Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates |
Files |
Possibly unfree files (PUF) |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
|
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
|
Centralized discussion | ||
---|---|---|
![]() |
||
Proposals | Discussions | Recurring proposals |
Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
|
||
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.
Information on the process
What may be nominated for deletion here:
-
- Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Module:, and the various Talk: namespaces
- Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
- 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 |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
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 – whose guidelines on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
- 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:
Click to view 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 steps II and III. 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
Administrator instructions for closing discussions can be found here.
Contents
- 1 Information on the process
- 2 Current discussions
- 3 Old business
- 4 Closed discussions
Current 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.
May 3, 2014
User:Mano1988
- User:Mano1988 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Promotional userpage 220 of Borg 14:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Possibly speedily. Promo. Peridon (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as spam, and tagged as such. -- Whpq (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of people by name |
---|
The result of the discussion was speedy delete under CSD G8, as list of people by name has been deleted. Ditto for Wikipedia:LoPbN index-template generation and Wikipedia:LoPbN Meta-structure. Graham87 14:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:List of people by name
I do not see the purpose of this page. I seems like a self-reference page created 8 years ago. Magioladitis (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
|
May 1, 2014
User:Snowland
- User:Snowland ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Non-notable micronation. This user page is that of a 2006 account that has never edited, but the page has been 'hijacked' by User:Newflores for this 'article'. Peridon (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:FAKEARTICLE also applies in addition to the misappropriation of another editor's user page. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
April 30, 2014
User:Yourvaconz
- User:Yourvaconz ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User talk:Yourvaconz (|subject|history|links|watch|logs)
Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Editor's only contributions are posting of the resume to both the user and talk page. Whpq (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, as it violates Wikipedia:G11, as an advertisement for the person. 123chess456 (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Sitka Fine Arts Camp |
---|
The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. Graham87 14:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Talk:Sitka Fine Arts Camp
No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC) This is not the place for this deletion, it should be at WP:AFD, not sure why you nominated the talk page for a mainspace article...?CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
|
April 29, 2014
User:Kim A. Clarke
- User:Kim A. Clarke ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:FAKEARTICLE. cyclopiaspeak! 14:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Straightforward violation of WP:FAKEARTICLE. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, Clearly WP:FAKEARTICLE. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, --S Philbrick(Talk) 01:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Katetoon
- User:Katetoon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:FAKEARTICLE. Whpq (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, Clearly WP:FAKEARTICLE. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --S Philbrick(Talk) 01:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Elaine Duthie
- User:Elaine Duthie ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia is not a resume service / facebook. Whpq (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not facebook. User:Elaine Duthie/sandbox has similar content and should be deleted for the same reason. User has made no edits beside self-promotion. MER-C 13:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
April 28, 2014
Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates
- Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This page is redundant to Wikipedia:Glossary. I recommend blanking the page (and merging anything that needs to be merged) and then converting the page into a redirect towards Wikipedia:Glossary. Steel1943 (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- No objection, as a substantial contributor to the page. The solution is probably even simpler, though: just redirect. No need to blank first. And the page history will remain accessible for any editors interested in a merge. This page has an unusual history: it was apparently a previous name of WP:AADD, and continued to redirect there from 2007 until last year, when it came up at RfD, at which point it was turned into its own page. I think the participants in that discussion probably weren't aware of the glossary—and at the time, neither was I. It does appear that this page is redundant to the glossary now. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect as suggested, although blanking is pointless and deleting first is a bad idea for many reasons. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect - In the 3 years I've been here I've ever only known "WP" & have never known GLOSSARY existed neither .... Anyway the page is helpful but is pretty much a copy of GLOSSARY so per nom & above Redirect is the best solution. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to Wikipedia:Glossary. No reason to lose those terms not yet in the target. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
April 27, 2014
User:Štokrle v pyči
- User:Štokrle v pyči ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This falls under MfD, not being in English, and when I used Google Translate on it, the page is claiming that he was unfairly banned, and that this is an alternate account. Apart from that, the entire page is made up of a vulgar rant against those that harmed him. Before, the page was made up of disruptive images, showing that the page creator does not have good faith towards Wikipedia. Listing the person at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pszczolka Maja1, as he claims to be an alt of Toma646, who is a sockpuppet of Pszczolka Maja1. 123chess456 (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete unless I get a convincing response to my request on the author's talk page. (I requested removal or explanation...). Peridon (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Page is now in English, and now you can see the vulgarity in full form. Could an admin close this, so I can list this under CSD? 123chess456 (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Jesus Alberto Copete Cardona
