Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
|
|||
Purge - |
Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside of the main article namespace, that aren't already covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for five days; then are either deleted by an administrator, using community consensus (determined from the discussion) as a guideline, or kept.
Contents |
Introduction
The only currently-used namespaces in which pages are eligible for deletion here are Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia:, User:, and the various Talk: namespaces.
The undeletion of pages deleted after having been discussed here, and debating whether discussions here have been properly closed, is the purview of Wikipedia:Deletion review, which operates in accordance with our undeletion policy.
To propose pages for deletion in the User and User talk namespaces, where the user has no recent edits and has made little or no contributions to the encyclopedia, please consider using the proposed deletion process. This lighter-weight process allows pages that are unlikely to be contested to be deleted without requiring discussion and consensus.
This process is also sometimes used to discuss shutting down undesirable projects on Wikipedia, although this is rare and used in extreme cases only. Sometimes when such projects are shut down, their pages are kept for historical reasons.
Please familiarize yourself with the following policies
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy — our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion — whose guidelines on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
- Wikipedia:User page — our guidelines on user pages
- Deletion process — how to close debates
Prerequisites
Please bear in mind that:
- Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy.
- Nominating for deletion a proposed policy or guideline page that is still under discussion is generally frowned upon. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
- However, if a proposal is not serious or is disruptive (e.g. "Proposal to reject proposal foo") it can be nominated for deletion.
- User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for 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.
- If a page is in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), simply move it and list the redirect on WP:RFD if needed.
Notes for admins on closing discussions
- See Wikipedia:Deletion process#Miscellany for deletion page for a more detailed description of the MfD closing process.
- The process for the Miscellany for deletion page is similar to that for articles, as outlined at Wikipedia:Deletion process, except instead of using {{subst:Afd top}} and {{subst:Afd bottom}}, you use {{subst:Mfd top}} and {{subst:Mfd bottom}}.
- If the decision is KEEP (including any variant such as REDIRECT or MERGE), remove the MFD Header from the page (be sure the MFD Category is also removed), and put a link to the discussion sub-page on the page's talk page. The template {{oldmfd}} is recommended for this, like so:
- {{oldmfd|date= dateOfNomination |result= result |votepage= PageName }}
- After closing the discussions, move its transclusion from the Active to a wikilink in the Closed section of the page, include the result.
- To archive closed discussions remove an entire day's closed discussions from this page and place it in the relevant archive, creating a dated section if necessary. Do not archive a day until all discussions for that day and all preceeding days have been closed.
How to list pages for deletion
Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area.
To list an article/page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)
I. |
Edit PageName.
Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:
Be sure to include "subst:", not just {{md1}}; this is easier on the servers. Please include "Nominated for deletion" or similar in the edit summary and don't mark it as a minor edit. Consider checking the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This will help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by a vandal. Save the page.
|
II. |
Create its MfD subpage.
You should see a prominent link to "this page's entry" in the new article text.
Put the page's name in place of "PageName" and include a reason after text=. Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the ongoing discussion in your watchlist. Save the page. |
III. |
Add a line to MfD.
Follow and add a line to the top of the list:
Put the page's name in place of "PageName" and include the page's name in your edit summary. Save the page. |
It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating the miscellany. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the miscellany.
Discussions
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 the server's cache of this page
2007-09-25
User:EPR2006
User page being used inappropriately to host an article about a totally non-notable amateur football team, thus breaking WP:UP#NOT, "promotion of a business or non-Wikipedia-related organization". Editor has not responded to request on talk page to remove content (has not been active since 12 September). Number 57 13:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. Onnaghar talk ! ctrb 16:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, with apologies to the user who may not have realised that this was not an appropriate use of a user page. Sam Blacketer 20:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Davnel03/Vandals
It's time to bury the hatchet, Davnel03. There's no purpose in keeping this log three months after the fact and linking to it from your main userpage. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please see [1] [2], which is still vandalism being aimed at me. By the way, the things in my vandal page, is so that I can keep an eye on any recurring vandalism coming from the same IP addresses. Thanks, Davnel03 20:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, update it... with the new ip's vandalizing your userspace. --Rocksanddirt 22:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
2007-09-24
User:Lights/Steam
Apparently it's a page where users can "let off steam" without being in breach of any policies. Sebi [talk] 10:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - these sort of pages used to be quite popular. A bit like guestbook pages and stuff. I've never seen the point, but I can't remember whether the community got up in arms about this or just turned a blind eye. Carcharoth 10:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Unnecessary, sure, but isnt being used for anything the least detrimental. Don't know what the users plans are-- but seems a responsible user--I'd leave it alone. DGG (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems like a good idea to me, and the nominator provides no rationale for deletion. (However, we should probably add to the disclaimer that image use and copyright policies do apply to the page, as these are legally mandated.) WaltonOne 18:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Adopt-a-Highway
I just don't seem comfortable seeing this here. It might've been a good idea back when it was first proposed, but now it's just something that promotes owning articles. The template was toast long ago, but even this is bad. "Usurping an article" further bolsters article ownership, and anyone can keep it free from vandalism and such. It's only the improvements to the article that matters O (说 • 喝) 00:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. In most cases, I'd say this is unnecessary implication of OWNership, but when you have thousands upon thousands of articles, you need something like this. -Amarkov moo! 00:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Anyone can just keep articles clean. No need of a project page that promotes ownership even though it doesn't look like it. —O (说 • 喝) 01:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, normally I'd agree. But when there are thousands of articles to be kept clean, some organization is necessary. -Amarkov moo! 01:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Of course there are thousands of articles to maintain. It doesn't have to be glorified to the point as to where one person should actively maintain an article, and usurping as necessary. Wikipedia does not work like that; it's also not a one-man show. This clearly shows that it is made to prevent others from contributing, and that is what we never want. —O (说 • 喝) 01:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, it is made to show which articles are being actively maintained and which need someone to take care of them. -Amarkov moo! 02:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's true, however everyone should help, not mainly the people listed. And certainly not a one user per article system either, since it's also bureaucracy. Even more, it can provoke edit/flame wars and incivility between the "adopter" and the uninvolved user (other side). That stuff completely kills the spirit of Wikipedia, and this page only appears to fuel the fire, no matter what it says. —O (说 • 喝) 03:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, it is made to show which articles are being actively maintained and which need someone to take care of them. -Amarkov moo! 02:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Of course there are thousands of articles to maintain. It doesn't have to be glorified to the point as to where one person should actively maintain an article, and usurping as necessary. Wikipedia does not work like that; it's also not a one-man show. This clearly shows that it is made to prevent others from contributing, and that is what we never want. —O (说 • 喝) 01:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, normally I'd agree. But when there are thousands of articles to be kept clean, some organization is necessary. -Amarkov moo! 01:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Anyone can just keep articles clean. No need of a project page that promotes ownership even though it doesn't look like it. —O (说 • 喝) 01:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This is needed to keep articles crap-free. Without this we get WP:CRWP. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This isnt owning articles, its keeping an eye on them. Just because I adopt U.S. Route 22 doesn't mean anyone else is allowed to edit it. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 00:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- It only has to look like you are owning the article to be considered owning. —O (说 • 喝) 01:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- But, one of the first things the project states is that you're not owning the articles, only looking out after them. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 01:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Article ownership is a very sensitive issue. Putting this page in the new contributors' eyes basically spells out "please do not edit these articles. Get more experience before changing these articles." This is publicly linked from USRD's page, and new contributors will see it almost immediately. Also, new contributors tend to look around a lot (I still remember doing that when I was new), and we want to be as open as possible. It doesn't matter how many articles that a project has to maintain. We need to spell out "Please edit this article! You are one of our best resources here!" —O (说 • 喝) 01:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- But, one of the first things the project states is that you're not owning the articles, only looking out after them. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 01:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- It only has to look like you are owning the article to be considered owning. —O (说 • 喝) 01:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
