Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). Purge this page

Shortcut

WP:MFD

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.

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

Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

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	2	2
TfD	0	0	0	3	3
MfD	Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil).	Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil).	Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil).	Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil).	Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil).
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	0	39	39
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 the server's cache of this page

2008-09-11

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 debate was Mixed - Keep Talk:Bristol Palin and Talk:Levi Johnston so they can be discussed as splits from Sarah Palin and because {{editprotected}} requests appeare to be frequently necessary to fix the section linked from the redirect as the target changes (although consensus here seemed to be keep, compare the result at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Talk:Track_Palin where talk page was recently userfied and redirected to Talk:Sarah Palin); Talk:Bristol palin deleted per discussion here and Speedy R3 and Salted due to multiple recreations of this talk page of an unlikely redirect which will always remain at most a redirect. Although not within the jurisdiction of MfD, Bristol Palin Controversy unprotected and deleted on sight as Speedy R3 (and improperly named article - controversy shouldn't be capitalized), Talk:Bristol Palin Controversy then deleted per Speedy G8 and discussion here. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bristol Palin, Talk:Bristol palin, Talk:Bristol Palin Controversy, and Talk:Levi Johnston

Of the 30+ redirects to the Sarah Palin article, only these four redirect talk pages remain active. If articles eventually are created on any of these four topics, the will come from an outgrowth of the Sarah Palin article and discussion on the the Sarah Palin article talk page, not from redirect talk page discussion. Deleting these four unneeded talk pages will mean four less Sarah Palin pages to watch. -- Suntag (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Talk:Bristol Palin. Talk:Bristol Palin page is the appropriate place to ~~explain why we shouldn't~~ discuss whether we should have a separate article on Bristol. If deleted, it will be recreated within a few days, I am certain. Delete Talk:Bristol palin There is nothing really to discuss about a redirect from alternative capitalization. Delete the mainspace page of Talk:Bristol Palin Controversy. This redirect serves little purpose. People who are searching for Bristol Palin will find that redirect and/or the article on Sarah Palin. -- Robert A.West (Talk) 01:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- If we delete these pages and someone re-creates them, admins can re-delete them as re-creations of deleted content and eventually salt them. I don't foresee this being an unsolvable problem.--chaser - t 02:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep partly per Robert A West, who's right about discussing page creation on the talk pages. Of these, only Talk:Bristol Palin is particularly active and I've seen no BLP violations so far.--chaser - t 02:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There doesn't seem to be an issue here. -- Ned Scott 05:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Discussion of these redirects should be left open to editors, even if the redirects themselves stay, with protection, for who knows how long. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, redirects are cheap. Redirecting these talk pages (and the other 26, if it were up to me) to Talk:Sarah Palin prevents (re)creation while still pointing people to the appropriate talk page location. Fish karate 08:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Redirects are appropriate here, and no need to suppress histories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Otherwise, people will just say the same things over on Talk:Sarah Palin, which is voluminous enough already. Coemgenus 12:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good reasons taken. Dloh cierekim 13:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bristol palin Any such redirect as Bristol palin does not need to be created. The only reason to create a redirect dealing in capitalization is to redirect to target article titles with mixed capitalization, e.g. In the Heat of the Night (novel). Can admins please nuke articles that are merely unnecessary redirects of the "Bristol palin" sort? They annoy the hell out of me. Thanks. 86.44.27.188 (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Talk:Bristol Palin to a subpage like so: Talk:Sarah Palin/Bristol Palin. This satisfies the concern that focusing all the information on Talk:Sarah Palin might overwhelm the page. It is one more page to watch, but I think it would aid in keeping things down... Delete Talk:Bristol palin and Talk:Levi Johnson for having no little to no-content in their histories. Not sure on Talk:Bristol Palin Controversy, though I think that could be served as redirect to Talk:Sarah Palin/Bristol Palin... --Izno (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Talk:Levi Johnston and Talk:Bristol palin; keep the other two, as they actually contain significant discussion. Some of the comments above seem to have missed the point somewhat, in that this is not about whether the redirects should be deleted, but whether their talk pages should be. I don't have a problem with the redirects, but don't see the need to keep an empty or nearly empty talkpage; it's difficult to imagine there ever being anything to discuss at Talk:Bristol palin, which is the talk page of a redirect from a misspelling. (Before this nomination, it was apparently being used to host spam links.) Terraxos (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are all valid to eventually fork out later, especially if the Republicans win the election when inevitable (lets be honest here) press arrives. Revisit this in mid-November, and skip the CRYSTALBALL commentary in favor of COMMONSENSE :). rootology (C)(T) 06:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what universe is Talk:Bristol_palin valid? Bristol palin shouldn't even exist. 86.44.29.211 (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2008 (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 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 debate was Delete; Wikipedia is not a free webhost. If these users ever plan on returning, their user page being deleted will be the least of their worries. If this particular MFD had not been posted on ANI, it would not have had the radical change in consensus from what the other MFDs on similar user pages resulted in.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Efrym87

