Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanished user tj23rpoij4tikkd (talk | contribs) at 08:51, 3 September 2013 (Adding Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lovysinghal. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



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

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 5 disambiguation pages) and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes, regardless of the 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
  • If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?
  • Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD
  • Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

I.
Edit PageName:

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.
If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.
Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
  • Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
  • Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
  • Save the page
II.
Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

  • Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
  • Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
  • Save the page.
III.
Add a line to MfD.

Follow   this edit link   and at the top of the list add a line:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".
  • Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
    Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
  • If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add
{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.
  • If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
    For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

    {{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~

    to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as

    Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
  • If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V Jul Aug Sep Oct Total
CfD 0 0 0 27 27
TfD 0 0 0 5 5
MfD 0 0 0 0 31
FfD 0 0 0 3 3
RfD 0 0 0 79 79
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

Archived discussions

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


Active discussions

Pages currently being considered are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

Purge server cache

September 3, 2013

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jreferee sums this up well. Speedy criteria apply, so I'll delete these as requested. Lovy, if you would still like to be blocked, please contact me. I'm willing to do this, but we should go over a few things first. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lovysinghal

User:Lovysinghal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Also, per nominator's request, listing: User:Lovysinghal/common.js, User:Lovysinghal/EditCounterOptIn.js, User:Lovysinghal/Padam Chand Jain, User:Lovysinghal/sandbox, User:Lovysinghal/twinkleoptions.js, User:Lovysinghal/vector.js. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this as Miscellany request instead of a regular CSD to delete my userpage, any subpages and any other content to the maximum extent possible provided you do not find any pending issues involving me. Also please block me indefinitely without blocking my IP and allowing me to edit my talk page. Thanks in advance. The request is for personal reasons alone. Lovy Singhal (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of templates linking to other free content projects (2nd nomination)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was KEEP. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of templates linking to other free content projects

Wikipedia:List of templates linking to other free content projects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This doesn't seem like a useful list to me. If we need to track these then it would be better to do it as a category. Kumioko (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

September 2, 2013

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

The result of the discussion was procedural close. In the month plus that this was open, Conformuser completely changed the content of this userpage before being indefinitely blocked. As the user page now consists entirely of {{sock}}, the issue seems resolved. Contact me with any concerns. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Conformuser

User:Conformuser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article (copy of Ultras Dynamo) on user page. This is not what a user page is for. The Banner talk 23:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sara.streeb/Hawker P.V.3
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was DELETE. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sara.streeb/Hawker P.V.3

User:Sara.streeb/Hawker P.V.3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT since 2011 user not active since 2011 MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:99.54.138.81
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was blank. --BDD (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:99.54.138.81

User talk:99.54.138.81 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Inarguably one of the worst uses of a talk page in my opinion ever, and it's where NOT to put event archives to. I don't want to push it too far and hurt a banned IP, but it seems like the use of a test page, or an inappropriate talk page use, but salt it after it is deleted??? StormContent 18:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but note that I've edited the page and semi-protected it to prevent new improper use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I know. StormContent 19:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User talk pages are generally not deleted. See WP:DELTALK. Arthur Rubin protected the talk page about two years ago on 31 August 2011.[1] User:99.54.138.81 is not blocked, etc.[2] The last talk edit on the page was more than a year ago on 20 June 2012‎. Has something changed so that the talk page should be deleted? -- Jreferee (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    99.54.138.81 would be blocked, if he were to return, as a sock of the multiple IPs which should be blocked until at least mid-2014, now. He wasn't blocked in 2011, as the blocks didn't start until early 2012. And there seems to be a move to delete inactive IP talk pages
  • Keep and blank - there's no basis in policy to delete a user talk page. In fact, WP:DELTALK, which is policy, explicitly says otherwise. I would definitely be okay with blanking the page, but not deleting it. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this IP user has been blocked, saying it is an account used by User:XB70Valyrie, ... so is this a list of contributions by blocked user XB70Valyrie (talk · contribs) ? -- 65.92.182.123 (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I get it now. User pages are not normally deleted (however this is an exception), but can either be blanked and/or moved as stated by Wikipedia's DELTALK policy. Does anyone support my message? StormContent 20:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct! :) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedied. WP:G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:MichaelNetzer/Growing Earth Theory (22:45, May 31, 2008)

User:MichaelNetzer/Growing Earth Theory (22:45, May 31, 2008) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE violation. No chance of being included in mainspace. jps (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MichaelNetzer/Growing Earth Theory
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. BencherliteTalk 14:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:MichaelNetzer/Growing Earth Theory

User:MichaelNetzer/Growing Earth Theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe that this is a WP:FAKEARTICLE violation. It has no chance of entering into the mainspace. jps (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: You are seriously mistaken jps. Had you done a little research, you'd have seen that the article was/is in the mainspace, and was once even nominated for deletion, but the decision was to keep it. It has since been merged with Expanding Earth and subsequently castrated of its content by advocates of mainstream scientific validity, dismissing its WP:Notability merit on which the first 'keep' decision was made. Your assumption is erroneous as the article can potentially be un-merged and return to be independent, perhaps pending improvements and updates. That said, I don't have time for childish games and will not waste any trying to keep this copy it is the only remaining draft of the original page and needed for continued work on the subject. MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)(updated) -MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - seems to fall under WP:STALEDRAFT since the last edit to the page was five years ago in June 2008‎. Also, it would seem that any relevant content can be included in the Expanding Earth. I do like Image:Growing_earth.gif and would be happy to add it to the Expanding Earth article. Also, MichaelNetzer, is there something from the User:MichaelNetzer/Growing Earth Theory draft that you think should be in the Expanding Earth article? My initial reaction was to recommend deletion, but this might be a situation where the draft contains good information but there still is disagreement on how best to convey that information in main space. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response - I think the article merits being un-merged from Expanding Earth and restored, updated and improved, as indicated in the original attempt to delete it in 2007 in which the consensus was to Keep due to established notability of the topic, which has grown since and many more sources exist for it. But this became a complicated issue as the article was protested by "scientific validity" editors who upon not being able to delete it, worked together to merge with Expanding Earth and then remove most of its content. The editor suggesting this deletion now is also suggesting to delete Expanding Earth because some editors (including myself) are trying to edit the page based on its WP:Notability and to shift the emphasis in the article from mainstream scientific validity according to Wikipedia guidelines (you can review the talk page there see the current status of the discussion). The move to delete my Sandbox copies of this page appears to be a response to my discussions there. I frankly find most discussion with these editors to have become a waste of time and don't see a viable option such as you suggest, and which I also support, to restore this information to the mainspace. Growing Earth and Expanding Earth appear to be a target of mainstream oriented editors for removing notable reliably sourced information about the subject from Wikpedia because the theories have been dismissed by mainstream science. I believe this situation does a great disservice to the encyclopedia on this subject but I haven't been able to help convince or change the situation. So, I'm now resigned to just let them do what they want. MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a difference between Growing Earth and Expanding Earth? It seems like Growing Earth Theory would fit under Expanding Earth theory#Mass addition. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such efforts have been blocked because Growing Earth is not a peer reviewed mainstream theory like the other content of Expanding Earth theory#Mass addition.
Most of the content of this Growing Earth article was first introduced in Expanding Earth.
Editors then suggested it was encumbering the article and it was decided to split them.
Addition of mass was actually inferred since the beginning of Expanding Earth by Samuel Carey in the 1950's, though as a geologist he had no idea about a mechanism and said that it's an issue for cosmology and physics.
Growing Earth was the first to propose a mechanism for addition of mass, suggested in the new name: Growing, not merely expanding.
For the last decade or so, Expanding Earth has proliferated in two directions. One is the academic scholarly work of scientists like Scalera, Maxwell, Herndon and others. The other is wide popular debate outside of the academic environment that's received significant media coverage. Growing Earth belongs to the latter.
Based on notability in RS media, Growing Earth merits it own page because much of its content is distinct from, though also overlapping, the classic Expanding Earth theory - and has its own notable sources. But it's not necessary to have a separate page if it could be sufficiently elaborated on in an Expanding Earth section, as you suggest.
I think, however, that it's all somewhat moot at this point. Some editors are preventing any such direction to the article, making it only about its scientific validity and removing any significant information about the theory itself and the extensive debate about it in popular RS media.
As the article reads now, its emphasis is almost entirely on its lack of scientific validity, and not on actual information about the theory.
A shift seems necessary that would allow for elaboration on the theory throughout its various incarnations, followed by rebuttals from the mainstream consensus.
MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I still do not understand how Growing Earth is distinct from the classic Expanding Earth theory. It looks like Expanding Earth absorbed stuff from outside Earth within Earth and transforms that into mass/matter whereas Growing Earth uses existing stuff within Earth and transforms that into mass/matter. Your draft has a variety of problems. First, the first sentence needs to convey what Growing Earth is. The lead sentence "Growing Earth Hypothesis is a derivative of Expanding Earth theory." conveys nothing about Growing Earth. The way the draft is written makes the draft more about publicizing people who added to the theory rather than conveying information about the theory. The draft tries to establish credibility though name dropping rather than merely convey information about the topic. I would rewrite the draft by removing all the names of people in the article, except perhaps give origination credit to Neal Adams, and just focus on telling the chronological story of the Growing Earth theory and the features of the theory. You really only need a lead paragraph, history section, and theory details section. As for it being pseudoscience, you only need to indicate upfront that the theory is not generally accepted. There is no reason to attach a disclaimer to just about every sentence in the article or even have a criticism section. As for this MfD, you need only explain why you need the draft per WP:UP, such as notes related to your Wikipedia work and activities. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think to understand the difference it's essential to understand the history. Most of the geological evidence for earth expansion was laid out by Carey in the late 50's and early 60's. The theory was dismissed in favor of Plate Tectonics mainly because of the introduction of subduction and because Carey could not offer a mechanism based in cosmology and particle physics for expansion. But his geological evidence remained sound and scientifically compelling. Over the years, notable geologists, geophysicists and scientists (Scalera, Maxwell, Herndon etc...) continued writing, debating and expounding on evidence for expansion and many inconsistencies in Plate Tectonics, some suggesting a variety of mechanisms, including the accretion idea you suggested. But none of this work was considered scientifically valid by the mainstream and because these scientist were not in the public eye, their efforts remained relatively low key. When Adams, a popular comic book artists who'd studied a wide range of sciences independently, produced the videos and laid out a possible mechanism (Pair Production) in particle physics for expansion, he insisted that Expanding was an improper term because according to his view, the earth was Growing in new mass...not merely inflating, so to speak. Being more in the public eye, outside of he scientific community, Adams succeeded in generating a wide popular interest in the original theory and his new incarnation of it, that he called Growing Earth. This interest became wide spread, and has gained much reliable media coverage, that it is raising a backlash response from the scientific community and some science journalists...which is all actually contributing to an increasing notability of both the original theory and Adams' new incarnation of it. I think this is the primary sense that distinguishes the two.
I joined WP in 2006 and wrote most of that article in 2007, still relatively inexperienced with encyclopedic content. What you say about it is true, which is why I noted above that it needs improvement and updating. Thanks for the suggestions.
I'll also take your advice for trying to keep this draft. MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the draft merely requires you to continue working on it, see WP:UP#COPIES, or have need for it as notes from which you will work on other articles (see WP:UPYES - Notes related to your Wikipedia work and activities). Whether to name the article Growing earth or Expanding earth is dealt with via WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. As for the Growing earth topic's chance of entering into the mainspace, WP:GNG only requires that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Adams causing the topic to gain media coverage helps the Wikipedia GNG notability of the topic. The article is not in main space because the topic lacks scientific validity. Rather, the article is not in main space because the draft is not written in a neutral way. If you can get the draft to meet WP:PSCI, then it should be ready for mainspace. Much of science is built on ideas that turn out to be wrong. I have not heard of growing earth before this thread, but it seems to have enough to it to explore as a scientific idea. For example, the outer surface of the gas giants and the sun would seem to be/have been affected by their size change. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Morales91
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Speedy IAR delete. Morales is clearly not here to actually work on an encyclopedia, evidenced by the 1k+ edits she has made to her fake biography, and the fact that after this MFD was opened she simply recreated the page under a new account, Jamie926 (talk · contribs). Someguy1221 (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Morales91