SpeedyKeep: "I just don't seem comfortable seeing this here." is not grounds for deletion and the template this project uses says "If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page," which is a far cry from ownership. Furthermore, the nomination tag was not been properly linked to this discussion.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)- I am curious about the nominator's reasons for nominating, I notice that just a couple weeks before nominating O removed himself or herself from the list of members, where apparently this nominator had been fairly active. I'm not suggesting bad faith, just thinking the nominator has more insight then initially disclosed. - As for the link to this discussion, I'm not sure what was up, it may have been a browser problem as it seemed to correct itself after I tried unsuccessfully to fix it.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- First off, if you are referring to speedy keep criterion 1, bear in mind that I will not be withdrawing this nomination anytime soon (unless an admin uninvolved closes this as SNOW) Second, at the very beginning, everyone just started grabbing articles to maintain, and unfortunately I got caught in the crossfire. You're right about more insight; there's some right under Amarkov's last comment. Furthermore, I just kept thinking about AAH for the last month or so (couldn't get it out of my head!), and decided to remove myself completely. As for this nomination, I [mostly] knew that this page would violate policy, spark drama, and just be a danger for Wikipedia's new contributors, who are our assets. —O (说 • 喝) 03:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am curious about the nominator's reasons for nominating, I notice that just a couple weeks before nominating O removed himself or herself from the list of members, where apparently this nominator had been fairly active. I'm not suggesting bad faith, just thinking the nominator has more insight then initially disclosed. - As for the link to this discussion, I'm not sure what was up, it may have been a browser problem as it seemed to correct itself after I tried unsuccessfully to fix it.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I see no reason to delete the project. This does not promote article ownership; the template that was used for this project was perceived as much. This is a USRD internal project (which anyone can join, but internal nonetheless) to maintain articles. There's nothing wrong with that, as so long as it doesn't turn into one person claiming ownership of an article. Clearly, that hasn't happened, and if it did, then the user should be punished for taking over an article and claiming it for his/her self. Assuming that an editor would do that is assuming bad faith also. --Son 13:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - the {{maintained}} template is used by several projects and individuals, and all I see this group doing is urging editors to maintain articles. Maybe the page could be better phrased, but I see nothing wrong with the idea or the practice. John Carter 17:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Then how do you explain the bottom article listings? It seems like it's one user per article, which flies in the face of {{maintained}}. The maintained template is already enough; no need for a page like this which can promote article ownership. —O (说 • 喝) 23:14, 25 September 2007 (GMT)
2007-09-23
User:Cubedmass
Being used as a web host for personal physics theory. Asked for renaming "To allow uses of my e-mail address to more easily contact my user page" indicating that they are promoting it somehow. We are WP:NOT a web host Secretlondon 23:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this is a clear misuse of userspace. Acalamari 23:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Insta-Nuke per G11 (If I'm applying it correctly) and WP:USER (if not). Wikipedia isn't the new MySpace. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 03:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think advertising is pushing it a bit, it's a crank article. Secretlondon 04:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, clear misuse of userspace, Wikipedia is not a web host. --Stormie 06:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA nominees task force
Inactive and redundant of main project page. Creator has been notified and approves of deletion as seen here. LaraLove 17:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
User:The Behnam/Local news
editor watch page which serves no useful purpose and creates discord in the project. Jeffpw 11:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- delete as per precedents discussed repeatedly on WP:AN, and per previous discussion on user's talk page. Sorry, Behnam. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. While I have no doubt that The Behnam means well, the precedent is against this sort of "evidence" being accumulated in userspace. Dwelling on past perceived misdeeds is rarely helpful to better relations in future. I can see little benefit from the keeping of such pages, and the potential for keeping old disputes alive is obvious. Best to move on... WjBscribe 15:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Evidence collected on one user in relation to a planned RfC or Arbcom case is fine. Evidence collected on multiple editors, apparently without any intention to go to RfC, is not. -Amarkov moo! 17:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- comment - my advice is to post these to a place such as the wikiquette noticeboard whenever you notice one. Then they are archived for posterity (and the inevitable user Rfc/arbcom hearing) and fairly easy to recover. A user who is incivil enough to warrent an evidence page such as this is likely to get a higher disupute resolution action when the whole of it isn't dumped at once. --Rocksanddirt 22:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Serves useful purpose of creating accord in the project - the monitoring appears to have brought Jeffpw at least in minimal accordance with our conduct policies. He still, of course, has inappropriate parts to his user page, and insults towards well-meaning Wikipedians, etc, all manifestations of his decision exempt himself from AGF, NPA, and other conduct policies and guidelines, to the end that he is disrespectful to other editors. Even WJBscribe seems to acknowledge that Jeffpw regularly treats others disrespectfully - Ah, I see you've been your charming self again ;-). Still - I do hate that sort of collection of "evidence" against other users.
I did respond to discussion made on my talk page, but nobody replied. I'll place it here as well:
So what exactly is the problem with it? A "negative atmosphere" - meaning that the misbehaving user doesn't like that his misbehavior is being noted? A "feeling that those listed are under scrutiny in some way" - well, "scrutiny" is accurate, but such scrutiny cannot possibly be bad. If it encourages the user to stop misbehaving, then the problem is solved by the page - in this sense the page is beneficial to the project. ... there is no just reason to delete this page. In fact, to do so encourages exhausting/time-consuming formal processes because the user in question does not realize that violations are being noted, and thus thinks that he can get away with them. Why not softly encourage the user to shape up? If the evidence on such a page is bogus, then it shouldn't bother the other user anyway, because such evidence could never hope to succeed in a formal event. So, this page is better viewed as positive than negative. Of course, you say that a consensus has been established against my position already, so I will seek this and challenge it unless something comes up that makes me change my mind.
Of course, I never really got around to that last part, but I see that I should have. Well, there was a little bit of ANI exploration of this predicament I'm in - violations that should not be ignored but are not yet able to be moved to a higher level because of bureaucrap - but that wasn't much.
Honestly, with Jeffpw claiming to be so stressed out by my "harassment" (as he called my uninvolved attempt to encourage compliance with conduct policy), I didn't think he'd bother restarting conflict. No matter - I'm ready to discuss this issue.
So, should the anti-evidence page claims be challenged here? I've yet to see anything substantial in opposition to the evidence page, so please, go ahead. Is not a page such as this at least a treatment, and sometimes a cure? The Behnam 19:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject ROMacedonia
- also nominating: All sub-pages (not individually tagged as yet, and project categories
This is sad, and unusual. Of course, there ought to be a WikiProject for Macedonia. But this freshly-founded one has taken off to an exceptionally bad start.
It was created in June by a neutral outsider, AWN2 (talk · contribs), but remained inactive until this month, when it was joined by Capricornis (talk · contribs), Strich3d (talk · contribs), INkubusse (talk · contribs), Makedonij (talk · contribs), Guitardemon666 (talk · contribs) and a few others. Since then, it still hasn't done anything real, except for plastering the unavoidable project banners all over the place like other projects too.