Valueless user page of a user who registered an account and only made one edit: creating his or her user page. The user has made no other contributions to the project in any sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: This page was canvassed somewhat obnoxiously at WP:AN, so please take that into consideration. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - User has not edited in over a year, userpage is not helpful to the project. Tiptoety ^talk 23:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Tip. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Userpage is not helpful to the project. -- Suntag (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is ridiculous. I fail to see why we need to bother to delete it. Userpages are not supposed to contain a value in itself. There is no present policy based reason to delete. The message we do not want to send to inactive users is: if you make only one edit, your edit will be deleted due to inactivity. We want to retain users, not delete their userpages. Synergy 03:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep changing my support to keep. Synergy and DGG have convinced me with their comments, and I'm not comfortable with these MfDs being used as a rationale for a large scale blanket deletion. -- Ned Scott 03:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that it really matters, but Synergy indicated to me (albeit, off-wiki) that he was convinced that these should be deleted, but didn't feel like editing the five subpages. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete I guess. We could probably save a lot of time and just make this a group nom next time. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - My estimation is that there are about 15,000 of this type of page. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was just talking about the ones you've directly nominated. -- Ned Scott 02:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Holding off on my delete support for now. -- Ned Scott 02:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the past, when pages have been nominated as a batch, e.g., the "secret" pages, people have difficultly separating the pages in their votes, so they end up voting 'keep' for the entire collection, which is a Bad Thing. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at such cases. Keeping these things is more welcoming to people who may just like to tip their toes in. Usually they cause no problem, and if they do, usually problem content can be simply removed to fix the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not concerned that Wikipedia may be acting as a permanent web host or pastebin for these people who have contributed literally nothing to the project? --MZMcBride (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I looked again, and at the full history. The information stored is barely greater than in information required to access it. So, no. I do, however, suggest blanking the information, just in case it is being used for some external purpose (perhaps google realted) and pasting a welcome notice, in the hope that the newcomer will engage. I am certainly not concerned about storage space or bandwidth issues. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It isn't about bandwidth or storage space issues. It's about whether or not these user pages (of people who haven't contributed anything) further the goal of creating a free online encyclopedia. A year-old test edit clearly does not. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are certain that someone who makes a test edit, and then nothing for a year, will never return, or if they do, with not feel at all unwelcomed by the deletion of their userpage? You don't have to be wrong very often for the damage done to outweigh the problem you are trying to solve. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        For someone who doesn't know the difference (such as a new user), would blanking be any different than deletion? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Up the top of the page is the "My contributions" link that is easy to find, and won't work if contributions are deleted. Being able to review one's own contributions is an important early thing to learn. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all: Worthless; per nom and per the above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and have no more such nominations. The time, effort, and resources spent on them is more than they take to keep around indefinitely. There is no harmful content besides the very most trivial identification--this is no real sense using us as a home page --people who want such typically have much more to say about themselves. For those people who do use them as home pages for social chatter, they can be removed. I'm not concerned that those who do have not used them that way in a year might use them that way. These pages aren't worth the clean--up costs. According to the [nom| User talk:MZMcBride], these have been nominated as test pages to explore what to do about the 15,000 or so other pages of this sort. It's time to stop wasting not just computer resources, but human ones, on this. And some day perhaps a user will come back--if someone visited once, they may visit again--if only 1% do that's still 150 contributors who should have welcome notices waiting for them, not the discouragement of finding their single trace here removed. DGG (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I don't see any real value in a lot of these pages, and I could see some of them as being used for vanity type reasons (a quick way to just put your own "entry" to wikipedia, without doing anything), I pretty much agree with what you've said. -- Ned Scott 02:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We should delete all user pages of inactive users with little to no mainspace edits. VegaDark (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How are these pages being detected? We likely have users who've made an entry who are active on other Wikimedia projects and have left a note here. I know I've done that on a few other of our sister projects, and that would show up simply as someone making one edit and to their userpage. We also have doppelgänger users who make one edit to redirect a userpage or just leave a note. These might be minor concerns, but I feel they're just as valid as the rationales to delete such pages. Is there really an issue here, or are we just making more work for ourselves in the long run? -- Ned Scott 02:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The two cases you listed would be included the list as they meet the criteria. However, that's exactly why no script or bot can be used on these. While I'm sure you've created pages on other projects, I don't you've created your userpage with just '''Bold text'''. ;-) If these pages are to be deleted at all (and past versions of prod and past MfDs suggest that that's certainly a possibility), they would have to be reviewed by an admin. If they say something like "User at zh.wikibooks" or have a link, they would obviously be kept. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So the actual deletions would be done "by hand"? Hmm.. that does seem reasonable. I'll think about this. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in principle (per nom, Tiptoety, etc.). I support setting up a process or a narrow set of criteria to handle these types of pages, but I agree with DGG that they should not be brought to MfD (a few "test" nominations are fine, but these types of pages are not worth the effort of a full MfD; in addition, MfD can't handle 15000 separate nominations). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment eh? Where will it end? There must be loads of user pages like this. Is this going to be done to any older userpages where the editor has made few/no other edits? I don't quite agree with it as the user may come back, I know they could recreate it but even so. It seems a bit needless and rude. I don't have strong opinions on it, I just wondered if this is going to be a new standard practice? Sticky Parkin 21:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sticky Parkin is very wise. I agree with everything said. Should we expel any user who does not edit after 90 days? Delete their user page, close their account, make their password invalid? No. Let's welcome everyone. 903M (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on 29 March 2012. Us highly active Wikipedians tend to lose perspective and think six months without editing means "gone forever". But there are plenty of Wikipedians who chip in an edit or two every few months, and to them a year off is merely a slightly-longer-than-usual break between edits. Having said that, I agree with most of the arguments for deletion. I think five years is a reasonable time frame for purging stuff like this. Hesperian 04:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These aren't users who chip in occasionally. These are users who have never contributed. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue. If you want to propose a change to Wikipedia:User page, go through the usual process. At present our policies allow userpages for inactive editors and don't clearly forbid them even for never-active ones. Chick Bowen 04:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being a registered user and having a userpage is not contingent on editing. Page is harmless and deleting would be rather against the open image that wikipedia tries to give off (with varying success). Brilliantine (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sticky Parkin. I wanted to cite WP:PAPER but apparently that doesn't apply to userspace. Still, what harm does it do to keep a few extra bytes of what appears on the surface to be pointless content? We're not dealing with anything even close to WP:NOTMYSPACE here. Hbent (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Contributing nothing other than a page on yourself isn't MySpace-esque behavior? Really? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand your point, but I really think that there are more important issues to deal with. We have many, many userpages that are nothing but overengineered vanity cruft, yet you're going after a page with less than 80 bytes of actual content. Hbent (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So pretty much WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I honestly don't see how OTHERSTUFF applies here; I perceive that comparison (huge, slow vanity pages by established editors vs. one or two lines of text from unestablished editors) as flawed. WP:AGF whenever possible. I didn't start using a login until very recently, but I made many edits as various IPs over the years. Are you saying that when I decided to make an account, if my only edit so far was to create a userpage that said "hbent is the shizzle mofos and dont you forget it," that it would be deletable? Hbent (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Absolutely. If it's been a year (or more) and you haven't found one typo to fix, one word to correct, one _anything_ to improve the project, then your declaration that you're a "shizzle mofo" doesn't need to stay around. And my point about OTHERSTUFF is that it doesn't matter if other pages (larger than 80 bytes) exist, we should deal with these. (More of a direct response to "more important issues," really.) We're not a pastebin. People shouldn't use us as such. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is this wasn't WP:MYSPACE, the person only wrote a sentence on their userpage, they didn't cover it with bling or glorify themselves like a myspace. The page itself is entirely within policy, as is a user starting with this edit. To some people a year seems a long time, but it really isn't. Sticky Parkin 13:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And just NOINDEX all user pages. Any possible problems solved so we don't have to make sure 3,000,000 users are current with their membership fees. rootology (C)(T) 06:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except every DB dump and SQL query still includes these useless pages.... --MZMcBride (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And last I checked it hurt nothing and nobody. Don't we have things that matter to do like write articles? Trivial tasks and issues like this are so far down at the bottom of the barrel the dead fish in the barrel can't see them. :) rootology (C)(T) 14:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we don't need to keep the (real or imagined) birthdates of non-editors around indefinitely. Kusma (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Terrible precedent. Nothin gained by deleting it, nothing much gained by keeping it either - hug waste of time bring it up in the first place. Viridae ^Talk 08:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I understand the concerns of some people here, I do think that Wikipedia is not a free webhost. If this user has not done a single edit to the project, I see no reason to keep his user page around indefinitely. User pages are a facility allowing our editors to talk about themselves, not an free personal page everyone is entitled to if they don't contribute (or I suggest we move all A7-bio to the creators user page). -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep- just adding because I haven't explicitly !voted yet. Sticky Parkin 13:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.We have no idea whether this user is editing or not. Many editors register, but routinely edit from IP. Why bother logging in, having to dig up that password or request it, just to correct a typo? I wouldn't do it, if I were inactive for a while and couldn't remember my password. Later, and it might be years later, when I found time and inclination to do serious work, I'd get the password (or maybe start a new account). My mind is boggled by a MfD for a page like this; the cost to the project of all these editors commenting is far, far higher than the cost, in every respect, of keeping the page. If we want to automatically delete user pages due to no activity for, say, a year, we should announce this at least a year in advance of starting to do it. The decision being attempted with this MfD should be made as a policy decision, not page by page, or else ... how many pages with this little content and this little activity do we have? And then we could close MfDs like this immediately; indeed, if the policy were clear, and it called for deletion, the pages could be speedied, bot-tagged, and only debated if someone objected. But I see no reason for deletion: yes, we aren't a web host, but a single line with your birthdate? Again, there would be better ways to deal with that problem if it's real. And we should make this decision deliberatively: there are excellent arguments here, and if we continue with business as usual, we then have to write and read the same arguments again next time, it is horribly inefficient. --Abd (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any reason to delete this. It doesn't fall under the what not section of wp:user and editor might come back. No harm on keeping this. Garion96 (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2008 (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 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 debate was Delete; Wikipedia is not a free webhost. If these users ever plan on returning, their user page being deleted will be the least of their worries.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Danielpr