- User:Jesus Alberto Copete Cardona ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:UP#COPIES - text dump of Selena Gomez. Whpq (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Geoffdowd
- User:Geoffdowd ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia is not Facebook. Whpq (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete But because this is a promotional page under a promotional user name. 123chess456 (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Ephilei/Mythology
- User:Ephilei/Mythology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Abandoned draft, creator hasn't edited anything for 4 years, last edit to this almost 2 years ago. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as abandoned draft --S Philbrick(Talk) 01:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Sunshine AL
- User:Sunshine AL ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User page is a promotion. Zell Faze (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - The same user has created a draft article in the more appropriate place, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AstapovLawyer, so this is not needed. This is a brand new user who likely doesn't understand about MfD, so the deletion should be explained nicely. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:NOTPROMO & WP:UP#PROMO. ///EuroCarGT 04:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
April 26, 2014
User:LexXxus180
- User:LexXxus180 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP#UPCOPIES - This user page is a collection of copies of various articles on darts players. Whpq (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. This page may also have copyright concerns per Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/LexXxus180. The user was indeffed for copyvios. MER-C 10:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note - There appears to be some sock puppetry with this account. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bouncer170, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LexXxus180. -- Whpq (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Botulinum toxin/Comments
- Talk:Botulinum toxin/Comments (|subject|history|links|watch|logs)
An essay, a how-to, an informal style, and an overall bias, this page has no place on WP. The person who made the most substantial edits there even left a link, which violates WP:SPAM. An IP user also asked a question, and the creator main contributor of the page responded in a very WP:POV, blog-like style. For some reason, it is listed as a "assessment summary page", which it certainly is NOT. Creator The main contributor of talk page seems to have a serious WP:Conflict of interest (you'll see why here) and as one would expect, this page coat-racks by focusing on the positive. This "talk page" really has to go. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - If the material were about article developoment, it could be merged to the main article talk page. However, it is more of an advertisement and how-to, so merge would not be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Frankly, borderline for CSD G11. Not at all encyclopedic, entirely useless to the encyclopedia as it is written in a casual, essay form. Safiel (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
April 25, 2014
User:Ajs510/deleted
- User:Ajs510/deleted ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User draft of an article that was deleted seven years ago and has seen no improvement at all since. Came across this while trying to Google what the "FCHL" was in this article (oy). Not so much a WP:STALEDRAFT as it is petrified. Resolute 23:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Old business
April 25, 2014
Draft:GDAP Entertainment
- Draft:GDAP Entertainment ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Corresponding article in mainspace has been deleted under CSD A7, and the only user who was working on it has since been blocked. There isn't really a solid deletion policy for the draft namespace, but it seems to me like there's really no reason to keep this weeks-old draft around. IagoQnsi (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- There isn't any reason to remove it either. It's not a BLP violation, it does not seem to be particularly spammy nor advertising, and it isn't against any of the criteria we have for excluding content at WP:NOT. What benefit is there to be gained by turning the switch and making it invisible? It will still be there occupying space on the hard drive, so there is not even any storage gain to recover by "deleting" it. Diego (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Chris seidl
- User:Chris seidl ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
An IP claiming to be User:Chris seidl left a PROD on that user page. Given that User Chris seidl had only three total edits, all to that user page as a joke and that the last edit was from January of 2007, it is quite probable that the IP is indeed User Chris seidl. Even if he is not, I would recommend deleting this user page anyway, due to the fact that the user never intended to contribute to Wikipedia. I have gone ahead and left the PROD on the page for the moment, for ease of reference. Safiel (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Also, I did not use the speedy deletion process (user requested) as I, of course, cannot verify that the IP was actually the user in question. Safiel (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete If Chris ever did mean to be a Wikipedia editor, he/she never got around to it, and the information on the user page is not about Wikipedia activities. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Isn't there a valid procedure for this. Oppose deletion on the basis of opposing hysterical deletionsism by destructive user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuackDoctor (talk • contribs) 21:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- Comment Just note that I have taken the above user to the Admnistrator's Incidents noticeboard. Administrator's, please refer to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FVanja_Buli.C4.87 before giving the above keep comment any credence. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
April 24, 2014
User:Siconize/Laravel (framework)
- User:Siconize/Laravel (framework) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is an article that was deleted and then restored and userfied on 14 July 2013. Since then, it has never been edited, and the editor in whose userspace the page exists has not edited Wikipedia at all since 9 September 2013. It clearly falls under the provisions of WP:STALEDRAFT. The page is also redundant, as the article has in the meanwhile been re-created, at Laravel (framework). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
April 23, 2014
User:GameGuy95