But what it really aims at is amply illustrated by its To Do List. At the top of the list of "articles needing URGENT attention" are those with "(edit wars/conflicts)", led by Ilinden Uprising and Yane Sandanski [3]. Exactly the articles on which the above users have been edit-warring most intensively of late, in favour of a Macedonian national POV. It also lists as "Work to be performed": "Replace FYROM with Republic of Macedonia" in as many articles as possible. (While I personally happen to agree that this would be a desirable outcome in the end, coordinating a push like this is certainly an unconstructive and combative attitude to a sensitive disputed area.) An attempt at removing the offending content was brusquely reverted twice ([4], [5]) with a less than friendly explanation ([6]).
Clearly, the intention here is to co-ordinate POV-pushing edit wars. This fits in with this project's usage of its article importance scale: the only articles listed currently as "top" or "high" importance are, again, Ilinden Uprising and Yane Sandanski, the national edit-warring hotspots.
All of this is not really surprising if you look at the new participants. Several of them have so far made a reputation not so much by their constructive article edits, but by their glaringly inappropriate political user pages ((ex.1, ex.2 (note the nazi flag used for Greece in the country list!), ex.3), their edit warring or their personal attacks on other users ([7]).
The last straw was what happened when a Greek user wanted to join the project. The project's self-appointed OWNer, Guitardemon, edit-warred to remove his name from the participant list ([8], [9]) and rudely told him that he couldn't join if he didn't edit in line with the project's preferences ([10]) and that he must be an "illiterate" trying "to cause trouble". I myself was also told I couldn't edit the project's pages as I was "not a member" (even when my name was on the list) ([11]).
In this talk message between the two project OWNers, the project is referred to as a group who togeter will "think of something" that will make members of other nationalities, in particular Greeks, "not happy" ([12], translation): clearly another reference to the intention of using the project for POV-coordination.
I don't see how allowing this group of editors to use Wikipedia space for their purposes has a potential of helping the project. Dismantle it, in hopes that a fresh start in a better spirit can be made some time later.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, or possibly userfy to one of the participants' userspaces. This is a good example of what WikiProjects are not for. A country WikiProject is not meant to represent the interests of its country, nor to act as a political party. And while a WikiProject may legitimately remove members if their conduct is seen as inappropriate, it does not have the right to prevent people from joining on the basis of them having the wrong nationality or political views. If this group of editors wants to co-ordinate their pro-Macedonian editing off-wiki, we can't stop them from doing so; likewise, I would not strongly object to them hosting a group for Macedonian nationalist editors in their own userspace. But WikiProjects belong to the whole community, and have a veneer of legitimacy/neutrality; as such, we need to ensure that they aren't used for promoting a POV. WaltonOne 13:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. El Greco (talk · contribs) 15:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WikiProjects should not be used to coordinate POV pushing and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a battleground.-- 17:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - No project in any way, shape or form should be involved in POV pushing. John Carter 18:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Kill with fire, break in pieces, smash into the ground, block everyone within range. This is no more nor less than an edit-warrior's noticeboard for winning out in nationalist conflicts. Totally unacceptable. Moreschi Talk 19:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Walton One stated it most succinctly. — madman bum and angel 19:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, this appears, more than anything, to be , and that's not at all acceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and immediately relaunch under new management. Danny 19:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: sure, relaunch under new "management" should be welcome. I'm just not sure there'd be a suitable new management right now - our Macedonian user base is limited in number, and tends to be heavily politicised (sometimes understandably so, as they tend to be the victims also of POV-pushing factions from neighbouring sides.) If a new core group of users were found, we wouldn't actually need to technically delete the pages, just blank the "To Do" list and let people rewrite it. (I'd then retract this nomination.) But how would we prevent POV-pushing teams from taking control again? Ban some people from the WikiProject pages? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - precisely not what Wikiprojects are for. ELIMINATORJR 19:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and investigate other national noticeboards and projects for similar cases of WP:OWNing. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep and follow up on the disciplinary action against Fut.Perf. who has been abusing his administrator standing to impose 'his way' of looking at things. Virtually all of his claims above have no merit whatsoever, and he is turning this whole thing into a big deal just because his ego was hurt. Let me address them one by one:
- 'it still hasn't done anything real' - WRONG, look at the list of recent articles on the project. All of them have been created since the activation of this project
- "articles needing URGENT attention" are those with "(edit wars/conflicts)" - I am not sure if the wording was a problem here, and that was changed after Fut.Perf. complained (and deleted stuff without discussion). This is not a 'call to arms' or for POV pushing, but simply what it says - these articles are being edited intensively right now and they need urgent attention.
- ""Replace FYROM with Republic of Macedonia" in as many articles as possible" - firstly, I wrote "in ALL articles" not "in as many". I fail to see the least problem with this, as the task is beneficial to wikipedia and everybody. The page is simply used as the title says 'TO DO LIST' a place where you write things to be done, so that you don't forget about them. There is no POV, no edit warring, no nothing else involved in this.
- "An attempt at removing the offending content was brusquely reverted twice " - WRONG - just by his choise of words "brusquely" Fut.Perf. reveals that this is not about the greater good of wikipedia, but about his hurt ego. I reverted his edits because he deleted valid sections of the project without EVER discussing them. That's why we have discussion pages. I commented on each revert, in a polite and factual manner, in the amount of space available in the 'edit summary', i would have written more, but there was no space, so I also wrote to Fut.Perf.'s talk page.
- "Clearly, the intention here is to co-ordinate POV-pushing edit wars" - WRONG. Please point one instance where the project has been used to coordinate POV wars? Just because controversial articles are listed on the project as urgently needing attention doesn't mean that list has been used to 'coordinate POV'
- "their glaringly inappropriate political user pages" - I fail to see how is this a reason for deleting a whole wikiproject. Take it up with the users if you think they are breaking any wikipedia rules on their user pages. Again Fut.Perf's bias and personal investment in this matter is shown.
- "Guitardemon, edit-warred to remove his name from the participant list " - I am not familiar with this, but if it happened then it is the only valid point here, and has nothing to do with the project, but the user itself and it should be pursued in that way.
- "I couldn't edit the project's pages as I was "not a member"" - your name was not on the list when I wrote that. And please try not to interpret it out of context. The main problem there is that you took it upon yourself to 'right all wrongs' and do mass deletions without discussing it with anybody first.
- "the project is referred to as a group who togeter will "think of something" that will make members of other nationalities, in particular Greeks, "not happy" " - WRONG, you took imperfect translations out of context,yet again. Fut.Perf. has a long history of going ballistic over native language talk on user pages, just check his and mine talk pages. He has been wrong in all cases, going bananas about sentences that were just chit chat, and written in the manner of the everyday talk in the native country, but sound very harsh and rough when translated to English - purely cultural differences.
- To summarize:
- the project is a valid wikipedia group of able authors who use it for coordinating their efforts on particular topic.
- There might have been few bad slips, all of them different user's personal stands, unrelated to the projects, but these were few and far in between, and do not negate all teh good work the project has been doing. Other wikipedia projects have not been immune to this.