Valueless user page of a user who registered an account and only made one edit: creating his or her user page. The user has made no other contributions to the project in any sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - User has not made any edits in over two years, userpage is not helpful to the project. Tiptoety ^talk 23:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Tip. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Userpage is not helpful to the project. -- Suntag (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is ridiculous. I fail to see why we need to bother to delete it. Userpages are not supposed to contain a value in itself. There is no present policy based reason to delete. The message we do not want to send to inactive users is: if you make only one edit, your edit will be deleted due to inactivity. We want to retain users, not delete their userpages. Synergy 03:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all: Worthless; per nom and per the above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and have no more such nominations. The time, effort, and resources spent on them is more than they take to keep around indefinitely. There is no harmful content besides the very most trivial identification--this is no real sense using us as a home page --people who want such typically have much more to say about themselves. These pages aren't worth the clean--up costs. According to the [nom| User talk:MZMcBride], these have been nominated as test pages to explore what to do about the 15,000 or so other pages of this sort. It's time to stop wasting not just computer resources, but human ones, on this. And some day perhaps a user will come back--if someone visited once, they may visit again--if only 1% do that's still 150 contributors who should have welcome notices waiting for them, not the discouragement of finding their single trace here removed. DGG (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Let's not get delete-happy! Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We should delete all user pages of inactive users with little to no mainspace edits. VegaDark (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Efrym87. -- Ned Scott 03:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in principle (per nom, Tiptoety, etc.); user's only edit was nearly 3 years ago. Also see comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Efrym87. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And just NOINDEX all user pages. Any possible problems solved so we don't have to make sure 3,000,000 users are current with their membership fees. rootology (C)(T) 06:50, 15 September 2008 (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 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 debate was Delete; Wikipedia is not a free webhost. If these users ever plan on returning, their user page being deleted will be the least of their worries.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carlodue