- User:GameGuy95 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/The Sims (movie) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/The Nightly Show with Nick Cannon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (syndicated version) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/Who Wants to Be a Super Millionaire (US revival) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/Chuck (TV show) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/Phone Home (pricing game) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/Check-Out (TPiR pricing game) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/Plinko (TPiR pricing game) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/Whammy! The All-New Press Your Luck (revival) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (UK version) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/This Is It (Tour) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/Michael Jackson Tribute (Tour) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/Lizzie's Life: The Movie ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/The Big Question (game show) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/Power of 10 (US syndicated game show) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/1 vs. 100 (US revival) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/Millionaire: Hot Seat (U.S. version) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/Homer Simpson (character) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/Eugene H. Krabs (character) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/SpongeBob SquarePants (show character) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/Andy (series) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/Millionaire: 50/50 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GameGuy95/Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US primetime revival) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:UP#COPIES. "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host...old revisions...[or]... Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes." Wikipedia is not a web host. Although user space as some leeway in what users can place there, these pages well exceed just testing or experimenting. Content of userspace is either from earlier revisions of actual articles or are nonexistent/made-up articles/hoaxes. AldezD (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete All per nom - We do allow some leeway but this just takes the piss, No use to the project whatsoever, I'd strongly suggest the user works on one article at a time. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete All If these were legitimate drafts that would be one thing. Most of these things only seem to exist in the imagination of the editor, however. Either some kind of extreme speculation to be generous, or outright hoaxes, either way, it all needs to go. My advice would be a little different from Davey's, please do not create articles or drafts for things that don't exist. Gigs (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
User:GameGuy95/Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (daytime version)
- User:GameGuy95/Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (daytime version) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:UP#COPIES. Content is from earlier revision of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show). "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host...old revisions...[or]... Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes." AldezD (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - There's no need to keep this. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
April 22, 2014
User:Alfonzo Green
Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) has been banned from articles related to Rupert Sheldrake under the terms of WP:ARB/PS. He also has a history of unproductive editing in other WP:FRINGE-related areas. This is his protest, in conteratvention of both his WP:TBAN and WP:STICK - an ill-written, incoherent rambling WP:TLDR anti-WP:CONSENSUS antiWP:FRINGE, anti-WP:MAINSTREAM, anti-Wikipedia rant which also contains various untrue allegations about editors. WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Alfonzo Green
This is a case of WP:Wikihounding. Not satisfied with censoring me from the topic of Rupert Sheldrake, Barney is now trying to prevent me from expressing my views on my own user page. He is clearly tracking my edits and seems to want to remove me from Wikipedia altogether. My statement on my user page accurately describes my experience of being topic banned. Apparently he doesn't want the facts revealed.
I have a history of productive editing in science-related areas, including articles on genetic determinism, creodes, Ilya Prigogine and Mae-Wan Ho. My recent attention was devoted exclusively to Sheldrake, a well known scientist, in response to blatant efforts by Barney and other editors to negatively bias his biography page. Topic bans involve pages related to the topic and do not extend to the user's own page unless explicitly stated in the ruling. As to WP:STICK, I've made no effort to revive the debate. My sole objective in posting this material is to explain the events leading up to my topic ban, which I believe was not based on actual Wikipedia policy. I have the right to tell my side of the story. It's his right not to read it, as evidenced by WP:TLDR, but he doesn't have the right to prevent other editors from learning from my statement. In no way is it "incoherent rambling" or in opposition to any Wikipedia policies. In fact I make it clear that WP:CONSENSUS was ignored in the editing process and that Barney has consistently misused the WP:FRINGE charge against neutral editors. He still doesn't seem to understand that explaining Sheldrake's ideas on his biography page does not violate WP:FRINGE or WP:MAINSTREAM. That my statement is critical of Wikipedia in no way makes it an anti-Wikipedia rant. If Barney believes I've made false allegations against other editors, he should provide examples, though this will be difficult since everything in my statement is backed up with evidence. As to the last two charges, my intention is to bring the facts together into a single statement so as to educate Wikipedians about the potential for abuse of the editing process. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Barney should know better than to continue casting aspersions after receiving this warning on his talk page. Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Davey2010, it's absolutely about me, specifically my experience as a Wikipedia editor. Rather than face the fact that Wikipedia doesn't always get it right, you brush off my statement as "whining and moaning about who you hate." You call it a rant, though it's clearly a well-reasoned, evidence-based argument. Please set aside your emotions and look at the facts. The question you need to ask yourself is whether my statement violates a specific Wikipedia policy on user pages. As my statement demonstrates, I was censored without having violated policy. Now I'm to lose my user page even though, again, I've violated no policy? Alfonzo Green (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
76.107.171.90, like Barney, is involved in the Sheldrake dispute and apparently doesn't wish to see the facts of that dispute told on Wikipedia.