- Fut.Perf. is undertaking this action as a personal vendetta and abusing his admin standing and as such he should be sanctioned and his current claim thrown out as without any merit
- The RoM wikiproject has bulgarian and greek members who will make sure no POV is published as they have done in the past (look at their contribs)
- The emphasis here should be on educating the project members on wikipedia rules and processes and not antagonizing them by unilateral deletions like Fut.Perf. did, and did not show any good faith in trying to resolve this but has approached it from a position of power.
- All in all, moves without any merit like this one especially from users like Fut.Perf. are unhelpful to the wikipedia community and just waste everybody's time. He has been reported to the administrators noticeboards. Capricornis 19:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I fail to see your meaning. In the above I am exposing how Fut.Perf. is abusing his adminship and taking up as a personal insult a wikiproject. there are no 'personal' attacks. Capricornis 18:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Userfy or delete per Walton One. - Ev 20:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, and then nuke it from orbit. (It's the only way to be sure.) There ought to be some topic bans handed out, too. WikiProjects are not for organizing POV-pushing. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment – I don't think user...fication should be a possibility. This project needs to be terminated, not just transplanted into a different venue, sending a clear message that POV-pushing is unacceptable, whether it's coordinated or not. — madman bum and angel 16:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I am baffled by the above comments. Can't you folks read? Can't you read my refutation of each and every Fut.Perf. arguments? His case holds no water whatsoever, he hasn't proven probable cause nor any of his claims are beyond reasonable doubt. He has exhibited conflicts of interests and personal bias. No judge in the world would allow something like this to even appear in court, let alone to go to trial. If he gets his way and this project gets deleted (not that a new one cannot be created within minutes), it would be a final proof of how much wikipedia is fundamentally flawed. Dixit Capricornis 19:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it'd be proof that one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles was upheld: that Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus is against this project as clearly, the other people involved in this discussion don't find your arguments as convincing as you do. Two final cents. Do try to be civil; dissenters are not necessarily illiterate. And recreating this WikiProject in its current form "within minutes" of its deletion would be most unwise. — madman bum and angel 20:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Having a WikiProject about Macedonia is a good thing. Having a WikiProject that is trying to impose/push a certain pov wrt Macedonia is an exceptionally bad thing. Delete this WikiProject, with no prejudice against the creation of a new, neutral and comprehensive WikiProject afterwards. This reminds me of the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia of two years ago. AecisBrievenbus 19:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. As the neutral outsider who established the WP, it saddens me to see that the WP is being used as a tool in edit wars. I established the WP with the aim of improving the quality of articles relating to the Republic of Macedonia (especially the sporting teams, which I was editing at the time!), as there seemed to be no forum to coordinate RoM-related articles in a similar way to other nations. The need for a Macedonian WP therefore remains. I think it is unavoidable (and not necessarily a bad thing) that Macedonians and Greeks -- with strong views on the controversial matters -- would take an interest in the WP. However, the problem is not that the issues arise, but how they are handled. I note that some of the more provocative edits and headings on the WP have since been removed, and I think that is a good sign, and evidence that the WP can be 'saved'. I would also be happy for a note to be included on the front page to the effect that the WP should not be used as a tool in edit wars, links to articles/policies on NPOV, etc. I think there is no need to delete the project -- deleting the project will simply defer the controversy for another time, so why not take on this issue and resolve it amicably? (Yes, I know, we should now all link hands and sing Kumbaya ;-)) AWN AWN2 07:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - this sort of thing is why Wikipedia has a blocking policy, and it should be used. If admins aware of this have a COI they can approach admins outside the situation to conduct a review. Most of the things being described amount to disruption of some form. The project can probably be rescued and should remain to coordinate edits in the ROM. Just my 2c, but if the consensus is delete I won't stand in its way. Orderinchaos 16:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. ForeignerFromTheEast 16:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep and police.Iwas about tosuggest to delete and salt, as I cannot share the nominator's optimism for a "fresh start", since I am almost positive that there won't be any user from that particular ethnicity who will not strictly follow the doctrines of Macedonism; at least I have never met anyone yet here (and neither has he, I'm sure).Well, there's always hope, I presume, so salting may be indeed excessive.In any case, this is an example of what WikiProjects should NOT be, and it should be deleted,but I recognize the necessity per AWN2, and I am willing to give a second chance. I sincerely hope that our administrators are capable of policing the content (if not, then I'll change my vote).NikoSilver 19:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)- Lost hope after carefully examining the links of the nominator and changed my vote. I also support topic bans per Videmus Omnia, and I am really disappointed that the community did not manage to block the recent participants to the project before they manage to create it! Tolerance has its limits. NikoSilver 21:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- delete, salt - after reading Capricornis's response to the nomination it seems clear that this is an edit warrior's notice board for macedonians. --Rocksanddirt 22:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
2007-09-22
Wikipedia:Holiday Commitee
Not only a drain on the servers, but also a waste of time that could be much more valuably spent working on the encyclopedia (Wikipedia is not MySpace). Unlike other projects that people sign up for, this seems designed purely to spam user talk pages without being asked first. Not only that, but I personally find "Have a great Remembrance Day from the Holiday Committee!" to be highly offensive. Such silliness is annoying and smacks of ignorance, as does the the name of this organisation. Moreschi Talk 13:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a social networking site and should not be used as a forum to spam people with irrelevant messages. Delete. -- - Shazaam! - <*> 13:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a social networking site; social networking sites are social networking sites. There are plenty out there, most of which already have Wikipedia user groups on them. I suggest that editors interested in this sort of thing go join up. --bainer (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Go to the rather disgusting sites like Facebook to these activites. Delete, per Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Maxim(talk) 13:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate the effort to build community, but like people said above, Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia. The community evolves from this common goal of accumulating knowledge. This page does not help. Danny 13:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I am sure your intentions are the best and I really do appreciate that but this really isn't appropriate here. JodyB yak, yak, yak 13:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The creator obviously isn't planning to celebrate English Orthography Day. An ill-conceived project with plenty of potential for mischief. --Folantin 13:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete committee, but keep templates around. While I wouldn't mind having the templates available for individuals to greet their friends, having a committee to do this goes against WP:NOT#MYSPACE, and is made worse if the committee intends to greet as many people as possible, including strangers. Not everybody is Christian, and may be offended if they receive Easter or Christmas greetings. The Happy ANZAC, Remembrance Day, and Veterans Day templates are particularly offensive and should be deleted. I appreciate the intent to build community, but I don't feel this is the way to do it. --Kyoko 13:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Holidays already. John Vandenberg 13:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The page probably will not get much attention, but how is it making it a social networking site? This is similar the the Birthday Commitee, only with holidays! Thanks, Codelyoko193 Talk 13:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd also like to add that when I originally created the commitee, users would put their name on a list if they would want to be notified, and what holiday they would want to be notified of. That way, no one would be offended. However, when Socks01 rehauled it, he did away with that feature. Oh well... Thanks, Codelyoko193 Talk 18:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Folantin. Let's spend our time building the encyclopedia. ;-) /Blaxthos 14:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I can personally see how for individuals who have indicated a particular interest in a given subject, or are from a particular area, this might be useful, and, perhaps, if the templates were changed, could help build the encyclopedia. Particularly if the templates said something to the effect of "Happy (fill in the blank - Canada Day)! We all celebrate this day of (fill in the blank - the establishment of Canada), which is of vital importance to the people of (fill in the blank - Canada). Also, if you have the time, please review the article (name of holiday - Canada Day) and see if there are any improvements you can make to it, and help us all ensure that the rest of the world really does understand that Canada and the United States are not the same thing!" But these templates and this group fall far short of that. Saving the templates, though, and maybe giving them to WikiProject Holidays, wouldn't be a bad idea though. John Carter 15:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete agree with Danny. Acalamari 19:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per above reasoning. Sebi [talk] 00:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. M.(er) 00:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - pointless distraction. LaraLove 01:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Go to Facebook, leave us alone - Man those things are annoying... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 01:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - per all previous comments above. If the templates were somehow used to incite contributions to the individual holiday articles, then they'd be useful in Wikipedia, like notifying certain focus groups (like other WikiProjects) of stub holidays that need expansion on the day of the holiday. Unfortunately, it doesn't serve that purpose. I'm even more convinced that deletion is best when I read its To-do list. Helpful. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 02:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete only the page but only because it claims to be a committee. There shouldn't be a committee devoted to this. But if it were just a place to list holiday greeting templates, that wouldn't be so bad. Wikipedia isn't a social networking service, but people do greet each other, and we have more than a few templates in accordance with that (such as that smile box). John Carter's idea is good -- modify the templates so that they encourage improvement of relevant articles.