User:Morales91 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Morales91/Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Morales91/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a free webhost for things made up one day, and blatantly false content is incomptaible with the goals and purpose of this project. The above user pages are fake articles that reference real songs, albums, and artists – e.g., Mary J. Blige (My Life), Evanescence ("My Immortal"), Kelis ("Young, Fresh n' New"), Jennifer Lopez ("If You Had My Love"), Gaga ("LoveGame"), Alicia Keys (The Element of Freedom), Justin Timberlake (Justified), Adele (21), Katy Perry ("Wide Awake"), and countless others – and attribute all of the music to a "Janelle". While Janelle may be a real person, her biography at User talk:Morales91/Sandbox, musical output, and fame is certainly invented.

I attempted to bring the issue to the user's attention, but he or she blanked my post without comment, showing no interest in participating in a conversation, and then restored the problem text. The user has made more than 2,000 edits since May 2012, and all of them have been in userspace. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

September 1, 2013

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Young Mafia MG
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was blank and soft-block the account as a role account. Its only edits were an attempt in February, foiled by the edit filter, to insert a puff piece about YM Music Group: "the sky is the limit for the success of this record label", etc. JohnCD (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Young Mafia MG

User talk:Young Mafia MG (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE. Magioladitis (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Microsoft Word
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was archive to Wikipedia:Historical archive (non-admin closure). equazcion� | 20:03, 8 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Microsoft Word

Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Microsoft Word (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Old, unmaintained, missing images, and probably not something we want to encourage. Word is hardly the best option when there are free (gratis and libre) alternatives such as Inkscape available, which can produce much better results and in the superior SVG format.

See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with OpenOffice.org Writer and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with OpenOffice.org Draw which both resulted in deletion. the wub "?!" 17:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. This was a draft used in 2005 in working on the mainspace article. JohnCD (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Minister of War/Scanian War

User:The Minister of War/Scanian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT since 2005. Magioladitis (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's any existing article (I'm not able to comment on the quality of the article).--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sopo lomidze
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G12. Cymru.lass is quite correct: absence of a copyright notice means nothing, material must be assumed to be copyrighted unless explicitly stated to be PD or released under a CC-BY-SA-compatible license JohnCD (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sopo lomidze

User:Sopo lomidze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Cut&paste from http://rihannadaily.com/rihanna/biography/. Cannot tell if it is a copyvio as the original page has no notices of any kind. Most certainly isn't proper use of a user page, and would not be useful in improving the existing Rihanna article. (URL nowikied due to blacklisting.) | Uncle Milty | talk | 14:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 31, 2013

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Giorgos Kolliopoulos
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was deleted by DeltaQuad. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Giorgos Kolliopoulos

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Giorgos Kolliopoulos (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

non-notable, staledraft [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 15:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 30, 2013

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wesboyz

User:Wesboyz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Fake article in user space. Similar article deleted in May of this year. | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The page was created 30 August 2013‎, so it is not so stale. However, it lacks proper attribution and the topic of the page, WesBoyz, appears to be about the Wikipedia user, User:Wesboyz. Given the limited Wikipedia posts by User:Wesboyz[4] and the details of the page, the page is used for blatant self-promotion, which is not permitted per WP:UPYES. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon (2nd nomination)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep. The consensus is clear—the page should be kept. It was already mentioned that "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines [WP:USERBIO] to regular participants.", which appears to apply here. Ruslik_Zero 19:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon

User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per WP:USERBIO, this much information on the user in question as an individual is unnecessary and not pertinent to the development of an encyclopedia. I see detailed information on poker stats (!), martial arts interests, academics, and family life, all of which is presented a pseudo-Wikipedia tone. Aside from this, there is also an issue of promotional language, such as "prominent Chicago martial artist", "standout collegiate powerlifter", and "The Greatest Poker Tournament Player on The Fool" (emphasis mine). This was originally created as an article (perhaps for promotional purposes), then userfied when no reliable sources came up. In user space it continued to grow (almost 900 edits from user), and then the previous MFD two years ago closed as no consensus. I think it's high time we stopped providing free, prominent web space (first hit in Google for Antonio Vernon), as required by policy.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Utter self-promotion, violates the fact that we're not a free web host, imitates an article, and contrary to WP:UP the pages does not assist in either communication or the building of the encyclopedia ES&L 13:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a harmless bit of fun in userspace. Having something like this for someone who is only or mainly contributing to this is symptomatic of deeper problems of being not here to build an encyclopedia. Tony is committed to the encyclopedia. Let him have his over-the-top vanity page in userspace. You know, for fun. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Martijn. Tony can be frustrating (indeed, I rediscovered that again yesterday, which is how I noticed this), but that's no reason to kick someone when they're down (Not saying that was the intention, Crisco, just that it is the effect). This page, in its current incarnation, is harmless, and a reasonable amount of leeway to give to someone who does a lot of work here. Throw a NOINDEX on it and leave it alone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He fails notablilty. We've deleted other userpage bios for the same thing. And we're not kicking him when he's down. He got himself blocked, with only himself to blame (I've been blocked enough times to know that  :) )  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When you are in the midst of a major dispute with someone, MfDing a page in that person's userspace seems rather spiteful. Drop the stick, Crisco. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Does no harm. And it's not like we're talking about an editor whose only edits are on his user page. Garion96 (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, oh please, keep! This should be a TFA. I suggest September 31st. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... at AFD, such votes as the two above would immediately be linked to various essays about actually citing policies and guidelines in their keep votes. I do appreciate the sarcasm, though, Turkey. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three blocks, 127562 mainspace contributions. 89734 tamplate space contributions. User:TonyTheTiger leads with a page full of abbreviated Wikipedia awards. User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio_Vernon#Poker describes his dominant non-Wikipedia hobby, is well below the fold, the page contains few external links, as far as I read, it is not promoting to sell anything or advocate any cause. Userspace self-expression has always been judged in relation to productive contributions. The ratio here is fine. The precedent to avoid is allowing MfD to be used in user battlefield games. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No harm done.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting information about one of our very most talented and productive editors. Even adding a no index seems a net negative - unless Tony adds it himself, doing so may come across as spiteful and discourage Tony from further contributions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Falls under: "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants." With that construction in mind, the claim of "inappropriate" seems unfounded. There is nothing that is inappropriate there - is there an autobiography ever written that did not have a bit of puffery? The claim of excessive may have more purchase but, on the other hand, people are always asking, 'who is an editor' so whatever excessiveness there is outweighed by tolerance for such information, at least for information about an extensive contributer. Some users seek to tell their whole life in userpage infoboxes, about the most prosaic things -- so, this is prose, instead -- it says: "This is a userspace page not an article" and if you look at the page beginning at the top - it does not look like a wikipedia article with all those symbols. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and trout Crisco_1492 for trying to kick an editor while he is down. Xrt6L (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is clearly a userpage, and giving information about yourself is what user pages are for. User has How Many featured articles? How Many good articles? Lordy. I'd be proud to have a tenth of that. Looks like Tony is an outstanding contributor to the Wikipedia - clearly he's not just using us for promotion, he gives a lot here. Trout nominator for taking a conflict in another area and making it into a personal war. Crisco, let it slide. --GRuban (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you really not read WP:USERBIO? Or do you have a definition of "short" which is irreconcilable with the dictionary? I have said it before, and I'll say it again (although I am no longer naive enough to think people will believe me... so much for AGF): I would have nominated something like this for deletion if I had seen it in any user's userspace. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP guidelines aren't black and white, written policies sometimes lag behind actual practice. In any event, as indicated by the portion of the policy Alanscottwalker posted, regular contributors commonly get wide latitude on their user pages. It's folks that fill up user pages without contributing to the encyclopedia, or post disruptive stuff, that get sanctioned. NE Ent 23:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cris, we are so not a game of Nomic. We are a volunteer encyclopedia. Really we are. All our rules are here to make it possible to write the world's best open content encyclopedia. The rule you are waving around like a flag isn't there for itself, it's there because we don't want people to spend all their time editing their user pages, that's just a drain on the foundation's resources for no benefit - we are not Facebook. But clearly Tony is not spending all his time editing his user page - he's churning out Good Articles and Featured Articles like they were going out of style. If, in exchange for all those FAs and GAs, he gets some joy out of writing up one page of his own bio with a few photos and wikilinks, then bless him! Look, in the end it's simple. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Making his userpage look cool is allowing Tony to improve the Wikipedia, quite a bit. It is not getting in anyone's way, and preventing anyone else from improving or maintaining the Wikipedia - except, by a complete coincidence, when someone is annoyed with Tony for a completely different reason. I'm not making any judgments on that fight, by the way, from what I read there are plenty of people ticked at Tony for playing with awards. Fine, argue with him over that, I can see that possibly being an issue. But not this. This is just an innocuous user page, that gives Tony pleasure, and does no one harm ... no one who isn't disrupting the Wikipedia to make a point, that is. Cut it out. Stop using the letter rules to beat people about the head with, and start using their spirit, which to go and write an encyclopedia. I know you can do it, according to your user page, you made 25 DYKs and 73 GAs yourself, didn't you? Then you're also a valuable contributor, and I thank you for it. But this nomination is beneath you. Please, get over it. Good luck. --GRuban (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "25 DYKs" - Might want to check your tallies again. It's short by an order of magnitude. I also find it exceedingly odd how you mention Tony's featured content and not mine (particularly as that seems to be the core part of your argument: Tony writes a lot, so it must be okay). Not going to ABF here, but I will note that just because someone does not post 50x stars on the top of their user page does not mean they do not take pride in their writing. "Go and write an encyclopedia" - While this MFD's been open I've been contributing to one future GA and (just before it) I wrote another GA.
Again, please give a policy- or guideline-based reason for your argument (or at least make explicit what this "spirit" is that you refer to; I've always read the spirit as "don't advertise yourself or swamp your user space with information nobody but you cares about and is not related to Wikipedia). "Does no harm" is certainly not such an argument, and "because it makes Tony happy" is certainly not something we want to fall back on (if a prolific editor were to go on spurts of vandalism every couple months in a drunken stupor, he or she would be blocked for at least a little while, even if the vandalism made him or her happy and willing to contribute further). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph 1: You are an even more truly wonderful contributor then. Thanks for your help. Millions of readers appreciate it. I was not implying you weren't writing an encyclopedia, merely that Tony's user page was one of the ways that he was doing so, and it wasn't getting in anyone else's way. Paragraph 2: My policy justification is linked and explained above. It's pretty simple. "Does no harm, and makes one or more productive Wikipedians more productive" is a fine justification; it justifies everything from User:Jimbo Wales/WikiProject Wikipedians for Jimbo's beard to User:Bishonen's dozen sockpuppets, and it can justify this. --GRuban (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph one: Fair enough, I was just curious about the different fields compared. Paragraph two: I can see such a rationale for a reasonably short (further down the page I said 1000 words, which is [I think] quite ample [this version has nearly 3000 words, longer than many featured articles]), neutral description in user space (preferably one which does not go against WP:FAKEARTICLE), and if Tony restructures this page as such I will gladly change my !vote from delete to keep. However, the sheer level of detail and semi-promotional language is currently preventing me from reaching a compromise (IAR is, after all, not a "do whatever free" card). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was going to close per Snow, but, per Crisco's 22:58, 2 September 2013 post, Crisco seems to still believe that the MfD listing has merit. If User:TonyTheTiger were listed at MfD, I would be inclined to iVote trim to below 20,000 bytes, for example, since it takes a while for User:TonyTheTiger to load on my computer, which discourages me (and probably others) from looking at the User:TonyTheTiger page. If User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio_Vernon#Poker were listed at MfD, I would iVote trim down to two paragraphs, for example, since it current length and details discourages people from reading it and seems to lean towards Tony using user space for excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia. Tony, please consider trimming your Poker subsection. Perhaps you can add the entire poker subsection to a sub-user page and create a summary for your user page with a link to your sub-user page for editors who want to read the fine details. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Doesn't seem unacceptable to me. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can you imagine if a new user pulled something like this? We'd crucify him. If consensus is that self-promotional WP:FAKEARTICLEs or WP:USERBIOs are ok if we like you or if you've been around long enough, perhaps we need to update those pages. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Admittedly I've always thought the page makes Tony come across as an A-grade douchebag and excessively vain and trophy-oriented, but Tony has a right in my opinion to do what he likes with his user space. Technically it does fail WP:USERBIO as Crisco says, but just because somebody wrote it, doesn't mean I agree with it. Highly prolific editors here I think should at least have the right to put whatever they want in their user space provided that it isn't offensive or contentious material.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors have made comments to the same effect, so I apologize if it feels like I'm picking on you, but you're really ok with that? All editors are equal, but some editors are more equal than others? I know we're not a democracy, but shouldn't the policies and guidelines apply to us all equally? --BDD (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I explain on my user page I don't agree with treating everything as a rigid policy and rule citing. I think common sense is the most important thing we have to rely on. My personal feeling is that yes the vanity page is unnecessary and not constructive to building an encyclopedia and I couldn't really care less if it was deleted or kept myself as it doesn't affect me, but I think for anybody who has put as much work into wikipedia as Tony they're allowed a little "playtime" on here, in fact I think anybody who contributes to the encyclopedia should feel free to do what they want in their user space, so you're wrong that I think he should be given special treatment. I once had a gallery page of beautiful women which was deleted and I really thought it was harmless. Tony obviously thinks it is cool to have a article imitation on him in his user space, and if he's happy with it I don't know why it is any of our business as it doesn't affect the encyclopedia mainspace. As I say, it isn't offensive or contentious, I think it's his right to do what he wants in his user space.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond as one of the "other editors". For me it's because it is within the spirit of the rule, whether or not it is within the letter. I am absolutely not OK with, for one example, people thinking that prolific contributions entitle them to be rude to others; because that actively hinders the others from improving the Wikipedia. But in this case, no one is hindered from contributing. The page is not harmful to our goals in itself. The "we are not Facebook" rule for not overdoing personal pages is there because that is not what our resources are best used for; we are not a free web host, we have a specific purpose, writing an encyclopedia. But in this case, from the depth and breadth of his other contributions, it's clear that Tony is not using us as a free web host. So the question has to be asked, in what way is his page harmful? Perhaps Jreferee's point that it is slow to load; but even Jreferee is arguing to keep. There are plenty of rules that have common sense exceptions like that - you can't have alternate identities except in these cases; you can't use open proxies except in these other cases. We are not a bureaucracy means just that; not that some people are more equal than others but that our rules exist for a reason, not just to be enforced blindly. The rules are only there to help build the encyclopedia. Where they don't help, they don't exist. --GRuban (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed completely on all points.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we really say "it's clear that Tony is not using us as a free web host"? It's clear that he isn't only on Wikipedia for that purpose, but I think when you look at this autobiography, especially the poker details, it's quite clear that he is (also) using Wikipedia as a free web host. I appreciate the distinction you're drawing between a prominent editor being entitled to be rude versus this sort of behavior. I also appreciate that rules have exceptions, but is this really an exception worth making? What benefit does this grant (I could point out the benefits of exceptions to alternate identities and open proxies)? How many GAs, edits, or whatever, does an editor need before he or she can write a WP:FAKEARTICLE autobiography? Are you comfortable with the precedent we're setting here? --BDD (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not mind if Tony were to trim this page to reasonable lengths (maximum 1000 words or so, methinks) and remove promotional language, and would gladly withdraw if such an act were undertaken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree on both points. The way I see it though is all of us are motivated by something on here for whatever reason, and this might just be Tony's motivator having a vanity page, so if it helps him produce content and make wikipedia more enjoyable for him, fair enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vote is currently ~ 15-3 keep -- do you (Crisco) actually think it's going to close as anything other than keep? You should have gotten a pretty strong indication that this is not a dispute to keep pursuing? NE Ent 02:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are under the impression that XfD is a vote, then I suggest you reread the proper pages. Most of the !votes above are not based in policy/guidelines, and several of the keep !votes do advocate trimming. Such a closure would be perfectly serviceable, and perhaps better than outright deletion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are under the impression that any discussion is on this site is anything but a vote, you're only fooling yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Says the editor with no policy-based argument. I'm sorry, but in a discussion with 8 keeps and 4 deletes, if the keeps are just "what a hot chick" and the deletes are based in policy, the deletes should have it. I'd take any closure otherwise to REFUND. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I certainly have a policy-based argument; WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:IAR, and WP:HARASS, for starters. But it wouldn't matter if my argument was policy-based, nor would it matter which side of the debate I was on. Discussions on this site are closed based on numbers; if you take it to REFUND, the numbers will again be against you, and all you will have done is wasted more time. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I'm sorry, but in a discussion with 8 keeps and 4 deletes, if the keeps are just "what a hot chick" and the deletes are based in policy, the deletes should have it. I'd take any closure otherwise to REFUND." - Erm, I must say I have a bit more faith in Wikipedia than you. A closure of keep would be a travesty. As for "policy": commonsense is an essay, IAR is certainly not a get out of policy/guidelines free card (and you'd have to argue how this helps Wikipedia), and WP:HARASS just shows that you are WP:ABFing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"A closure of keep would be a travesty"? If only those Syrian children knew how good they had it; they could have to deal with real problems like Wikipedians with user pages they don't like. At least you'll have your faith in Wikipedia to help you through this impending travesty. Good luck! Joefromrandb (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well I wasn't comparing the two. I was illustrating your ridiculous use of the word "travesty" by pointing out an actual travesty. Yes it does speak more to my position than it does yours, and my position is that you're being pedantic and disruptive. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow the link below. I fail to see what is farcical about the deaths of more than 1,300 civilians. That is a tragedy, not a travesty. That your argument is built on false premises and understandings is self-evident. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, useful link. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:K.dayan/Criteo
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:K.dayan/Criteo