As far as I can tell, Wikipedia policy on user pages makes no provision for deletion in this circumstance. Alfonzo Green (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- if you think so, you apparently didnt read this -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- Strong Delete - Userpages should be about you etc .... Not a page to start moaning & whining about who you hate, Also it's not very welcoming to a new user is it.... All in all take your rant elsewhere. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Reply - It would help if you actually replied below than above .... My emotions play no part in this whatsoever, No one gives a toss whether you were censored or not .... Your page is simply ranting about everyone and thus should be deleted, If you're unhappy with someone - Discuss it / Go to AN/I, If not then shut up whining and find something useful to do.. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Activism at its most extreme is indistinguishable from trolling. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- delete as per WP:POLEMIC it does not appear to be supporting Wikipedia's growth and aspirations to develop a community generated encyclopedia, rather simply a rant opposing current policies and a collection of links and aspersions against other editors. (I will note that my views may be biased as I am one of the people being ranted against for such things as making "spurious" claims that contentious content come from a consensus on the talk page rather than being edit warred into the article, and filing a "blatantly frivolous" AE case which was so "blatantly frivolous" that 4 admins reviewing the case unanimously found problematic enough to support the ban requested.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry to pile on but that user page is an extremely clear violation of WP:UP. How would Wikipedia work if every unhappy editor posted their personal thoughts about other editors? Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- A sympathy vote
... not in the normal sense of "pity", however. Alfonso, I think you raise some very valid points regarding dysfunction in our processes, which are designed to deal expediently with the onslaught of editors who come here to promote their own agenda, rather than to carefully consider a nuanced position. Our somewhat knee-jerk response to anyone who seems like a psuedo-science advocate did not develop overnight, and isn't a conspiracy. It was the end product of constant battles with various pseudo-science proponents.
This MfD will surely only reinforce your views. The problem, as I see it, is that while you seem to have developed a pretty solid first-hand experience with Wikipedia processes, some involuntarily, you have refused to follow some of the social niceties that we insist on. If you had framed your essay in general terms, without naming names, it would likely be an acceptable essay on the workings of Wikipedia. I guess I write this to say, you are capable of affecting change here, but as long as you make this a personal battle, you will be at best ignored as a "troll", and at worst, have your material summarily deleted and your ban expanded. To continue down the path that you have to know will inevitably lead to your suppression, and then cry victim about it is also not something the community can tolerate. Gigs (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: Given current !votes and the fact that User:Alfonzo Green has been indef blocked for violating their topic ban with the content that they have posted on the page under discussion here which was described by the admin as a "screed" perhaps a SPEEDY is in order?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Strong keep, at least for now, regardless of good reasons for deleting. The page in question is used as an illustration for a discussion about topic bans HERE. -Lou Sander (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- This is not a valid "keep" reason. There is nothing so special about this User page that it needs to be kept for that discussion. Also, that discussion is about adding an illustrative example to an existing policy page, it has nothing to do with this User page in particular.
Zad68
14:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC) - @Lou Sander (talk · contribs) - I do not think it is necessary to have an example of a WP:POLEMIC for illustrative purposes. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Barney the barney barney (talk · contribs) - The need over there is for an example that shows why WP:TBAN should be more specific about user space. There are probably examples that don't include polemics, but I don't know of them. Lou Sander (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Lou Sander (talk · contribs), well if you do, maybe you could mock up an WP:EXAMPLEUSER page that contains WP:TLDR text that says things like "ugh, life's not fair", "I hate everyone", "all Wikipedia policy is wrong", "my topic ban was only upheld by 5 administrators", and other comments on how butthurt he is feeling, without the unnecessary and nasty specificity that Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) has introduced. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a valid "keep" reason. There is nothing so special about this User page that it needs to be kept for that discussion. Also, that discussion is about adding an illustrative example to an existing policy page, it has nothing to do with this User page in particular.