Valueless user page of a user who registered an account and only made one edit: creating his or her user page. The user has made no other contributions to the project in any sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - User has not edited in over two years, userpage is not helpful to the project. Tiptoety ^talk 23:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Tip. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Userpage is not helpful to the project. -- Suntag (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is ridiculous. I fail to see why we need to bother to delete it. Userpages are not supposed to contain a value in itself. There is no present policy based reason to delete. The message we do not want to send to inactive users is: if you make only one edit, your edit will be deleted due to inactivity. We want to retain users, not delete their userpages. Synergy 03:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all: Worthless; per nom and per the above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and have no more such nominations. The time, effort, and resources spent on them is more than they take to keep around indefinitely. This is no real sense a user web site page--people who want such things typically have much more to say somethng. These pages aren't worth the clean-up costs. According to the [nom| User talk:MZMcBride], these have been nominated as test pages to explore what to do about the 15,000 or so other pages of this sort. It's time to stop wasting not just computer resources, but human ones, on this. And some day perhaps a user will come back--if someone visited once, they may visit again--if only 1% do that's still 150 contributors who should have welcome notices waiting for them, not the discouragement of finding their single trace here removed. DGG (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We should delete all user pages of inactive users with little to no mainspace edits. VegaDark (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Efrym87. -- Ned Scott 03:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in principle (per nom, Tiptoety, etc.); user's only edit was nearly 2 years ago. Also see comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Efrym87. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And just NOINDEX all user pages. Any possible problems solved so we don't have to make sure 3,000,000 users are current with their membership fees. rootology (C)(T) 06:50, 15 September 2008 (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 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 debate was Delete; Wikipedia is not a free webhost. If these users ever plan on returning, their user page being deleted will be the least of their worries.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bejarana

