why do you care how good or bad their userspace pages look? As long as that user makes good contributions to the article space, and their interactions with other users are polite, why do you care what else they do on Wikipedia, or why they're here?" Avicennasis @ 18:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PhishRCool/Bravo |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. The main difference with other similar pages is that this user is inactive and have too many edits in the userspace. There seems to be a consensus at this point in favor of deletion. Ruslik_Zero 19:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC) User:PhishRCool/BravoDelete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#Games. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. There has been a longstanding consensus to delete secret pages. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezero/Secret Page and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vinsfan368/^^ for two examples. Cunard (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following pages for deletion:
I should also note, if concern stems from time wasted doing fun things instead of working on the 'pedia, then everything in {{Wikipediholicism}} should also be removed. The Wikipediholism test has been
nom'd before, and was not deleted. (This took me like an hour when I did it - not "productive" use of my time.) The questions posed at WP:EM (Not policy, but seems a good guideline to me):
Plus the following, from Wikipedia:Why do you care? (Again, not policy, but also seems a good guideline to me): "Some editors may focus on removing non-encyclopedic userspace pages, rather than on building articles. Don't be a busybody. Consider: If a user is contributing well to articles, why do you care how good or bad their userspace pages look? As long as that user makes good contributions to the article space, and their interactions with other users are polite, why do you care what else they do on Wikipedia, or why they're here?" Avicennasis @ 18:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Microchip08/Extremely obvious |
---|
The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 18:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC) User:Microchip08/Extremely obviousDelete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#Games. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. There has been a longstanding consensus to delete secret pages. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezero/Secret Page and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vinsfan368/^^ for two examples. Cunard (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following pages for deletion:
Cunard (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I should also note, if concern stems from time wasted doing fun things instead of working on the 'pedia, then everything in {{Wikipediholicism}} should also be removed. The Wikipediholism test has been
nom'd before, and was not deleted. (This took me like an hour when I did it - not "productive" use of my time.) The questions posed at WP:EM (Not policy, but seems a good guideline to me):
Plus the following, from Wikipedia:Why do you care? (Again, not policy, but also seems a good guideline to me): "Some editors may focus on removing non-encyclopedic userspace pages, rather than on building articles. Don't be a busybody. Consider: If a user is contributing well to articles, why do you care how good or bad their userspace pages look? As long as that user makes good contributions to the article space, and their interactions with other users are polite, why do you care what else they do on Wikipedia, or why they're here?" Avicennasis @ 18:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Montgomery '39/contact me
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Meisfunny/Topeka |
---|
The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 18:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC) User:Meisfunny/TopekaDelete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#Games. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. There has been a longstanding consensus to delete secret pages. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezero/Secret Page and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vinsfan368/^^ for two examples. Cunard (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I should also note, if concern stems from time wasted doing fun things instead of working on the 'pedia, then everything in {{Wikipediholicism}} should also be removed. The Wikipediholism test has been
nom'd before, and was not deleted. (This took me like an hour when I did it - not "productive" use of my time.) The questions posed at WP:EM (Not policy, but seems a good guideline to me):
Plus the following, from Wikipedia:Why do you care? (Again, not policy, but also seems a good guideline to me): "Some editors may focus on removing non-encyclopedic userspace pages, rather than on building articles. Don't be a busybody. Consider: If a user is contributing well to articles, why do you care how good or bad their userspace pages look? As long as that user makes good contributions to the article space, and their interactions with other users are polite, why do you care what else they do on Wikipedia, or why they're here?" Avicennasis @ 18:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheNewPhobia/Secret Page!!! |
---|
The result of the discussion was No consensus. Ruslik_Zero 18:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC) User:TheNewPhobia/Secret Page!!!Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#Games. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. There has been a longstanding consensus to delete secret pages. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tezero/Secret Page and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vinsfan368/^^ for two examples. Cunard (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC) This nomination includes the following page:
Cunard (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I should also note, if concern stems from time wasted doing fun things instead of working on the 'pedia, then everything in {{Wikipediholicism}} should also be removed. The Wikipediholism test has been
nom'd before, and was not deleted. (This took me like an hour when I did it - not "productive" use of my time.) The questions posed at WP:EM (Not policy, but seems a good guideline to me):
Plus the following, from Wikipedia:Why do you care? (Again, not policy, but also seems a good guideline to me): "Some editors may focus on removing non-encyclopedic userspace pages, rather than on building articles. Don't be a busybody. Consider: If a user is contributing well to articles, why do you care how good or bad their userspace pages look? As long as that user makes good contributions to the article space, and their interactions with other users are polite, why do you care what else they do on Wikipedia, or why they're here?" Avicennasis @ 18:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pedro João/Cheated |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. The main difference with other similar pages is that this user is inactive and have too many edits in the userspace. There seems to be a consensus at this point in favor of deletion. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC) User:Pedro João/CheatedDelete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#Games. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC) This nomination includes the following page:
Cunard (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I should also note, if concern stems from time wasted doing fun things instead of working on the 'pedia, then everything in {{Wikipediholicism}} should also be removed. The Wikipediholism test has been
nom'd before, and was not deleted. (This took me like an hour when I did it - not "productive" use of my time.) The questions posed at WP:EM (Not policy, but seems a good guideline to me):
Plus the following, from Wikipedia:Why do you care? (Again, not policy, but also seems a good guideline to me): "Some editors may focus on removing non-encyclopedic userspace pages, rather than on building articles. Don't be a busybody. Consider: If a user is contributing well to articles, why do you care how good or bad their userspace pages look? As long as that user makes good contributions to the article space, and their interactions with other users are polite, why do you care what else they do on Wikipedia, or why they're here?" Avicennasis @ 18:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:A little insignificant/hidden page |
---|
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. The author's request for deletion is enough to remove userspace pages. Putting our heads together would not affect the outcome. --Kizor 16:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#Games. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC) This nomination includes the following pages:
Cunard (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fattyjwoods/Hidden Page |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete something lame from CBW 13:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC) User:Fattyjwoods/Hidden PageDelete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#Games. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC) This MfD discussion includes the following pages:
Cunard (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I should also note, if concern stems from time wasted doing fun things instead of working on the 'pedia, then everything in {{Wikipediholicism}} should also be removed. The Wikipediholism test has been
nom'd before, and was not deleted. (This took me like an hour when I did it - not "productive" use of my time.) The questions posed at WP:EM (Not policy, but seems a good guideline to me):
Plus the following, from Wikipedia:Why do you care? (Again, not policy, but also seems a good guideline to me): "Some editors may focus on removing non-encyclopedic userspace pages, rather than on building articles. Don't be a busybody. Consider: If a user is contributing well to articles, why do you care how good or bad their userspace pages look? As long as that user makes good contributions to the article space, and their interactions with other users are polite, why do you care what else they do on Wikipedia, or why they're here?" Avicennasis @ 18:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hi878/Secret Page List | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The result of the discussion was No consensus. The following summary applies to all discussions about secret pages. The arguments for their deletion are that they violate some policies and guidelines (including WP:UP#GAMES, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:NOTMYSPACE), that they are inappropriate for Wikipedia and that they distract users from the encyclopedia building. The counter arguments are that "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" meaning that wikipedians need to relax, that violations of policies, even if they exist, are minor and inconsequential—the pages are not harmful. Another counterargument is that policies have never been intended to be strict like real life laws, but merely to codify the exiting consensus, and enforcing a policy for the sake of enforcing it is wrong. Finally secret pages are not much different from guest books, which are generally allowed. I generally consider these arguments and counter arguments of an equal weight, therefore I think there is no consensus. Ruslik_Zero 19:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC) User:Hi878/Secret Page ListDelete per WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:UP#Games. Secret pages do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC) This MfD discussion includes the following pages:
Cunard (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Whilst secret pages may lead you to fix typos in the mainspace, they detract from the time that others could spend on constructive article building. The several "false" secret pages I included in the deletion nomination add to the time people waste on trying to find your secret page. Hersfold (talk · contribs) says it best:
Kayau Voting IS evil 13:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
A thought So, if all things not related to the encyclopedia, or at least all things that distract people from editing, are bad and should be removed, why is anything in the following template allowed? It most certainly doesn't help the encyclopedia. And, for that matter, why are any humorous pages kept at all? Indeed, why don't we just have a mass MfD for anything humor related? Can someone please explain why all of this is allowed, but secret pages can't be? Hi878 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
|
2010-04-03
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alfy852 |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. The userpage clearly violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. If the content is inappropriate it should be deleted, not blanked. The advice about blanking is for to non-admins, who can not delete by definition. Also, since the user in question was notified on 10 April about this discussion the objection of Metropolitan90 does not apply any more. Ruslik_Zero 15:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC) User:Alfy852Not at all an appropriate page for Wikipedia. The editor has had this page here for several years, and it's never been updated, and the editor has no other edits. It's been attacked by IPs, understandably. Woogee (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GoRight/Raul654 |
---|