User:K.dayan/Criteo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT with promotional tone, on a topic already covered by Criteo article —rybec 04:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cavenoid/sandbox

User:Cavenoid/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a place for something you made up one day. Orange Mike | Talk 00:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jitendra Nath Ray

User:Jitendra Nath Ray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Userspace is being used as a copy of the (AFD-ed) article they have created. Tito☸Dutta 00:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The page was created 7 April 2013‎, and essentially has not been edited since then. Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT. Also, the topic of the page, Jitendra Nath Ray, appears to be about the Wikipedia user Jitendra Nath Ray. Given the limited Wikipedia posts by Jitendra Nath Ray[5] and the details of the page, the page is used for blatant self-promotion, which is not permitted per WP:UPYES. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 29, 2013

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Leila2002/sandbox
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leila2002/sandbox

User:Leila2002/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

promotional/advertising, WP:STALEDRAFT [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 23:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 28, 2013

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Videoprodution

User:Videoprodution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Google translate reveals that this page is nothing more than a self-promoting resume. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Regular show 16
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Regular show 16

User:Regular show 16 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Also nominating:

User created these pages just over a month ago and has not edited since. Normally I would give more leeway for userspace drafts, but in this case the username, lack of prior or subsequent editing, and fact that the content is a Spanish version of List of Regular Show episodes suggests these were a botched effort to create a Spanish version of that page. RL0919 (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Please note, that this was the wrong venue; dab discussions take place at WP:AFD. I suspect, however, that consensus would have been the same there. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Master da (disambiguation)

Master da (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If we have Master (of) as a dismabiguation we may as well have other similar things. This is not, nor can not be a disambiguation page. It is not an entry point into the encyclopaedia, nor is there any confusion between the supposed elements that the set is composed of. Fiddle Faddle 08:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete : but consider making Master da as a redirect to Surya Sen - Rahat | ✉ 16:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, redirects now exist from Master(space/nothing/hyphen)D/da ! PamD 18:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And all because I spotted a dab page in the list at Category:Stubs while stub-sorting! PamD 18:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 27, 2013

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Dos y Dos (2nd nomination)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Move to Dos y Dos per consensus, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Dos y Dos

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Dos y Dos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another item that followed the "wrong path" to incubation. Unless I have missed something this never was a mainspace article, it was moved from userspace to the incubator in 2010. There it sat until it was deleted as a result of an admittedly low-participation MFD a few months ago. then it was recreated a month ago per request of a user. I would argue that an item with this sort of history should only be recreated in the incubator if there is a reasonable chance it can be moved to mainspace and become a "real" article. And at a glance this almost looks like it could, until one sees all the "citation needed" tags and what do not look to my eye like independent reliable sources in the ref section. I therefore suggest this be deleted outright or, failing that, moved to mainspace. The incubator is not supposed to be used for indefinite storage yet this has been a draft in one place or another for nearly four years. While there is no deadline I feel it is time for this to either become an article or be removed from Wikipedia altogether. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Transatlantic Coffee

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Transatlantic Coffee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was moved into the incubator after an AFD over a year ago and has had no substantive edits in that time. the purpose of the incubator is to work on articles of marginal notability, not store them indefinitely, and since the film was released in 2011 it is highly unlikely it is suddenly going to become more notable at some point in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The standard to apply at MfD for pages listed at Article Incubator is that they 1. continue to be 2. collaboratively edited 3. towards "graduating" to mainspace. WP:ATD-I. Failing any of these is reason to MfD delete a page listed at Article Incubator. The first day for the page at Article Incubator was 26 July 2012. Since that date, there has been no continued editing, any editing made was not collaborative, and any editing made was not sufficiently towards graduating the page to mainspace. Beeblebrox time element -- not store indefinitely-- is another standard to apply at MfD towards pages at Article Incubator. Since a purpose to list articles at the incubator instead of moving them to user space is to "these proto-articles easier to find and edit" WP:ATD-I, the time element is shorter for pages at incubator than the WP:STALEDRAFT time used at MfD for user pages. A year is well past the long-term archival purpose of maintaining the page at Article Incubator. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hemlock Martinis/Kingdom of Wikipedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hemlock Martinis/Kingdom of Wikipedia

User:Hemlock Martinis/Kingdom of Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Funny, but Wikipedia userspace is not for permanent storage of joke articles. User has not edited in a while. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jan Badenhorst

User:Jan Badenhorst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Same text as Jan Badenhorst ostensibly created by User:Gavin Ayres who happens to be a staff recruiting agent for Badenhorst's university. WP:FAKEARTICLE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The page was created 12 August 2013‎, so the draft is not so stale. However, the topic of the page, Jan Liebrecht Badenhorst, appears to be about the Wikipedia user Jan Badenhorst. Given the limited posts of Jan Badenhorst[7] and the details of the page, the page is used for blatant self-promotion, which is not permitted per WP:UPYES. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GVWilson/Depleted uranium (new refs)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:GVWilson/Depleted uranium (new refs)

User:GVWilson/Depleted uranium (new refs) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Seems to have been created as a pov-fork of Depleted uranium in 2006, was moved into userspace, and untouched ever since. Creator is indefinitely blocked as a sock (although the situation might not be clear-cut enough for a CSD). Still resembles a WP:FAKEARTICLE. bobrayner (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STALEDRAFT alone is not a sufficient reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 25, 2013