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I am normally very sympathetic to non-standard uses of user space, but this rant serves no purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
User:SaucyJimmy
- User:SaucyJimmy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Conceptually interesting and rather well written WP:FAKEARTICLE. Also has some serious WP:BLP issues. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - It's definitely a WP:FAKEARTICLE. ///EuroCarGT 01:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - The user has blanked the page. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:G7. So tagged.--NYKevin 20:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)- Self-reverted, because the blanking rule is inapplicable to userspace. Still, delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE. --NYKevin 20:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
April 21, 2014
User:Malcolm/Userboxes/Mid
- Restarting due date on this MFD to provide opportunity for input, in lieu of closing as a weak no-consensus — xaosflux Talk 03
- 02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- User:Malcolm/Userboxes/Mid ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:StitchPedia/Jr. High. Student ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User Secondary School ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User Secondary School Homework do ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Meganmccarty/UBX/Homeschool ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User home ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User thinking home ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Although this has been discussed before and kept (in 2007: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Malcolm/Userboxes/Mid), I think it's worth revisiting. These userboxes draw attention to our younger users, and I feel that making these userboxes available encourages younger users, often interested in decorating their userpages with as many userboxes as they can find, to reveal their approximate ages. This deletion would also be in keeping with other deletions, such as "Wikipedians born in" categories for 1992 and on, Category:14 year old Wikipedians, etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I have to agree with GorillaWarfare's rationale. I think that these userboxes encourage younger users to volunteer too much personal information. In addition, I fear that these user boxes could be used to help facilitate inappropriate adult-child relationships. It would better serve the community if these sorts of identifiers were deleted. Mike V • Talk 02:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom & Mike V - It' snot really a brilliant idea to reveal you're in school IMO. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
April 20, 2014
User:Sparky 384/Sparky 384
- User:Sparky 384/Sparky 384 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stale draft (editor hasn't contributed since 2012) of content that is unlikely to become an article. While it minorly pains me as a FIRSTer, this is material much better suited to a team wiki or site; Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST. Chris857 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Zach464
- User:Zach464 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Zach464/(space) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Zach464/LeAnn discography ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Zach464/Target ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Zach464/2009 DT Hits! ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Zach464/Goin' South ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Zach464/SpaceforGossip ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Zach464/Template:morespace ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Zach464/morespace ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Zach464/Extraspace1 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Zach464/LeAnn (album) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Zach464/Sugar Coated (album) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Zach464/The Old and the Ugly ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Zach464/(space) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia is not a web host. Although user space as some leeway in what users can place there, these pages well exceed just testing or experimenting. They consist of a series of apparently made up musical artists (LeAnn and Devaud) on a made up record label (DT), and made up TV series broadcast on a madeup network (Onvia). Whpq (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Copied from my talk page:
First of all, I found it amusing while reading the "reasons" while my pages are being considered for deletion. Second, my pages contain factual information about 1) A local TV channel that is available in select cities in Australia, displaying programming that is filmed in the United States, but broadcast in Australia. Sure, the "viewer details" are a highly fabricated, but everything else is very factual. 2) LeAnn and Deváud are both actual singers that HAVE released albums and singles and HAVE performed many of the opening songs on Onivia's programming. 3) DT is a real record label, a subsidiary of Onivia, previously titled Onivia Records. If you have any questions regarding my pages filled with MADEUP content, feel free to message me on my "Talk Page"
Thanks, Zach464
I looked for the evidence of the exisitence for all of the above using Google searches, and came up with no results. That is why I stated they appeared to be fictitious. That and, as you say yourself, that viewer details are "highly fabricated". I expect that the details about the singers are also highly fabricated. Given that this appears to be your personal fiction, the nomination reasons still stand. -- Whpq (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
When you state "I expect that the details about the singers are also highly fabricated.", what do you mean by that? Also, what are you indicating by saying that these pages are my "personal fictions"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach464 (talk • contribs)
- In looking at User:Zach464/LeAnn discography#Songs Sold, "Yellow Man" apparently sold over 5.5 million copies yet I cannot find any information about such a huge hit song by a singer named LeAnn. That is why the details look highly fabricated. And when things are fabricated, they are fiction. Rather than me guessing at what these might be, you can state simply what these are. -- Whpq (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
In my first comment, I already said that some of the things are "highly fabricated", but there has to be many other articles on Wikipedia in which the composition of the article is "highly fabricated".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach464 (talk • contribs)
- If you are aware of Wikipedia articles which are highly fabricated, you can fix them by removing the fabrications, or nominate them for deletion. But in any case, their existence is irrelevant to this discussion. I see you've requested the deletion of all of these pages, so thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Falador Swag
- User:Falador Swag ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:FAKEARTICLE ///EuroCarGT 17:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; user pages need not be completely devoid of personal info, but they shouldn't look like articles. -IagoQnsi (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Jalen17/sandbox