The result of the discussion was blank. Tim Song (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC) User:GoRight/Raul654Relisted on 01:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC). This page has been here for about a year. To my knowledge, no rfc, arb, or any other kind of DR has been filed. The user which this sub-page is under is banned. Since there is no pending rfc, I propose we delete it, as it falls under an attack page, in lieu of "collecting perceived faults", or the like. As this user is banned, I see no other reason to keep it here, being that they are never going to come back, and this DR is never going to be filed. If they are unbanned, then undeletion can be considered. The sister page in Raul's userspace is also going to be nominated for the same reasons. — Dædαlus Contribs 06:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The relisting of this debate is even more inappropriate that its initial listing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mychaeltodd Robinson |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC) User:Mychaeltodd RobinsonI've already deleted a mainspace article with this same content, which is an entirely unsourced biography of living person that contains potentially slanderous material. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC) This my life story and I can prove it with witnesses. Min.Mychaeltodd Robinson aka Michael Eric Robinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.49.139 (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ownership alerts |
---|
The result of the discussion was delete per WP:SNOW. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Ownership alertsRedundant noticeboard, apparently someone is making a point. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Newsletter/20100201/Feature |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete
Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Newsletter/20100201/FeatureDelete. Blatant attempt to write a how-to-canvass-and-get-away-with-it guide, by an editor who has just been engaged in a rather creative attempt at canvassing (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Okip_canvassing). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
"I have listed Okip's draft how-to-votestack guide at Miscellany for deletion."[4] I ask again Brownhairedgirl, as Jani, an editor you accused of "trolling" asked: what policies, are incorrect here? Okip 20:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
|
2010-04-02
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Capital District |
---|
The result of the discussion was Keep. Two active editors have taken to fixing up this formerly abandoned portal. --RL0919 (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Portal:Capital District
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Shipwrecks |
---|
The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G7. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Portal:Shipwrecks
I had asked Polinosisss for help to create the portal, as I had attempted to revive the project - I hope that we are able to recover the item and complete it within reasonable time so as not to be an abandoned portal. Apologies for the false start SatuSuro 05:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:This user graduated from AUTH. |
---|
The result of the discussion was Keep, although probably rename to {{User graduated from AUTH}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Template:This user graduated from AUTH.Unused userbox with non-standard name. WOSlinker (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:This user loves to eat strawberries |
---|
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Template:This user loves to eat strawberriesUnused template with huge picture. WOSlinker (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:This user plays Halo Trial |
---|
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Template:This user plays Halo TrialUnused and odd looking userbox with non-standard name. WOSlinker (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture/Infobox |
---|
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture/Infobox
|
2010-04-01
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Waste of Time |
---|
The result of the discussion was Keep. Humorous page, now properly tagged as such. RL0919 (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Waste of TimeStupid drivel falsely marked as policy and falsely suggesting Jimbo's backing ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 14:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Saturday Night Live |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Saturday Night LiveWikiProject proposal created as a sandbox project instead of a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals I asked back in January which this was and haven't received a response yet. Original proposer hasn't edited since Dec 2009 (shortly after proposing) and no significant interest. Suggest housekeeping deletion at this point since status of current project is unclear, and might confuse anyone who stumpled across this expecting a response. Optigan13 (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
talk:TenPoundHammer|One bat]] • One hammer) 20:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
|
2010-03-31
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User dislikes semitic one god religions |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. This is based on the clear consensus in this MfD, but emphatically should not be taken as precedent for other userboxes that contain opinions that are negative on religious topics. Nor, indeed, should this be considered prejudicial to the existence of userboxes presenting such a viewpoint that do not suffer from the problems mentioned in community discussion here, until such a time as Wikipedia policy changes. As far as this MfD is concerned, this is consensus deletion for the named templates only. NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Template:User dislikes semitic one god religionsA nomination to delete these userboxes was mistakenly placed at templates for discussion. Since userboxes are supposed to be discussed at MFD, I am opening this nomination instead and copying the contents of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 31#Template:User dislikes semitic one god religions here. This is a procedural nomination on my part; see below for the original nominator's rationale for deletion. RL0919 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The comments above were copied from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 31#Template:User dislikes semitic one god religions. --RL0919 (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Delicious carbuncle/RFC |
---|
The result of the discussion was delete. The RfC has been filed. AniMate 16:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC) User:Delicious carbuncle/RFCAppears to be a tit for tat RFC/U about inflated issues of sourcing that have long since been addressed on the related article talk pages as well as previously unnecessarily escalated to ANI with no administrator interested in taking action. The page should be removed, immediately filed or be considered a pointless attack page. Ash (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
— User:207.237.230.164 • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Okip 10:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
|
2010-03-30
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Hindu Proud |
---|