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Narmada Ahuja

User:Narmada Ahuja (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Solely used for self-promotion or social-networking. At best, this is a userspace draft of a SPI user (mainspace article was deleted in February; the user commented "this is my official wikipedia page for my fans and public"). DMacks (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a WP:FAKEARTICLE. Although user space drafts for a mainspace article are acceptable, it not clear that "Narmada Ahuja" will meet inclusion criteria any time soon, and user space should not be an indefinite holding pen. -- Whpq (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Old business

August 24, 2013

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fsfishnchips/PCN Technology
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fsfishnchips/PCN Technology

User:Fsfishnchips/PCN Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

unsourced, promotional WP:STALEDRAFT by author who has not edited in nearly four years —rybec 19:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Heart of Nowhere

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Heart of Nowhere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The album has now been released and we have an article about it that doesn't appear to have used this as a starting point. It is therefore redundant. Michig (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- I agree that it is redundant. The mainspace article hasn't been merged from this one, so attribution is not an issue, and there no content that could be merged. Reyk YO! 03:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Addiction (short film)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Addiction (short film)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Addiction (short film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This hasn't been touched since it was incubated at the start of May. I left a message on the talk page and on the article creator's talk page to see if there was still interest in improving it but without response. It hasn't got any more notable since its brief release. There seems no likelihood that this will ever be suitable for a return to mainspace and as it stands contains not even a claim of significance. Michig (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 22, 2013

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Garry Leech
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Garry Leech

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Garry Leech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't believe it is a good idea for biographies of living persons to languish in the incubator for long periods of time. After ten months of "incubation" this should either be ready to be moved back to mainspace or it should be deleted altogether. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was moved to mainspace by Technical 13. --BDD (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Elena Siegman

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Elena Siegman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a biography of a living person which was moved to the incubator in November 2011. It has been edited since then but is apparently still found to be unsuitable for mainspace according to the discussion a user had with themselves on the talk page. Incubation is not for permanent storage of material the community has rejected, especially BLP articles, so I suggest this stale draft be deleted if the subject still does not meet the notability guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/TRICENTIS Technology & Consulting
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was deleted by the Silence. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/TRICENTIS Technology & Consulting

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/TRICENTIS Technology & Consulting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was moved here after an AFD in 2011. There was a discussion on the talk page regarding moving it back but unfortunately it was just one user discussing the matter with themselves and the admin who incubated it declined to move it back, ( see its talk page for links to that discussion) so it seems we need a broader discussion to find a consensus on whether to move this back to mainspace or delete it, keeping it in the incubator after so much time is not really a reasonable option as it is not supposed to be used to indefinitely store articles the community has rejected. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SILENCE. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/List of female video game characters by role
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 18:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/List of female video game characters by role

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/List of female video game characters by role (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This used to be a mainspace article, it underwent an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female video game characters by role which was closed with a consensus to delete, but somehow it wound up being incubated instead. That was eight months ago. There has been some work done on it relatively recently, but it does not seem to have overcome the issues that led to the decision to delete and Another AFD is pretty much certain if it were moved back, so it should probably just be deleted. Many commenters at the AFD felt it would be better as a category and I am strongly inclined to agree with that perspective. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. That's stuff for Giant Bomb[9][10] (oh god, "popular empowered female video game protagonist who was not controversial due to an unrealistically sexualized design", SJ idiots run this place) and Moby Games[11]. --Niemti (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Invalid delete. It was deleted by Black Kite because he said "article as existing is redundant to a category". You can't delete a list just because you prefer categories. Most of those listed have their own articles. This is more useful than a category since more information is presented, and easier to compare entries. Dream Focus 20:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The idea that categories are superior and so supersede lists is explicitly refuted by WP:CLN. The recent case of the category:American novelists showed that categories are actually quite dysfunctional. The page in question just needs work as there is no difficulty finding sources such as Women in Science Fiction which explicitly list notable female video game characters. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN and should be moved back to mainspace. Warden (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just like to point out two things: First, this is not DRV, we are not here to discuss whether the original closing was proper or not. Secondly, when saying "keep" are you two saying keep as in keep it in the incubator indefinitely or keep as in move it back to article space? Although I personally favor deletion, moving it back to article space seems preferable to indefinitely storing content where our readers are unlikely to even see it. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposition we are discussing is whether to use the delete function. By !voting Keep, I indicate that the delete function should not be used. What happens after that is a matter of ordinary editing. Warden (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would agree entirely with that statement, but it seems the internal processes of the incubator are not functioning as intended and there is insufficient participation there for consensus-based decision making within the incubator framework. Most discussions on incubated article talk pages involve only a single user, in this case the item doesn't even have a talk page despite being incubated for three-quarters of the past year. MFD seems the only remaining option for finding consensus on what to do with these items. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your other incubator MFD nominations haven't attracted any comment and so MFD seems to suffer from a lack of participation too. Now that Wikipedia has millions of articles and most of them are of little interest to anyone, these processes are too dull to work well with volunteer effort. It seems more sensible to let sleeping dogs lie. Warden (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ATD-I since no continuous collaborative editing to the page since the 6 January 2013 close of the AfD. There's no showing that the material has been used in some way as required by the close of the AfD as a condition to userify the page. The AfD close noted that it was a pretty clear consensus to delete. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The original AfD decision was quite correct—the "by role" qualifier made this an awkward piece of WP:OR. Certainly there is enough coverage in reliable sources for a discussion female video game characters, probably even a standalone list, but better that we just start over on that. --BDD (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 20, 2013

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harounabuarrah

User:Harounabuarrah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Userspace page matches content of a page in the article namespace that was deleted[12] a week or so ago. Notice was posted on the user's talk page at that time that their user page is not supposed to be used as a promotional venue. The user appears to be the media manager for Haroun Abu arrah according to the deletion discussions for the article of that name. Zell Faze (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 18, 2013

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Warisali007
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Warisali007

User:Warisali007 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User page duplicate of Salman Khan with some details changed or added. Inappropriate use of user page, and violation of WP:BLP. | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see the BLP violation. Possibly, this is a new editor sand boxing edits that he can't make in mainspace as the article is semi protected. If so, it should be moved to a user subpage. Copying content for a short time for some purpose is OK. There should have been some attempt to discuss before making this MfD listing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Might be, except that the user's first edits were to create an autobiographical infobox with an off-wiki photo, and when that didn't work the user appropriated an existing BLP article and changed the personal details to their own. Also added at that diff were an added external link to the user's personal web page (with CV, etc.) and a spam link in a ref. The representation of the photo of Salman Khan as being of the user and the addition of false data to a user page fork of an existing BLP constitute what I believe to be a BLP violation. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Delete due to being misleading. Involving living people makes it worse, but being misleading is enough to see it deleted. Noting also that the user hasn't edited since making this on the 18th August 2013. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 17, 2013

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Madhesh/Comments

Talk:Madhesh/Comments (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Uneeded comment that provides no benefit to the article. Additionally, comments subpages were deprecated several years ago. Kumioko (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:List of expressions related to death/Comments
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete and copied to here. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of expressions related to death/Comments (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Uneeded comment that provides no benefit to the article. Additionally, comments subpages were deprecated several years ago. Kumioko (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:6533 Giuseppina/Comments
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete with comment copied to here. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:6533 Giuseppina/Comments

Talk:6533 Giuseppina/Comments (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Uneeded comment that provides no benefit to the article. The article is clearly a stub. Additionally, comments subpages were deprecated several years ago. Kumioko (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was keep. If it gets abandoned, WP:CSD#G13 will take care of it. JohnCD (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Smith Curry

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Smith Curry (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Thrice-declined AFC. Google gives false positives as early as the first page, and the only source is a directory listing on Allmusic. No way does this pass muster. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 18:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roballyn/Roud

User:Roballyn/Roud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused draft. User has not edited since December 2006 and does not appear to be returning to this. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - From the page description, the page does not appear to be a draft. It looks like Roballyn put some effort into coordinating the Roud numbers with Wikipedia articles and the list can be used to keep track of Wikipedia article creation of Roud Folk Songs based on the Roud Folk Songs index. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jreferee. This may be useful for other users as a tracking page. Either leave it where it is, or move it to projectspace for whatever wikiproject deals with folk songs. Nyttend (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Federal Bureau of Investigation/Comments
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete and text copied to Talk:Federal Bureau of Investigation/Archive 2[13]. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Federal Bureau of Investigation/Comments

Talk:Federal Bureau of Investigation/Comments (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Uneeded and unencyclopedic comment from 2007. Kumioko (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Meaningless rants Cambalachero (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would it hurt to copy it into the talk page? It looks like it belongs there, and is in a subpage because a newbie thought that was the process. No, it isn't much of a comment, but if just deleted, it would be hard to find if it were ever relevant, but on the talk page and archived, it would be searchable. Then I'd be fine with deletion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No that would be fine but if we do I think we should do a histmerge with the edit history so its all in one place. I would do it myself but I don't have the tools. But if someone with access wants to do that its fine with me. Kumioko (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why bother? This comment was made 6 years ago, by a user whose single edit was this comment. He's not around to notice any reply that may be made (if there's something to reply at all, as said, the text seems meaningless) Cambalachero (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 15, 2013