- User:Jalen17/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:STALEDRAFT with no mergeable content of Bad Girls Club (season 10) Whpq (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - promotional WP:STALEDRAFT. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Wanted! History
- User:Wanted! History ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:FAKEARTICLE. I can find no evidence that this was ever an actual TV series, so it is not suitable as a draft to move to article space. Whpq (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
User:NTnx
This user page is an unattributed copy of an old version of the article Gamer (film). Per Wikipedia:User pages, "[o]ld copies of mainspace articles should be deleted if unused ... as content forking represents an attribution hazard". The user has made no edits outside of userpsace on any language edition of Wikipedia (see global contributions) for seven months, and it is possible that he or she created this page as a test. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
April 18, 2014
User:Subtropical-man/Pornographic actresses
- User:Subtropical-man/Pornographic actresses ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Cut-and-paste archive of the texts of deleted articles and/or articles expected to be deleted. Simply the wrong way to do this. The cut-and-paste copying removes the edit history, so the CC-licensing attribution requirement is violated. Therefore, these copies can't be improved and returned to mainspace, even if a subject becomes notable. If the user wants to retain copies for an appropriate period of time, they need to follow the WP:USERFY process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete incorrectly attributed. Spartaz Humbug! 08:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - users do not have access and preview to deleted articles (only administrators). Situation of PORNBIO changes every few months (see discussions). Articles who deleted now, for few months may be encyclopaedic. I need preview deleted articles to expansion of these articles. Nominator mistaken regarding the process. For example, for few months when these articles will encyclopaedic, will be restore on Wikipedia by administrators with history on changes and I add new data that have been created on my user space. Nominator, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz made a mistake (and Spartaz which took into account wrong the opinion of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz), there are no errors on the history of changes. My changes add to articles as typical edition. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 09:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)- WP:COMPETENCE. Spartaz Humbug! 12:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- So? Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 12:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)- Cut and paste userfication breaks our license and means that the attributation for the edits gets lost. If you want the deleted articles, these can be moved into your userspace with the edit history for attributation purposes. Anything else is just not on. Please go to REFUND and ask for the deleted articles rather then doing this. see here Spartaz Humbug! 12:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- So? Subtropical-man talk
- WP:COMPETENCE. Spartaz Humbug! 12:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note. PS. Besides that situation of PORNBIO changes every few months (see discussions), articles who deleted now, for few months may be encyclopaedic also for some time a person (pornstar) can meet the current requirements of PORNBIO, for example winning the prize (AVN Award, XBIZ Award, XRCO Award etc). There is a high probability that the articles will be restored and presently possible to develop these articles within own user page (I am a volunteer for this, this is my time and job, so). Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 12:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)- PORNBIO is only going to become more restrictive as general attitudes to BLP sourcing harden up. This process has been ongoing for at least 3 years and shows no evidence of slowing. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 12:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- This will change because more and more users (and also people outside Wikipedia) consider new changes (new consensus) as stupidity. Now, tens of percent of pornstars does not meet the requirements of new version of PORNBIO. Maybe for month, maybe two will be a new discussion to restore to a previous version of PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 12:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)- You're not getting the point. This isn't about PORNBIO; this is about complying with the attribution requirements of WP:CC BY-SA and following the process established by WP:USERFY. You also don't seem to realize that the deleted articles aren't going to be irrevocably wiped out; if one of these performers becomes notable by winning an award in two years, the deleted text can be retrieved at that time. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, you totally do not understand. It does not refer to CC-BY-SA or USERFY. If some of these performers becomes notable by winning an award or PORNBIO will be changed and some of these articles will be restored I will not create new articles! (copy/paste breaking history of changes). I quietly developed articles in private user page User:Subtropical-man/Pornographic actresses, when the article will be restored along with the history of changes, I add new data to existing article as typical edition (not as create new article). Here you can not say about violations of rules of CC-BY-SA or USERFY, this is nonsense. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, you totally do not understand. It does not refer to CC-BY-SA or USERFY. If some of these performers becomes notable by winning an award or PORNBIO will be changed and some of these articles will be restored I will not create new articles! (copy/paste breaking history of changes). I quietly developed articles in private user page User:Subtropical-man/Pornographic actresses, when the article will be restored along with the history of changes, I add new data to existing article as typical edition (not as create new article). Here you can not say about violations of rules of CC-BY-SA or USERFY, this is nonsense. Subtropical-man talk
- You're not getting the point. This isn't about PORNBIO; this is about complying with the attribution requirements of WP:CC BY-SA and following the process established by WP:USERFY. You also don't seem to realize that the deleted articles aren't going to be irrevocably wiped out; if one of these performers becomes notable by winning an award in two years, the deleted text can be retrieved at that time. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- This will change because more and more users (and also people outside Wikipedia) consider new changes (new consensus) as stupidity. Now, tens of percent of pornstars does not meet the requirements of new version of PORNBIO. Maybe for month, maybe two will be a new discussion to restore to a previous version of PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