- Delete. I was initially going to !vote Keep, as per my essay Wikipedia:Editors matter and my strong belief that, as Wikipedia is a community, we should keep pages which strengthen the community and keep editors happy. However, the mass of Deletes on this MfD, and the apparent lack of interest in the project, suggests that it doesn't really have much of a function in building the community. Also, I agree with Moreschi that "have a great Remembrance Day" is slightly insensitive - Remembrance Day (Veterans' Day in the US) is when we're supposed to remember the troops who fought and died for freedom and democracy in various wars, which is a time for solemn contemplation and gratitude for our respective countries' war veterans, not a time for celebration WaltonOne 13:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I am in favour of pages helping interaction within the community to a limited extent, but this goes too far. Not only does the community not like it, as not one person has spoken in its defence here so far, but it could potentially interfere with the working of the encyclopedia (by cluttering people's talk pages) and some templates here may be considered offensive. Some templates listed on the page may be acceptable, and they should be TfD'd individually. Hut 8.5 16:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, just like userboxes only bigger, more annoying, and intended for placing on other people's pages. --Stormie 06:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, ^ true true. — jacĸrм (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Randroide/Trastero de Randroide/Ayn Rand
User talk:Randroide/Trastero de Randroide/Ayn Rand This appears to be a private copy of a prefered version the Ayn Rand article and is content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. This user talk subpage was last edited eleven months ago. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Violates Wikipedia:User page. I also am nominating:
-
- User talk:Randroide/Trastero de Randroide/Talk:11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings/Proposed additions - This appears to be a private copy of a preferred version of disputed content at 2004 Madrid train bombings and/or content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. This user talk subpage was last edited nine months ago. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Violates Wikipedia:User page.
- User talk:Randroide/Trastero de Randroide/Talk:11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings/Controversies about the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings - This appears to be a private copy of a preferred version of disputed content at Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings and/or content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. This user talk subpage was last edited nine months ago. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Violates Wikipedia:User page.
- -- Jreferee T/C 01:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all per nominator... encyclopedic content shouldn't be kept in userspace for the long-term, especially if it's just old/preferred copies of proper articles. The content may be accessed via the articles' page histories. /Blaxthos 14:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
2007-09-21
User:Andrew L. Gibson
Blatent advertising for a racing team Royalbroil 03:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete A copy of the vanity article about him, which is well on its way to unopposed deletion. DGG (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as advertising/abuse of userspace, possibly even G12 ("General" CSDs also applies to userpages). Melsaran (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete easily an advert. Acalamari 23:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity ad. /Blaxthos 14:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Vanity page. LaraLove 01:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Snowolfd4/Userboxes/Terrorism
This userbox is equivalent to an attack template directed towards a particular ethnic group. It certainly can be seen as a sign of a negative attitude towards a political dispute. Furthermore, it shows that the user is unwilling to cooperate with an opposing party which can also reflect the attitude of the editor towards other Wikipedians. Wiki Raja 00:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
- This template directed towards a particular ethnic group? Are you trying to classified Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam as an ethnic group?? Nonsense! Even you categorized all the Tamils = LTTE (terrorists), I do not accept that.
- This shows that the user is unwilling to cooperate with an opposing party...and also reflect the attitude of the editor towards other Wikipedians? So are you telling me that there are terrorist supporters are editing in Wiki? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 04:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - independently of whether this is directed at a single organisation or the whole ethnic group it supposedly represents in the civil war, it is first and foremost directed at a faction of political opponents here at Wikipedia. This box has no other purpose than to heat up a long-standing bitter and ugly dispute between two groups of editors aligned with the two warring parties in the Sri Lankan conflict. As such, it is unhelpful to the cooperative workings of Wikipedia. That's the only thing that's really of interest here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with your comments but please also understand although the conflict may have spilled into Wikipedia you still have people trying to work together as manifested by this project. Whose sole aim is to allow wikipedians to resolve their conflicts based on using Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Thanks Taprobanus 13:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fut.Perf, are you suggesting there are editors on Wikipedia that support terrorism? Because this userbox is not directed at individual editors. It only suggests I oppose terrorist attacks (and note, not just in Sri Lanka). For say an American editor, the userbox picture would probably have been a picture of 9/11. For a Spanish editor, 3/11. For me, given the countless attacks carried out by the LTTE, the word LTTE best illustrates that.
- Userboxes help bring collaboration on Wikipedia. Anyone who wants know that there are other users with the same interests and are willing to collaborate on the same articles..
- Note it has been said a million times both on Wikipeda and outside, that the LTTE does not represent Tamil people. Saying "LTTE" does not mean you are referring to an ethnic group. It is simply a organization with little support from the majority of Sri Lankan Tamils.
- I also find it incredible duplicitous for editors to call this particular userbox "inflammatory, given the existence of hundreds of similar userboxes. I also have this userbox on my page.
-
In Memoriam: 9/11 Lest we forget… |
-
- Why don't you nominate that for deletion? Everyone knows a bunch of people celebrated when those planes crashed into the towers. That user box, to quote you, with the only change in bold,
- ..has no other purpose than to heat up a long-standing bitter and ugly dispute between two groups of editors aligned with the two warring parties in the war against terror/US "invasion" of Iraq. As such, it is unhelpful to the cooperative workings of Wikipedia.
- How about this one,
-
- Why don't you nominate that for deletion? Everyone knows a bunch of people celebrated when those planes crashed into the towers. That user box, to quote you, with the only change in bold,
This user supports the troops in Iraq. |
-
- Everyone knows there are countless Wikipedians who oppose the US presence in Iraq. Isn't that "inflammatory" against those editors? What about this one?
-
- Everyone knows there are countless Wikipedians who oppose the US presence in Iraq. Isn't that "inflammatory" against those editors? What about this one?
This user is American; recognized ancestry ends at the border. |
-
- Oh no, it's inflammatory against editors who are immigrants. Why not MFD it? And this one, which is "inflammatory" to Democrat editors
-
- Oh no, it's inflammatory against editors who are immigrants. Why not MFD it? And this one, which is "inflammatory" to Democrat editors
GOP | This user supports the Republican Party of the United States. |
-
- And any of the below,
-
- And any of the below,
This user is supporter of preemptive use of force. |
PC | This user is Pro-Choice. |
-
- (Note I got all of the above from the same userpage)
- And do you want to delete the following user box from my userpage too?