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bypassing TPG Internet's open intercepting proxies
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bypassing TPG Internet's open intercepting proxies

Wikipedia:Bypassing TPG Internet's open intercepting proxies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page appears to be outdated. I couldn't find much information, but it looks like TPG Internet no longer uses such proxies since 2008 [14] the wub "?!" 22:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Siavash.w/Books/a

User:Siavash.w/Books/a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

user has done no article editing, only worked on these lists in 2009. i think having user books not used by the user themself, and with no hope of becoming useful wikibooks, should probably be deleted. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per WP:USERPAGE. The template on the page Template:Saved book, states that Siavash.w's user book is a "user-generated collection of Wikipedia articles that can be easily saved, rendered electronically, and ordered as a printed book." It has been four years since any evidence of Siavash.w using the page in the way noted by Template:Saved book. Also, it merely is a personal list of books that begin with "A" and user has done no article editing, so there is no evidence that the list is related to Siavash.w's Wikipedia activity. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 14, 2013

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thobiah/Survivor

User:Thobiah/Survivor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a web host for online fake reality game shows. Although this page has been blanked, it is still being used as a repository via its history as shown from User:Thobiah/sandbox linking to various historical versions like this link. The editor has previously been warned about using wikipedia as a web host but appears not to have followed through on refraining from such usage. Whpq (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amend - I got the sandbox and survivor subpages mixed up. However, given the history linking within the sandbox (see link in original nomination), and the expressed desire to keep the blanked sandbox in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thobiah/sandbox, I suspect that the material is still being used as a webhost but linked via URLs to versions in the history. In other words, the blanking is just for show. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thobiah/sandbox
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. BencherliteTalk 21:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thobiah/sandbox

User:Thobiah/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a web host for online fake reality game shows. Whpq (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all its content, and I will not continue adding anything more on there. Please leave the pages be though. Thobiah (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to believe that you will not continue to use Wikipedia as a web host given that in January 2010 you stated " I'll have to try and find a free wiki." in the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thobiah/TAR. You then created User:Thobiah/Survivor in October 2010. You were notified about it being inappropriate and warned not to do it again in June/July of 2011 by Gogo Dodo. Yet in page User:Thobiah/tärning, you continued to edit in August 2011, and your sandbox has been in continual use as a web host since those warnings as shown through its history. As for blanking the page but leaving it here, it seems that your intent is to continue to make use of the blanked page's history as a substitute web host. As seen in the pre-blanking version of the sandbox, there are many links that refer back to versions in the history for content. There are a variety of free web hosts out there including free wikis. I suggest you copy your material there rather than relying on the history of blanked subpages to host your personal content. -- Whpq (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 13, 2013

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

The result of the discussion was Delete -- Jreferee (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Florencia Habif

User:Florencia Habif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Maparfitt/Laurito article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLEs duplicate to Florencia Habif. BDD (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Jreferee (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject British Counties

Wikipedia:WikiProject British Counties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pushing a PoV; redundant to the more neutral Wikiproject UK Geography. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 12, 2013

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adam mugliston/List of bus routes in Clacton-on-Sea
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete mainly per NOTHOST (in userspace) and NOTDIR (as to the prospects of this in mainspace). I will happy email the content of the deleted page to Adam mugliston on request. BencherliteTalk 21:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adam mugliston/List of bus routes in Clacton-on-Sea

User:Adam mugliston/List of bus routes in Clacton-on-Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since Lists of bus routes in "X" have been deemed uncyclopedic, Having these stored is now pointless -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this was intended to be a reply to my !vote. If it was, it is Wikipedia's policy to not keep content unrelated to building an encyclopedia. (see WP:NOTWEBHOST.) I understand from the nominator there is a consensus this type of list could not be developed into an article, and thus the page would be reference material unrelated to Wikipedia. OSborn arfcontribs. 23:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at Buses in Ipswich. It is an example of what could be done to it with encyclopaedic value.  Adam Mugliston  talk  18:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this list expanding to an article like that, in a way that really relies on the list as a base. It seems to me that this information, if needed by an article, could be retrieved from the appropriate primary source. OSborn arfcontribs. 03:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument that something in userspace should be deleted because its not encyclopedic is really not a valid reason either. There is nothing, not a single thing in the entire userspace that is encyclopedic. That's part of the reason why we have a separate namespace for it. If we deleted things from userspace on these grounds we would need to delete the entire namespace. Kumioko (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, sorry wrong again. Userpages are not encyclopedic, the subpages for awards, quips, edit counts, etc. Not even the sandboxes generally are encyclopedic. I have a dozen pages I haven't touched in months or years. Kumioko (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO they are (minus awards, etc), Also WP:WEBHOST states Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia - Adam's not using nor updating - Just storing.
I think it's fair to say tho we both disagree on this & we both should probably just move on
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to make my position clear, editors are granted considerable leeway to incubate articles in their own userspace; so long as they remain active there's an expectation that they could return to it and perhaps move the material (in one form or another) into the article space. Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, but the problem is that once he moves this article to the mainspace, it'd be nominated for deletion on the spot due to the consensus gained by previous discussions. This is why these lists don't belong anywhere. TCN7JM 00:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This copy of a deleted article has been sitting here unedited for over two years. Per WP:Userpage "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion."--Charles (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:UPYES. [...] other legitimate uses of user space include (but are not limited to): [...] Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future [...] It's not a fake article and isn't indexed by search engines, so there doesn't seem to be any real harm there. While WP:NOTDIR indicates that such a collection of material is unlikely to be directly encyclopedic in that format, the information could still potentially inform encyclopedic research/writing, e.g. imagine additional columns for start/end date, notable changes to routes, etc. There's possibly an argument for a move to project space, but deletion seems unwarranted. -- Trevj (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- If he's not worked on it for 2 Years then it's not material being worked on is it ....
Also plead read WP:NOTHOST (as stated above!).→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be AfD'd instantly if returned to project space. If it was desired to write a secondary sourced article about buses in Clacton it would be better to start from scratch as this material would be removed per consensus anyway. WP:UPNOT is very clear that copies of deleted articles and stale drafts should be deleted.--Charles (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we assume good faith, a stale draft may be useful by the creator at some point in time. WP:STALEDRAFT states [...] should not be used to indefinitely host pages [...] Short-term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template {{userspace draft}} can be added to the top of the page to identify these). There is no deadline, and users should be permitted to store useful material as they wish within userspace. It's not important that more than 2 years have passed since the page was last edited, and this does not equate to indefinite hosting. I myself have a considerable quantity of userspace material and drafts which I'll deal with eventually, e.g. Now the Chips are Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was only moved to mainspace more than a year after initial drafting (I normally copy/paste content from userspace directly into new articles rather than preserving languishing histories, but didn't do so on this occasion). I appreciate that the content isn't comparable in this instance, but the same principles of not unnecessarily messing around with the userspace of others should apply. -- Trevj (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well if I hadn't nominated it it would've been there for infinity.Davey2010T 09:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be certain of that at this stage - however, if the creator were retired then I could see some point to this nomination. -- Trevj (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Adam stated above that the list is in his userspace for his own reference for possible future development. Adam creates bus article topic content. While the page itself could not be developed into an article, editors like Adam who have significant article space contributions can have notes related to their Wikipedia work and activities per WP:UPYES. It's not our place to judge the form of those notes. WP:STALEDRAFT does not apply to user notes so it does not matter that the page has not been edited for two years. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
possible future development .... Not guaranteed future development, While the page itself could not be developed into an article - Well you've just said it yourself they wont be used...., If Adam wanted something doing it would've been done along time ago →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 09:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I posted is that Adam is using the sub user page 'Adam mugliston/List of bus routes in Clacton-on-Sea' as permitted by WP:UPYES. It may not be in the way those proposing deletion want, e.g., develop the page into an article, but UPYES does not require him to only use his user space pages in that way. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of "user notes" would be referenced material waiting to be written up as prose. This is an unreferenced very stale draft article of a type which have all been deleted. Because this type of information changes so frequently it would all have to be redone anyway. I believe WP:UPNOT is more relevant here.--Charles (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 11, 2013

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

The result of the discussion was delete. BencherliteTalk 21:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Wikimedia Incubator

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Wikimedia Incubator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At first I halfway suspected this was a joke. In a way it is. This poor draft has been passed around like a blunt at a Snoop Dogg concert, from user space to the abandoned draft project, back to userspace, and just over a year ago came to the incubator where it has not had any substantive edits. Despite all the different users who have given it their time there is not a single reliable source attached, so it is unlikely it would make it in mainspace. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why that is not really the right answer is simple: The subject of this draft article is already that place. Entire new WMF projects are not developed on Wikipedia. Wikimedia Incubator is currently a redirect page that can help users find the information about the WMF incubator. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No way this would stand as an article. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - The last addition to the page was 10 July 2012‎. Despite being located in various spaces, only two editors have contributed to the page and their contributions have not been continuous and not based on reliable sources. The page would not stand as an article. There is no intention that the article can and will be improved, so the page fails the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Article Incubator. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Jimbo Matison
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Jimbo Matison