- PORNBIO is only going to become more restrictive as general attitudes to BLP sourcing harden up. This process has been ongoing for at least 3 years and shows no evidence of slowing. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 12:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Unless you're rewriting these you don't need to keep them at all, As per the above just visit WP:REFUND. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. And trout Spartaz for making up his own speedy deletion criterion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - obviously just a way to end-run around consensus and that fact that there are copies of articles deleted only today suggests the editor knows these are non-notable ad will likely be deleted. But this is absolutely the wrong way to go about it. If this were an index of userspace drafts it'd be a different story. But blatant cut-paste copies of deleted articles is a no-no. Stalwart111 22:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- And people wonder why we have difficulty attracting female editors. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
-
- Not sure how that is relevant to someone copying and pasting deleted items into their sandbox? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
April 16, 2014
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Omar Abubakar
This person does not appear to meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. There is not a published source on the internet about this person. The person was born in 1992, so if there is not a source on the internet, I don't think there would be any in books either.Hoops gza (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Hopeless draft about non-notable person. In future, it is best to however avoid nominations like this as stale AfC drafts will expire within six months in any case and there should be no rush to delete harmless ones before that (harmless = not copyvio or libel, although this one might have BLP issues). jni (delete)...just not interested
- Keep. I agree there seems no chance that this will become an acceptable article, but in principle AfC should be a place where drafts can be kept to be improved. Abandoned ones will be cleaned out after six months by G13. Where a submission is declined four or five times with no sign of improvement, there is a case for deletion at MfD to avoid further waste of volunteer time; but that is not the case here, this one has never been submitted for review. JohnCD (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
April 14, 2014
User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment
- User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Already deleted at voice to skull and voice-to-skull. This is a fictional construct promoted by people who are, according to the evidence, mainly mentally ill, and it's covered in electronic harassment. This is an offsite POV-push, with very obvious co-ordination between accounts. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- JzG, if you don't mind, add some detail to the case, proving SYNTH or whatever. Your opponent put some work into this article and while, after two quick glances at the article, I'm likely to agree with you, they deserve a detailed explanation, if only to help settle future...what shall we call it...disagreement. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- The article has already been deleted several times, there is no such thing as "voice to skull", and it's already covered in the context of electronic harassment. The detailed explanation has already been provided at WP:ANI and elsewhere, as well as in the previous deletion discussions. This is a pretty blatant attempt to end-run round deletion process, and it's the nth attempt to do that for this content. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- The stuff in the cited Wired articles looks interesting at first glance, though synthesis may have taken place getting from that to the userpage under consideration. The Wired articles aren't mentioned in the electronic harassment article. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Acoustic harassment is certainly not a fictional construct. That's just wrong. As are Guy's delusional claims of my being part of some off wiki collaboration effort. After working on the article and reviewing sources, I've found several existing article already on Wikipedia that address aspects of these perfectly legitimate subjects. And since I've provided Google Books results for acoustic harassment from a plethora of perfectly legitimate sources, claiming that this is something made up is denialism.
As far as the article in my userspace goes, the weaponry aspects should be merged to Sonic weapon. The acoustic harassment article should focus on the technology and the devices as substantially covered, mostly in relation to marine life. There is also some usage of this against birds (at airports and I live near blueberry fields and they shoot off guns to scare those away). There are also some human aspects that seem appropriate to mention or at least note as see also such as The Mosquito and LRAD. The connection to using these technologies with humans is not something made up, it's in several sources, but I do think it would be appropriate to split out the weapon aspect to the sonic weapon article and keep the acoustic harassment article focused to where the sources cover it in depth.
A big part of the problem is that voice to skull was redirected to electronic harassment, which is something quite different. Now that I've found more appropriate targets we can redirect Voice-to-Skull to the correct article, its is already discussed in Microwave auditory effect. Sonic weapon would be fine too. Problem solved. Of course I can't do this because an abusive admin has reflexively protected the article title (out of process) instead of engaging in rational discussion. Such is life.
There is no basis for restricting my abilities to edit legitimate article subject in my userspace and allegations of my being part of some conspiracy or off wiki-campaign are daft. Maybe Guy is hearing voices? Best to seek out professional help in those circumstances. But again, these are legitimate subjects, I don't really think they fall into the realm of pseudoscience, and we should have no difficulty dealing with the subject properly (again there are EXISTING articles that address many aspects of these subjects) we just need to rein in the craziness, delusional paranoia, and dishonest bullying so we can work through the subject matter rationally and reasonably. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be a duplicate of User:Candleabracadabra/sandbox. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- The Wired articles are of no use to an encyclopedic article. As the author states, they are merely a collection of amusing urban myths and certainly cannot be used as the basis for any article on something "real" such as sonic weapons. There is nothing new of value in the article, so it can be safely deleted. GDallimore (Talk) 22:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, we generally give a fair amount of leeway to material in userspace, I think. I myself have some proto-articles cluttering up my userspace... If it was obviously not anything to do with an encyclopedia -- a list of your school friends, pictures of your cat -- that'd be different, but it kind of looks and feels like it could an actual article someday, if some more refs can be scared up. That's a reasonable use of userspace I think.