The result of the discussion was userfy to User:Duster.Cleaner/Book:Hindu Proud. JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Book:Hindu ProudThis book doesn't seem to have a clearly-defined scope, and only contains one article. While the book is most likely a test book abandoned by its author, deletable by WP:BPROD, I would rather have a discussion before deleting, to see if "Hindu Proud" isn't a legitimate topic, that could be expanded. Author, India and Religion projects notified. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Librarians articles by quality |
---|
The result of the discussion was Keep both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Librarians articles by quality and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Librarians articles by quality logRelisted on 03:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC). Wikiproject was merged to WikiProject Libraries. No reason to keep this around if the Wikiproject's essentially gone. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
|
2010-03-29
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Amanda szeglowski |
---|
The result of the discussion was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC) User:Amanda szeglowskiA blatant advertisement; the page replaces the deleted Dance New Amsterdam, complete with a fee chart. Ms. Szeglowski, according to both the Dance New Amsterdam web site [6] and her LinkedIn profile, is in charge of public relations for this dance company, which raises COI issues. The page has no pretense of being encyclopedic - it is strictly spam. Warrah (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gosugatena (2nd nomination) |
---|
The result of the discussion was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC) User:GosugatenaAlmost exact copy of an article deleted after an Afd. The user space was similarly used as a copy of a deleted article after a previous Afd Mosmof (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
|
Old business
2010-03-27
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Ćurković |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete something lame from CBW 16:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Book:ĆurkovićThis is a book which contains mostly disambiguation pages. It is titled "Curkovic", which is a serbian/croatian/slovenian/bosnian surname, and contains several articles (or rather disambiguation pages) on serbian/croatian/slovenian/bosnian surnames, except Curkovic. I am pretty sure it was created as a test book, but not I'm not 100% sure of it, so I'm bringing it to MfD for further discussion, rather than BPRODing it. My opinion is that we should delete this book, without any prejudice to re-creation with a clearer/more defined scope. It's creator is inactive, but I've contacted him/her anyway. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
|
2010-03-23
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ParisianBlade/Conservapedia |
---|
The result of the discussion was Keep something lame from CBW 16:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC) User:ParisianBlade/ConservapediaWikipedia is not a webhost. Although it is acceptable to express one's political views in the user space, it is not acceptable to
MfD template fixed & userbox creator notified. — Scientizzle 18:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
|
2010-03-19
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Mbz1/"Mbz01 is the user looking at sanctions" |
---|
The result of the discussion was keep. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC) User talk:Mbz1/"Mbz01 is the user looking at sanctions"Attack page with no pending RFC. — Dædαlus Contribs 07:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Coral135/Blackbook2 |
---|
The result of the discussion was blank as a compromise; arguments in favour of keeping this page outright remain less convincing. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC) User:Coral135/Blackbook2Sandboxed article that was previously speedy deleted multiple times and salted at the Blackbook2 title. Discussion at User talk:Coral135/Blackbook2, User talk:SchuminWeb#Blackbook, User talk:Coral135, and User talk:AgnosticPreachersKid#Could you look at a sandboxed article and see if it passes? has a strong lean towards a failure on the notability front, and likely not going to attain notability in the foreseeable future. Thus nominating the deletion of this page that the editor has stopped working on as a housekeeping matter, since Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a vehicle for promotion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mbz1/collection |
---|
The result of the discussion was blank as a compromise. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC) User:Mbz1/collectionAnother attack page, this time collecting a list diffs by others, and per the attacks in the edit summaries and diffs therin, it is obviously a list of perceived flaws. Something that isn't allowed at wikipedia. — Dædαlus Contribs 08:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
|
1970-01-01
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Inaccuracies in Wikipedia Namespace |
---|
The result of the discussion was keep—consenus seems to be heading quite strongly in this direction. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Inaccuracies in Wikipedia NamespacePointy essay authored by editor who doesn't like WP:OUTCOMES, was rebuffed at that page, and has been on a campaign to change wikipedia such that it reflects his own personal biases. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Speedy Keep I'm the editor Jclemens is referring to, although the essay has more than one author. I like WP:OUTCOMES just fine, especially now that it actually reflects outcomes (i.e., I wasn't rebuffed at that page, considering all the changes I proposed were actually made). I fail to see how this essay "disrupts Wikipedia" to make a point or in any other way. I think this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!
Argument against userficationThis article was co-authored by two editors, and currently is in the top 25% of Wikipedia essays, ranked better than over 700 essays below it. I don't think an essay with that kind of ranking should be userfied. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Essays on Building WikipediaUnless there are specific inclusion criteria, it isn't equitable to kick one essay out of a template because a few people think it shouldn't go there. This is being discussed at Template_talk:Essays_on_building_Wikipedia and I think it is a good idea to set clear inclusion criteria up so the template a) doesn't get to crowded; and b) represents the best work on the subject. I encourage all present to go over there and comment if they have an opinion. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
|
The result of the discussion was Speedy keep. No doubt this could turn out to be a funny discussion, but we need not to confuse editors practicing in the sandbox by showing them a deletion template. Joe (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Joe (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sandboxtest EpochFail (talk|contribs) 20:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
|
Closed discussions
For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.