-
This user enjoys rock music. |
-
- Isn't it "inflammatory" to users who hate rock music?
- I'm not preaching WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here. Such userboxes are widely used and accepted on Wikipedia. This MFD is all about petty politics. And face it, if the userbox was about an issue related to, shall I say editors from the "Western hemisphere", this MFD wouldn't even exist. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Fut. Perf: obviously inflamatory and apparently created only for that purpose. Duja► 08:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as divisive and inflammatory. utcursch | talk 15:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- KeepI don't see any discrimination here. I'm against terrorism. anyway, anyone can be a terrorist--Phoenix 15 19:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom and Future Perfect at Sunrise as it makes the atmosphere more volatile. 19:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as unhelpfully divisive and unlikely to foster encyclopedic collaboration. Eluchil404 21:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- On the contrary, this helps bring editors toghether to work on articles such as LTTE, Sri Lankan Civil War, Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE etc. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 22:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Firstly, I do not know who you are trying to buy or win support from by comparing this to templates on 9/11 Memorial, Support of Troops in Iraq, Support for Republican Party, etc. Secondly, the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka is not comparable to the U.S. involvement in Iraq or the War on Terror. However, the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka where the GOSL are oppressing the Tamils of the Northeast is comparable to:
- On the contrary, this helps bring editors toghether to work on articles such as LTTE, Sri Lankan Civil War, Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE etc. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 22:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Slobodan Milošević's ethnic cleansing of the Albanians during the Kosovo War
- Saddam Hussein's ethnic cleansing of the Kurds in Iraq
- Darfur conflict
- Rwandan Genocide
-
-
-
-
- Also, another thing is that you will not see me putting your "Support for SL troops" template on MfD since that is not an attack template, regardless of my opinions. The bottom line is that your template is not making things better, but drawing more conflict which is not productive. A perfect example is the conflict already rising on this page. End of discussion. Wiki Raja 01:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep This is the worst nomination I've ever seen. Just for the mere disagreements with other users without pointing out the rules which are being violated, MfDing to back fire. Sorry to say that. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 07:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment with regards to the various other userboxes mentioned above. The reason that this userbox is problematic and most of the others you mentioned are less so is its equation of LTTE tactics and terrorism. Whatever the truth of the situation "terrorist" has become a fighting word which is more trouble than it is worth in civil discourse. Thus a userbox that said This user opposes the partition of Sri Lanka would be unlikely to be deleted while this one, probably will. Eluchil404 07:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hmmm wise argument, then how about this UB? :D
-
- Hmmm wise argument, then how about this UB? :D
This user believes separatists should burn in hell
|
-
- In this, there is no direct accuse for a particular group,
-
- In this, there is no direct accuse for a particular group,
This user opposes Terrorism.
|
-
- --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 15:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete If this is a cause of one more conflict on wikipedia, then I think it would be disgraceful to keep it. Hence I have decided to remove the userbox from my page and I will vote to delete it. I want to see peaceful coexistence on wikipedia not more sniping and other forms of abuse. Sinhala freedom 14:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - the issue here is that the box specifically directs to the LTTE. Granted, US Dept. of State as labeled them as a terrorist organization, but that's hardly unique to this group. If the box were a little more generic and didn't target a specific organization I would be open to further consideration. /Blaxthos 14:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Regarding the first userbox in red above, does this include the Kurdish separatists who were gassed by Saddam Hussein, or the Darfur freedom fighters in Sudan? What about the Zionists during the Roman occupation of Israel, or the early Americans who fought to separate from Great Britain during the American Revolution. Should they burn in hell too? Wiki Raja 03:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as userboxes should not express hatred toward any group of people (interpretation of Wikipedia:Userboxes#Potentially divisive words and Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content restrictions). If the reference to LTTE were removed, I would change my position. --Alksub 00:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously gonna get deleted, though I think userboxes should be allowed to state personal opinions, and the deletion of this userbox would seem as though terrorism is being supported? I think LTTE link should be changed though, too direct. — jacĸrм (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, upsetting to people like me who support acts of terrorism. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 17:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, irony. Keep since the reference to the LTTE has been removed. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 19:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Irony, while this UB may have had link changes take a look at what has cropped up immediately afterwards [13]. Sinhala freedom 20:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Classical Tamil
This Deletion sorting "list" has never seen any use even though it has been on the page used by our project tools. It is to narrow in scope, and has been the subject of discussion already on the project talk page. John Vandenberg 12:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom: there is not any significant edit history worth keeping after a year of inactivity. Shalom Hello 20:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
???I don't understand, it appears to have a great number of discussions on it. Is there something I'm missing?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- They were put there in the first edit by someone starting a project that is been for the most part inactive; also delsort notices where not placed on the Afd's listed, so there are no meaningful incoming links. John Vandenberg 04:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~
- Delete as inactive, serves no purpose. /Blaxthos 14:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
2007-09-20
User:Mwhs/sandbox
POV fork of Vodou masquerading as a sandbox. User has a bit of a history, is now mostly absent. - ∅ (∅), 04:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as POV fork created by an inactive user. Unlikely to be used for anything. WaltonOne 15:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's his personal sandbox. This looks like a concept for replacing the original article--Phoenix 15 10:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per walton one (POVFORK). /Blaxthos 14:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
2007-09-19
Wikipedia:WikiProject Health
Project was previously nominated for deletion in October. At that time, the project creator said he would work on it later, as per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Health. That was almost a year ago. Since then, the project has had exactly two edits, both on January 13, not counting this nomination for deletion. Propose deletion of the project without prejudice for recreation. However, there clearly is absolutely no interest in this project with the project page structured as it currently exists. Project creator is being notified of this discussion. John Carter 22:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Deleting inactive projects is dumb. Why force it to be recreated from scratch when it is so much easier to reactivate an inactive project? You never know when someone will show up and want to join. I'm on standby if ever such and event should occur. Actually, one person did contact me over the past year because of that page, and wanted to collaborate. Nothing ever came of it, but it shows there's potential. The Transhumanist 22:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Actually, I think one of the possible difficulties this particular project has is that it seems to me, at least, to be basically based on a template with little development beyond that. I would tend to agree that the subject may merit having a project; my reservations are really based on the fact that editors who might be interested in the idea of the project might be "turned off" by the skeletal appearance of it, particularly if they see how long it has existed. That's why I think maybe removing this page, so that someone else could create it from scratch, and it would at least visibly be a new idea as opposed to a page which has lingered for some time with no development, might be the way to go. John Carter 18:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep — per TT. If it's inactive, tag it with {{inactive}}, but deleting it is ridiculous. --Agüeybaná 23:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Userfy to whichever user account the Transhumanist prefers. (User:Go for it! redirects to User:The Transhumanist.) I note that in the last MfD (October 2006), he said: "I was delayed by another project, and will revive this one when I'm ready to work on the subject." - An excellent reason for userfication. (and of course, it's now September 2007...) This nom should also include Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Health/to do. - jc37 23:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete it. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - tag as {{inactive}}. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 14:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Userfy: That's the best place for it to sit until there are members, creator can post a proposed project on WP:COUNCIL/P with a link to user space. Based on the scope of the subject matter this is not a good candidate for deletion.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep as it is Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Introductions - I revived that after a year--Phoenix 15 19:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure the comparison is fair, that's a maintenance project, the work performed in 05 was useful without further activity as it acted as a sort of informal guideline.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, and tag as a {{historical}} page. It didn't look like it got off the ground much at all, but it's a wide topic and someone interested may be able to revive it in the future. Sebi [talk] 22:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - It's tagged inactive and could reasonably be revived in the future. LaraLove 01:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep & retain inactive tag. Per Laura, etc. — xDanielx T/C 20:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Since when is a single user WikiProject an "inactive" one? Being a single user, means that this was never even actually a "WikiProject", except in naming... - jc37 18:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Agreed. The project is one only by virtue of being so named and in Wikipedia space. It has never displayed the "collaborative" dimension required for a true project. John Carter 17:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Cameras