- If it's disruptive that's different. The nominator speaks of an "offsite POV-push, with very obvious co-ordination between accounts". If that's true then we have different problem. I'd want more details on that, though. I'm not up on the personalities and politics of this, so I'm not gonna vote, but my inclination is to see what develops. If the article creator scares up enough material and refs to make a decent article, then no problem. If the article creator messes around with it in his userspace forever, then no problem. If the article creator tries to repeatedly publish an unacceptable article, then problem. My inclination would be to chill and wait. Herostratus (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment It looks like we have further material on this phenomenon at Tinfoil hat#Electromagnetic_hearing. Maybe that would be a good place to put the info? 70.36.142.114 (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Herostratus but I'm going to say keep the userspace draft. The material doesn't seem to be suitable as a stand-alone article at present (notability) but the verifiability aspects seem OK so the material could be merged elsewhere or could be developed into an article. There is no BLP or "attack page" problem. In small part, the draft is documenting what a few people believe (most people might think the belief is irrational) and that can be fine if it is kept in a neutral perspective. I do not think the draft is advancing a "fictional construct". If there are reliable sources saying the adherents are "mainly mentally ill" it is important that this aspect should be included. Likewise if there is evidence that the DoD document[1] is fictitious in its existence or content. Thincat (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Herostratus. Nothing wrong with using user space for building an article that is not yet ready for prime time.--GRuban (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
April 6, 2014
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghost (TV Series) |
---|
The result of the discussion was There is no consensus to delete at this time, as the page is blanked it is not affecting anything. If user recreates material, and deletion is later necessary, please re-nominate. TLSuda (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC) User:Ghost (TV Series)
Originally used to create a draft, now blanked. Also the username represents a tv series. No other edits. ShriramTalk 14:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
|
March 13, 2014
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club, Excel |
---|
The result of the discussion was Consensus is to delete, with no prejudice to userfication if request. TLSuda (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club, Excel
This page is half way between an article and a project page, It should be deleted and recreated as a true project page. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC) [extra signature by relister to stop Legobot moving this down. JohnCD (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)]
|
March 31, 2014
User:Cskumaar/Maruthuvar community
- User:Cskumaar/Maruthuvar community ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I'm guessing someone thinks this is a real article. We also have User:Vishwagna, User:Brahmin nayee and User:Niyoginayeebramhana. all quasi articles and all edited by User182.74.141.234 (talk · contribs) Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Complex recommendation:
-
- Move the latter 3 to user-sub-pages and leave a note on the respective users' user pages pointing to the new location. This should have been boldly-done before this went to MfD.
- Courtesy-blank all 4 pages replacing the content with a note saying the previous content can be found in the edit history. This is only necessary because these editors seem to have stopped editing and are therefore not likely to be using this content.
- Semi-protect or even fully-protect all affected pages to prevent non-logged-in editors from changing them. This is only necessary because these editors seem to have stopped editing and are not likely to notice and undo unwanted changes by third-party editors.
- Leave a note on all 4 editor's talk pages explaining what was done and why it was done, providing links to this discussion, WP:User pages, WP:Userspace draft, and if articles about the topics in question exist, links to those articles. Let editors know that the page protections will be lifted upon request.
- In cases where the topic does not have an article but where the topic is notable enough to qualify for one, leave a note explaining that if the pages are actually draft articles and not "user content," the editor is encouraged to restore them provided that they will be actively worked on with the intent of moving them to the main encyclopedia.
- In cases where the topics are notable, an article is strongly desired, and either the current version or any past version would make an acceptable article as-is or with minor effort (or if a volunteer is ready to do the required work immediately), simply move the page into the main encyclopedia or to Draft: space for further work. I am not familiar enough with these topics to know if this suggestion is relevant or not.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Well, the account Cskumaar (talk · contribs) created his/her page almost 3 years ago with 2 edits and hasn't edited since. Vishwagna (talk · contribs) created that page almost a year ago with 4 edits, no edits since. Niyoginayeebramhana (talk · contribs)'s page was created in December with the only edit that account made. Except for Listofnayee (talk · contribs) who has made only one edit only and that to this page, all the edits have been by IPs. And finally Brahmin nayee (talk · contribs) created his/her page with 5 edits 2 weeks ago but only 182.74.141.234 (talk · contribs) has edit it since. It's my conclusion that these accounts do not represent different individuals but are likely the same person, perhaps simply confused about what they are doing. Off to bed shorly, will see if others comment and think about what to do next. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- While I concede that this is likely the case, since there is no obvious abuse of multiple accounts or disruption (beyond the mere existence of these pages, if you consider that disruption), it's probably better to assume that they may be different individuals and decide accordingly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Closed discussions
For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.