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Jimbo Matison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was moved to the incubator in 2010 and has had no substantive edits in the interval. Incubating clearly has not had the desired effect. Should either be moved back to mainspace or deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So...delete per WP:SILENCE? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unfettered
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. BencherliteTalk 21:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unfettered

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unfettered (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was moved into the incubator in November of last year. There have been no substantive edits in all that time, so incubation appears to have failed in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That happened in June with the release of the limited edition, you can now get it as an e-book for ten bucks [15]. It's just that, like so many other items in the incubator, once it was put there nobody ever updated it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an argument for updating and moving to mainspace and having an AfD. I doubt it's notable, but AfD would be the better place to have that discussion. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that as a suitable alternative to permanently "incubating" it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The notable discussion has already taken place. AfD1 consensus looks like delete to me due to lack of in-depth coverage in a source that is both reliable and independent. However, the AfD was closed and the page was moved to the incubator in November 2012. WP:ATD-I requires continuous collaborative editing, but Article Incubator/Unfettered has not received that since being moved from AfD to the incubator. There is no interest in updating the page. Both AfD and incubator failed to turn up enough source material for the article and the standards of AfD (lack of notability) and incubator (lack of continuous collaborative editing) both tell us that it is time to delete the page. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Bugei Ryūha Daijiten
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. The page has not been edited in any substantive way since being incubated and hasn't been improved. --> "incubation" not having the desired effect. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Bugei Ryūha Daijiten

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Bugei Ryūha Daijiten (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was created in 2007 and moved to the incubator in May after an AFD in which nobody advocated incubating... It has not been edited in any substantive way since then, so clearly "incubation" is not having the desired effect. That being the case it should either be moved back to mainspace or deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep seems to have enough sources. most people don't know about the incubator so it's no surprise no one added to it. moving to namespace will be just the thing to get eyes on the article. FishFingersCustard (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seemed to be the consensus at AfD and the article hasn't been improved. Most of the votes are for delete and the keep arguments are unsupported claims that the topic is important. Jakejr (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Ant-Man (film)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Move to mainspace. Consensus is that the topic has significant coverage per WP:GNG, even though principal photography has not yet started. The draft clearly is ready for article space. WP:NFF and a fear of deletion appears to be preventing established editors from improving Wikipedia in this case. Wikipedia rules should not work to discourage established editors from collectively working together to add notable, stand-alone content to article space. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Ant-Man (film)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Ant-Man (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an odd case. From what I can see this article was created in the incubator as opposed to being moved into it. This film seems to be in "development hell" having been in the pre-production stage for some seven years. They're planning to start casting it sometime this year. After 13 months of "incubation" we should be able to determine if this is notable enough to be moved to mainspace, or should be deleted per WP:FFILM. (and yes, I realize that is "just an essay" but it is a good guide to what kinds of unmade films we should have articles on) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Addendum: per my remarks below, I would consider merging with Ant-Man a viable alternative as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead of Wikipedia:Article Incubator: "Incubation is not designed for creating or developing new articles outside of mainspace." It is for articles that were already created and subject to a deletion discussion, as an alternative to deletion. It is not meant to be the permanent location of any content, and at the pace this film is moving it is possible it will never end up being made. It's happened before, for example the Dark Crystal sequel had a director attached in 2006, yet it was never made. This is probably a good candidate for just merging with the article on the character, it can be spun back off easily enough if and when the movie actually starts production. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not meant to be permanent, it is a temporary central location for editors to work in collaboration and nurture its development until such time it is ready for inclusion. Merging is not an effective option as it would dwarf the existing article, which is tangent to its primary scope. If this current incarnation of the film, falls through we can reevaluate it, but there's no need now as things are progressing exponentially.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Progressing exponentially? Really? They've written a script and shot some test footage. They haven't even cast it yet. The release date is basically a "best guess" at this point. I'm not saying this will never warrant an article, but keeping it in incubation for whoever many years it will take to put together something that can survive on its own is not really how we normally do things. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes really. Just read the article, things are moving faster at an increasingly greater rate. Also this has been done many times before with great success. There's no reason to delete an incubator that is as active as this one. Others I might agree with but this incubator is far from stagnant. I actually forsee this article surpassing WP:GNG before WP:NFF if things keep up like they are, if it hasn't already. Many released films are not as well covered as this one.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again with your wording Beeblebrox: "The release date is basically a "best guess" at this point." Have you not looked at the whole article and the sources and just zeroed in on the first paragraphs of the Development section? Here are four from the page discussing facets of the films increased production: solid release date, leading MCU's Phase 3, confirmation of script completion and scheduled casting start, and how the film relates to the film preceeding it, The Avengers: Age of Ultron. All of this contributes to the film no longer being in "developmental hell" and progressing. Exponentially? I don't know if that is the proper wording, but new info is coming in more frequent than before and it is moving forward to surpassing WP:GNG as noted above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Beeblebrox, you are wrong when you say that "at the pace this film is moving it is possible it will never end up being made". The film has been given a solid release date and this incubator was created when that info was released. TriiipleThreat created the incubator in July 2012 when it was announced at Comic-Con that the film would finally get a release date. As Triiiple has stated, this article is not meant to be permanent in the incubator, only to nurture the content until it has reached film page notability to be added to the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't really reasonable to tell me I'm wrong for saying there is a possibility of something. Also, just FYI, adding "strong strong" to your oppose doesn't actually strengthen your argument. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies on the double "strong". Didn't realize it happened like that, or in the edit summary either. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it is that much of a problem to have this in the incubator can we move the article and its history to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ant-Man (film)?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think leaving it in the incubator is a problem, however it may be a better compromise to move it there. Definitely don't delete it though. Angel of Mischief Talk 17:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me try, if I might, to restate my case here as I feel some of you are not quite getting it, possibly because I did not explain it well enough to begin with. I am not in any way suggesting that we should have no content on this film. What I am suggesting as that our readers are better served by having it somewhere where they can actually see it as opposed to hidden away in a dark corner like the incubator. So, from that perspective, either moving it to mainspace or merging it, even perhaps doing a WP:HISTMERGE with another article is preferable to leaving it in the incubator for another few years while we wait for the movie to actually be made. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, we understand your argument, we just don't agree with it. The main points are already included in the mainspace. We wish to continue to develop it in article form in a central neutral location with all the inherent formatting and minutiae that might not be appropriate in an article with a larger scope. Also as stated, we don't believe it will be years before the article is deemed notable for inclusion. If it comes down to that and the incubated article becomes stagnant, we can reevaluate.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Principal photography is scheduled to take place in 2014, so it will be in the Wikipedia mainspace by then per WP Film guidelines. It's not going to take "another few years".Richiekim (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If not sooner per WP:GNG.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to mainspace per Beeblebrox's argument that eyes are not on articles in the incubator. Searching for a term does not ever lead you to the incubator, the only way to get there is to try and create the article. FishFingersCustard (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with this if we agree that there is "significant coverage" per WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. However if not, the incubator should be kept. There is already information about the film in the mainspace. The point of the incubator is to develop the information in article form.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Considering the tortured development history of this project, I would rather keep this detailed history incubated until filming is confirmed to have begun per WP:NFF. It seems more likely now than before that Ant-Man will actually be filmed, but it's still not certain. As it has been said, the main points are mentioned at Ant-Man#Film. I think the level of detail is appropriate for the encyclopedia when we know we have a tangible product, the film itself, for which we will have coverage like critical reception and box office performance. Hypothetically speaking, if no film was ever produced, this would be a lot of indiscriminate detail in this form. We can wait a little longer to see if the film actually enters production, and then we can have an article for the ages. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I oppose deletion as there is sourced encyclopedic content here. I don't really understand why this could not have been developed within the Ant-man article, however. Merging there may be the best option. --Michig (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to develop the information in article form. The main points are already in the Ant-Man article, what is here is just more elaborated and includes many more superfluous details that are more appropriate for a stand-alone article. The incubator should either be kept or made into a stand-alone article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just in the time of this AfD, two more references have been added, bringing the total number independent reliable sources used in the article to 24 (there many more reliable sources re-reporting information from other sources). If kept, we will soon be discussing if the article meets the "significant coverage" requirement per WP:GNG.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That strikes me as a fine argument for moving it to mainspace, not for keeping it incubated. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lets get through this AfD first. Then we can tackle any mainspace notability concerns.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no , this is exactly the right time to discuss whether this should be moved to mainspace since that is one of the possible outcomes. If there are 24 reliable sources it doesn't seem like something that should be hidden away on the incubator, it should just be an article. I don't understand why you are so insistent that it remain incubated when it apparently doesn't need to be. The incubator is explicitly not a place to indefinitely develop articles and in fact it was neer intended to be a place to create aricles but rather a place to temporarily hold them as an alternative to deletion. Frankly it is starting to seem more like a desire to WP:OWN the content rathwr than put it out in mainspce where readers can see it and the broader community can work on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not the process to asses if an incubator is ready to graduate to the main space. That should have been done on the talk page. If you want to graduate it then fine but you did not need to nominate it for deletion first. Also I flatly refute the ownership charge and I think others might as well. From the beginning this has been a collaborative effort. We want to see the incubator graduate, which is why we work so hard on it.
Putting aside the small point that this is MFD not AFD, you seem reluctant to explain why this should not be moved to mainspace as you are supplying what appear to be procedural objections while at the same time making a good case for notability. Despite it being mentioned several times, you don't seem to get that this is actually not how the incubator is supposed to be used, things are only supposed to land in it after an AFD, not be created in it and kept there indefinitely. This has been in the incubator for over a year despite there never having been a consensus to put it there in the first place and despite the fact that it is actually a misuse of the incubator.