Project has only one member, its creator, whose last edit to it was in August 2006. Since then, it's total activity includes being moved from userspace, tagged as inactive, and nominated for deletion. That's it. Project page has minimal content. Also, the photography projects, including Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography, and the inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Digital cameras, are all more completely set up pages which between them cover the entire scope of this project. Project creator is being notified of this discussion. John Carter 21:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I wasn't actually ready to launch this as a project (I haven't had time) - someone else decided to move it to project space from user space without doing any other work to launch it. If it's decided to delete it, please move it back to my userspace again instead. I would note, however, that none of the three projects mentioned actually is a good fit to this. Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography is to do with illustrating Wikipedia articles, not about photography itself. Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography decided early on to largely ignore specific equipment except for a few very historic examples. Wikipedia:WikiProject Digital cameras is as noted inactive and only covers digital photography. It is my belief that this project would be useful, and I intend to revive my attempt to get it going at a future date. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Userfy. If this is a premature attempt, then we should allow the head honcho time to finish fleshing it out. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 07:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Userfy: As requested by the creator.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Userfy: As requested by creator. LaraLove 01:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject School Years
Project has been almost completely inactive since 2006, has only two members, has no particularly useful content except for the school year template, which is used nowhere and can easily be replaced by the User:KeithTyler/U.S. School Grades. Project scope is also covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Education and its related projects. Members of project have both been active recently, and both are being notified of the discussion. John Carter 20:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The project was started in order to organize an effort on the school-year articles, which had all been put up for deletion. If WP Education is taking them up then there's not much need for the project. The pages don't change much, and as some of them admit, it is often hard to nail down exactly what quantifies each grade (even just w/in the US) as it can differ from place to place (e.g. in all 50 states!). - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- See Talk:Fifth_grade. Keith D. Tyler ¶ —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Userfy or Merge: I can't see that it can be replaced by User:KeithTyler/U.S. School Grades, which has almost nothing on it, but the information at that page is on the nominated page, so it may be better to Userfy and either merge with U.S. School Grades or delete the latter user space, as the user prefers. I'm not sure that Project Education is actually "taking [this topic] up", but if it is, then Merger is an alternative. There is some minimal discussion here that could be preserved then, even if it lacks any response. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Calendars
Project has only one listed member, its creator, who is being notified of this discussion. Project's last real activity was in March; founder, who is also only member, has been inactive since July. Project is also basically redundant to several other existing projects related to time, and has no particular content which indicates that it merits being kept on that basis. John Carter 18:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think theres a need to delete wikiprojects so that they can become active at a later date. For now, just mark it as inactive. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 18:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Userfy the following (and hopefully fixing the redirect links) - since it's currently a project of a single editor. - jc37 21:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Creator has been inactive since July, as previously noted, so it is currently a project of no active editor. Also, several projects, including Wikipedia:WikiProject Years and Wikipedia:WikiProject Time, cover basically the same scope. John Carter 21:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. The polls show that more than one editor was active in the concept. However, I think the scope of the WikiProject had more to do with usage/upkeep of the Wikicalendar and its variations. See also Image:Wikicalendar in Firefox.jpg. Hence userfication. - jc37 23:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Userfy- I do see John's point, but July wasn't that long ago, if the editor remains inactive we can consider deletion of the user space some day if warranted.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Wait a minute now: On further review there are at least 10 editors involved in this project, it's just that only one has bothered to post his or her name on the Project page and this article has been twice tagged as {{inactive}} and twice the tag has been removed within days. This time it wasn't tagged until after it was nominated. Remember, just because nobody is making edits to the Project page doesn't mean the Project isn't actually active. There is also significant discussion on the talk page, if truly permanently inactive this project might be a candidate for {{historical}} not deletion. I might consider userfication if the {{inactive}} tag had been there more than just one day. I must change my vote to Keep.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: This was once a large, collaborative project, but has recently diminished a bit. I have been very busy and have not had time to maintain or advertise the project. Many people contribute, although only I have added my name to the "Members" list, and I only did that after being notified that the project would be shut down if nobody puts their name down as a "Member".
- The purpose Wikiproject Calendars is to promote and maintain all the "Calendars of..." pages. This is a useful project. Our goal is driven by the belief that the awareness of the world's rich variety of holidays will gain a better appreciation of other cultures --Munchkinguy 01:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC).
User:Mrtuddy
User page setup as Wikipedia article about a self-proclaimed fake television series. -- Gogo Dodo 07:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - Save the show page, it's the best show on TV, the writing is so sharp and realstic. Not our fault it can't be found in the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ( • contribs)
- Delete - Wikipedia isn't a production company. M.(er) 08:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia is not your free web host. Delete all the images, too. MER-C 09:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete- delete per the nomination, but be careful when nominating userpages. This user may not understand wikipedia and this could well be WP:BITE, ask them to read WP:USER aswell. --The sunder king 09:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - The account was created in September 2006 and the user page was started on July 2007. For them to use the {{Infobox Television}} template indicates to me that they knew enough about Wikipedia to use the "correct" template for their "television series". -- Gogo Dodo 17:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: User seems to have removed all the material looking at his latest revision to the UP. Also, the show on the last revision I checked (Gogo's tagging it) gets 0 ghits, not including the userpage itself. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - Great, now we'll never know how season 5 goes, and what happens with that evil Cameron character... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.43.180 () 00:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Per the comment just made above, Warn user against this and watchlist. Wikipedia is not TV Guide, and the "series" isn't more notable than Stunky (and yes, I am using the Test here.) -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 00:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
2007-09-17
User:Asteraki/Pascha
Also:
- User:Asteraki/VARDARSKA-(FYROM)
- User:Kamikazi2/VARDARSKA-(FYROM)
- User:Asteraki/ALEXANDER THE GREAT
- User:Kamikazi2/Greek macedonian of german wiki