I have never actually said we should have no content on this film, but I do not see why a draft article with 24 sources, that you insist is only going to get more notable, cannot be moved to mainspace. Could you provide a clear, specific, non-procedural reason why keeping this in the incubator is preferable to moving to mainspace? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to graduating the incubator to a stand-alone article in the mainspace. However I do not think we should risk deleting the incubator in the process because if it is not notable now it soon will be. There was never any intent to keep this article incubated indefinitely, we have steadily worked to increase the subject's notability in article format during its time in incubation. As I mentioned before, we have graduated several articles in the same manner with great success. Incubation is a better alternative to userfication, as it is centrally located.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

August 10, 2013

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/ITablet (2nd nomination)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete, with histmerge. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/ITablet

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/ITablet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
All prior XfDs for this page:

See discussion at WT:Article Incubator/ITablet#Incubator Greenhouse discussion.  There is an interesting story here, but not the one on the Article page.  To use Wikipedia to synthesize the available sources would be WP:SYNTH.  Based on the sources now listed, a Taiwanese company registered the name in 2004 and went to being British owned, while rumors leaked that Apple had selected the name for what is now the iPad.  The article has the story of the report that a competition iPad was being released, just weeks after the release of the iPad.  The current info is that the product is a keyboard.  I looked in both Google books and on the web for a synthesis of reports about the history of the tradename.  Meanwhile, "X2 Computing" and "AMtek" are topics that appear to be under-covered in the encyclopedia.  As per Ultra-mobile PC, AMtek was the 2nd company to release a UMPC.

As a further complication, there is an existing article at Itablet, with an associated talk page.

IMO, this is one of those cases in which a double redirect is correct.  Itablet should redirect to ITablet with a {{nobots}} template, so that however ITablet is handled, Itablet will follow.

There is also an issue in that the mainspace article has been indefinitely protected.  After asking the admin, this seems to have been a misunderstanding.  The article in 2007 and that in 2010 were different, and the 3rd deletion was not done because of a re-creation.  The third deletion was done to remove an improperly attributed copy of the incubated article, which was copied to change the redirect into an article.  A redirect out of AfD is not binding, and although it may be helpful to have incubated articles protected, keeping the article protected going forward would interfere with someone wanting to edit the article.

As for this MfD, I propose that the edit history for the incubated article and the incubated talk page be history merged in mainspace at ITablet and Talk:ITablet, the redirect at ITablet be restored, both targets be marked with {{lowercase}}, protection removed, and the incubated article and talk page be deleted.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 9, 2013

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tony1/Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. There Tony1 only says, that he has nothing against the deletion of the page, but not that he doesn't want it. Therefore the move of the page in Wikipedia namespace should be discussed with him first. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I have no problem if people want to keep it—either here or moved elsewhere. I just noticed it a little while ago and thought it was just housecleaning. Tony (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tony1/Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes

User:Tony1/Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not updated since 2008. A search on WP:Updates brings you here. The author agrees with deletion Noyster (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Multi-authored resource page on Project history. Wikipedia has a daunting array of styleguides and policy pages. They come under very little central coordination and are subject to change without wide notice. This makes it hard for users to keep track of changes to rules and policies they need to be aware of, and to attain a sense of how the project is evolving. This was true then and is true today. It is particularly true for styleguides. If inaccurate it could be blanked. What it needs instead is a header asking visitors to "please update". Or is there a better page to redirect to? If Tony1 doesn't want it, move to ProjectSpace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to ProjectSpace if Tony1 does not want it. I agree with SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs)'s comments.

    The page states:

    Wikipedia has a daunting array of styleguides and policy pages. They come under very little central coordination and are subject to change without wide notice. This makes it hard for users to keep track of changes to rules and policies they need to be aware of, and to attain a sense of how the project is evolving.

    This page displays the important changes in a central location, month by month; it enables all Wikipedians to keep abreast of what is happening, quickly and conveniently.

    Contributors to styleguide and policy pages are asked to notify us of changes for each upcoming monthly summary by posting a brief note of substantive changes (with a diff) on the talk page.

    Summary updates are posted here and at the talk pages of MOS, (main page), FAC and FAR shortly after the start of each calendar month. Copy-editing and relatively trivial changes are generally not included in these summaries.

    The page contains a selected history of updates between January–July 2008 to style guides such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

    Link to discussion on Tony1's talk page where he did not oppose deletion Cunard (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

July 27, 2013

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Obtund/CVUA/AlexJFox
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep, with Delete for User:Obtund/CVUA/Zedd Milestone. If any of these pages are ever relisted at MfD, they should be listed individually and one or more reasons for deletion from Wikipedia:User pages should be used. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Obtund/CVUA/AlexJFox

User:Obtund/CVUA/AlexJFox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Subpage of a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Tricdl27 created in violation of his block. AussieLegend (✉) 18:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of other related pages that I am also nominating for the same reason:

I don't see any reason for these pages to exist. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all except the redirect one. These pages were not only created and written by the banned user in question, as they all consist of discussion between the banned user and somebody else, so G5 doesn't apply. Unless the other user named wants the pages deleted I don't see any reason to get rid of them. Hut 8.5 19:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're interpreting these terms extremely legalistically. The pages may not have been edited by people other than a banned editor, but it's clear that they contain content which was not written by a banned editor, and so the spirit of G5 would be violated if these pages were deleted under it. We don't, as a rule, delete archived discussions unless we have some compelling reason to do so, even if those discussions involved banned or blocked editors. Hut 8.5 11:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm interpreting using some common sense. These pages serve no purpose to anyone except an indefinitely blocked editor who can't use them. Anyone else mentioned on the page is unlikely to know they exist and if they wanted a copy, they can ask for a copy themselves. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of these pages consist of a discussion between a banned editor and somebody else. They aren't only of interest to the banned editor, that somebody else might be interested as well. Other editors may be interested if they want to investigate the behaviour of either party. Even if that isn't the case it isn't a valid reason to delete the page. We don't delete pages just because nobody has laid claim to them, we delete them when there is some compelling reason to do so. I'm not seeing any such reason here. Hut 8.5 17:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Samsung page was never edited by Obtund; it was copied by Dank (push to talk!) from somewhere else, where Obtund was engaging in a discussion. Others have all been edited by others, and while I don't hugely see a reason to keep them, they appear to be equal to any other talk page, so we shouldn't delete them any more than we should delete any other old discussion. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

July 25, 2013

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

The result of the discussion was delete. BencherliteTalk 21:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Winki

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Winki (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Not notable. The creator of the article (MarkWanted; talk) said this, which was insulting: 

Enjoy your power of rejection Minna no sora no shita. I know which site im not going to be donating to ever again.

みんな空の下 (トーク) 06:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • partial blank This retort could have easily been blanked, and it is not so seriously offensive that deletion is needed. Another option is revision deletion of the silly comment. However I can also understand repeated declines for a reason that is not accurate causes frustration. The topic is not web content but looks to be software instead. However I still agree that the topic is not notable. So overall I am suggesting blanking the offending text rather than deleting, and leave it declined. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, partially blank the insults, and fully protect if there are more insults. The page can be speedy deleted if unedited in six months per {{db-afc}}. (If anyone attempts to game the system by making trivial edits every few months that don't improve the page, then I recommend renominating this page for deletion in six months. I am certain the consensus will be to delete.)

    I agree with Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) that the subject is non-notable. But because this was recently created, the page is not promotional, and {{db-afc}} exists, I see no harm in letting it stay for now to allow the creator to continue working on it if he can find reliable sources about the subject. (I myself have searched for sources on Google News Archive and have been unable to find substantial coverage in independent reliable sources.) Cunard (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Five declined submissions, no indication of available source material per this discussion - what are we hanging on to? -- Jreferee (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jreferee. This is junk. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=571350592"