Group nomination. Several user subpages containing a mix of political propaganda/soapboxing and uselessly userfied deleted article material (partly from de-wiki) kept around for political purposes and not used for any constructive ongoing work. Inappropriate use of user space, per WP:USER (userspace is not for extensive political statements unrelated to Wikipedia). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like a well designed userpage with references to various historical figures. I can't see any good reason to delete it. --RucasHost 19:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete all per WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#BLOG, blatant soapboxing. - ∅ (∅), 22:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Extending my !vote to User:Asteraki/Asteraki, delete all six pages. Wikipedia is not a soap box - ∅ (∅), 08:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all per above. Also User:Asteraki/Asteraki. MER-C 09:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all per User:I do not exist (WP:SOAP/WP:NOT). hmwith talk 21:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Project has only one member, who has been inactive for over a month. Project was proposed for merger in May, with no action following. This project page has no content that is not also in Wikipedia:WikiProject HHGTTG, which has a good deal of content this project does not. Project member is being notified of this discussion. Personally preference would be to merge the two projects together, preferably under this name, as it is slightly clearer. Regretably, it does not contain the words "Don't panic" in large, friendly letters on the cover. Oh, well. John Carter 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom into the fully spelled-out title. There's no reason to keep a redundant project lying around. Shalom Hello 20:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom into the fully spelled-out title. We do not want two Projects on the same subject. --Bduke 01:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge I don't see that this needed discussion, except that it was referred. Just do it.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge. I agree that the more active WikiProject should fully spell out the title. Let's ask them : ) - jc37 20:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Looks like John has done that now, though it also looks like he spoke in support of merger in June on the Project's talk page (it has been tagged for merger since May) and no one responded, his comments stand alone. The participants list has a designated "coordinator" so I'm posting to that editor's talk page, maybe we can at least get a "no objection" out of someone involved in the project.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge but I support Doug's getting a "no objection" from the coordinator. hmwith talk 21:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note I'm ready to close this out as Merge, deleting Wikipedia:WikiProject HHGTTG and making it a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but can't tell if what needs to be done is already done. — xaosflux Talk 03:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
2007-09-16
Wikipedia:WikiProject Lake Macquarie
This project is dead - it has no active users, too limited a scope (one council area), and is redundant to newer and more active project WikiProject New South Wales. A proposal to merge in early August on the talk page did not generate a reply, but a merge would be difficult as the project contains no articles. Orderinchaos 09:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
For some reason I forgot to link the last MfD - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Lake Macquarie. Orderinchaos 01:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete -- Nothing ever came of it. It can be undeleted if needed one day. -- Longhair\talk 09:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Serious violation of WP:POINT. un-used, and covered by WP:NSW. Twenty Years 09:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Wikiprojects are useful for organisation, but too much beauracracy is just confusing. Recurring dreams 10:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Reluctantly, but it appears to have never kicked on. Being covered by WP:NSW is not a reason to delete, if interest in the project remained; unfortunately it does not. There may be an opportunity for interested editors to create a Greater Newcastle project in the future and this should be encouraged. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 10:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - agree with Mattinbgn - this might have worked with sufficient interest. WikiProject New South Wales is very broad but is the right starting point. Euryalus 11:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete inactive, redundant, not much worth merging. The last MfD returned "keep", but that was before the New South Wales WikiProject started. Hut 8.5 11:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - project has three members, but has seemingly never gotten of the ground. If there were sufficient interest later in recreating the project, however, I would have no objections to such being done. John Carter 16:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete but keep the suburb lists under WP:NSW - this was the only reason for keeping last time. JRG 05:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- That can easily be done as either a subpage, or a reference to List of suburbs in Greater Newcastle, New South Wales. I went through in July and August and made sure everything had at least a basic article with an infobox from the Hawkesbury to Beresfield. Orderinchaos 06:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Has anyone tried to contact members of this project? Also, am I wrong that this project was being edited in May and June and they've posted an event for September? And for the record, Longhair, if it's deleted it cannot be "undeleted if needed one day", if it's deleted, it's gone.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- The members of the Newcastle meetup are generally in favour of a larger Hunter region project, not a specific Lake Macquarie one. JRG 02:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- My first step after creating this MfD was to put it on the Australian noticeboard, which is read widely and which the Lake Mac/Newcastle editors (none of whom have signed up to this project and one of whom suggested a merge 2 months ago on the talk page) do read. There's been consensus for a while in the community that it should go - with the Hunter region it's possible that a project which takes that and the Central Coast in will at some point be created once activity and enthusiasm warrants it. This happened with the Riverina editors - they put through an unbelievable amount of work and effort (and a couple of FAs) on a region big and important enough to warrant its own project and the end result has been a few FAs and a better understanding for the rest of us on the region. Orderinchaos 03:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- If it's deleted, it can still be undeleted, via Special:Undelete. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 06:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, at least for a while, but I don't believe that the ability to undelete is a valid argument for deletion. I overstated my case, I recognize that it isn't gone right away. I guess what I mean is if it's deleted it should be considered gone, since it is not preserved for ever. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Admins (and I speak as one) can read even pages that were deleted over a year ago (keeping such revisions is necessary as part of the GFDL). That being said, is there anything here (as WP:NSW can host the suburb list as a subpage per JRG's comment) that would actually require restoration? Orderinchaos 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, at least for a while, but I don't believe that the ability to undelete is a valid argument for deletion. I overstated my case, I recognize that it isn't gone right away. I guess what I mean is if it's deleted it should be considered gone, since it is not preserved for ever. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- If it's deleted, it can still be undeleted, via Special:Undelete. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 06:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- My first step after creating this MfD was to put it on the Australian noticeboard, which is read widely and which the Lake Mac/Newcastle editors (none of whom have signed up to this project and one of whom suggested a merge 2 months ago on the talk page) do read. There's been consensus for a while in the community that it should go - with the Hunter region it's possible that a project which takes that and the Central Coast in will at some point be created once activity and enthusiasm warrants it. This happened with the Riverina editors - they put through an unbelievable amount of work and effort (and a couple of FAs) on a region big and important enough to warrant its own project and the end result has been a few FAs and a better understanding for the rest of us on the region. Orderinchaos 03:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Further Comment - I don't see the argument that "[the suburbs list] was the only reason for keeping last time" is supported by a fair reading of that discussion, that was one editor's comment, the consensus seems to have been that it wasn't hurting anything and the editors in that discussion didn't think "inactivity" was a good basis for deletion. I've posted a note on Tim Starling's user page to see if he has anything to say about it, but things are pretty busy there and last time it seems his comments boiled down to "it may be active some day so don't delete" (paraphrasing).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I should note I was one of the keep voters last time, with a very similar rationale. What convinced me to change my mind was the parlous state of the articles within its scope (which are now significantly improved since I did a mini-improvement drive through the Central Coast, Lake Macquarie and Newcastle areas in July-August), and that a talk page message about the very future of the project failed to attract comment for over a month. Orderinchaos 01:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Userfy to and delete the redirects. If Tim wants to keep people on notice that it exists he can post at Proposals and find a good home for the project/task force once he has active editors.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Userfy to (It apparently has no sub-pages.) Merge any relevant information (such as the suburbs list, if wanted) to Wikipedia:WikiProject New South Wales. - jc37 21:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete inactive WikiProject. hmwith talk 20:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Closed discussions
For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.
2007-09-24
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kysatria (speedy delete)
2007-09-23
2007-09-22
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:There's some vandalism Wikipedia can't buy. For everything else, there's Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (speedy delete)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (2nd nomination) (speedy keep)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:72.197.190.17 (speedy delete)
2007-09-21
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ST47/EditCount (speedy delete)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MilesM11 (keep)
2007-09-20
2007-09-19
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (keep - withdrawn)
2007-09-18
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The-G-Unit-Boss/NewMessages (speedy delete)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ralingerie (speedy delete)
2007-09-17
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NoeticSage/Info (speedy delete)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tyler Warren/Userboxes (speedy delete)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Peer review/Zig Zag (character) (speedy delete)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:RucasHost (keep)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Aramaic (userfy)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AmirYousefi (delete)