Valueless user page of a user who registered an account and only made one edit: creating his or her user page. The user has made no other contributions to the project in any sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - User has not made any edits in over a year, userpage is not helpful to the project. Tiptoety ^talk 23:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Tip. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Userpage is not helpful to the project. -- Suntag (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is ridiculous. I fail to see why we need to bother to delete it. Userpages are not supposed to contain a value in itself. There is no present policy based reason to delete. The message we do not want to send to inactive users is: if you make only one edit, your edit will be deleted due to inactivity. We want to retain users, not delete their userpages. Synergy 03:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all: Worthless; per nom and per the above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and have no more such nominations. The time, effort, and resources spent on them is more than they take to keep around indefinitely. There is no harmful content besides the most trivial identification--this is no real sense a user web site page--people who want such sites typically have much more to say about themselves. S Of the These pages aren't worth the clean--up costs. According to the [nom| User talk:MZMcBride], these have been nominated as test pages to explore what to do about the 15,000 or so other pages of this sort. It's time to stop wasting not just computer resources, but human ones, on this. And some day perhaps a user will come back--if someone visited once, they may visit again--if only 1% do that's still 150 contributors who should have welcome notices waiting for them, not the discouragement of finding their single trace here removed. DGG (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This particular page looks a little webhosty for me, essentially for the reason of personal identification. If this editor had contributed further to the encyclopedia, than I don't think there would be an issue, but as it is... --Izno (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We should delete all user pages of inactive users with little to no mainspace edits. VegaDark (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per my comments on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Efrym87. I say weak for this one because I can see Izno's point regarding this specific page. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Izno; had it not been for the "webhosty" nature of the page, I may have weakly support keeping, since the user's only edit was nearly 1 year ago (whereas the users in question in the nominations above edited 2-3 years ago). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And just NOINDEX all user pages. Any possible problems solved so we don't have to make sure 3,000,000 users are current with their membership fees. rootology (C)(T) 06:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete different from these other userpages because of spammish weblink. --Groggy Dice T | C 22:06, 15 September 2008 (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 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 debate was Delete; Wikipedia is not a free webhost. If these users ever plan on returning, their user page being deleted will be the least of their worries.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Austinleal

Valueless user page of a user who registered an account and only made one edit: creating his or her user page. The user has made no other contributions to the project in any sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - User has not made any edits in over a year and it appears to be a test, userpage is not helpful to the project. Tiptoety ^talk 23:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Tip. MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Userpage is not helpful to the project. -- Suntag (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is ridiculous. I fail to see why we need to bother to delete it. Userpages are not supposed to contain a value in itself. There is no present policy based reason to delete. The message we do not want to send to inactive users is: if you make only one edit, your edit will be deleted due to inactivity. We want to retain users, not delete their userpages. Synergy 03:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So someone registers an account, makes one test edit to their user page, and that should stay around forever? That seems rather silly, no? After a reasonable amount of time, isn't it appropriate to remove the test edits? We would if they were in any other namespace. And the only distinction between namespaces is an integer field in the database.... --MZMcBride (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yet these are not test edits to the article namespace, or any other namespace. Your argument is flimsy. It would be appropriate if it were for an actual reason like vandalism, attacks, or policy violations (none of which are the case; for all of the above MfDs). We generally give more leeway in userspace. Synergy 06:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Answer the question I asked, please. Are you saying that we should keep these pages indefinitely? Not trying to be rude, I just want to understand where you're coming from. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I figured you were being rhetorical. Yes, we should. We may never know when the users will come back, but as I said, its not what I would expect they would like to see upon returning. If you gave me an reason other than "valueless userpage" (which I have found numerous examples of these I might add) I'd be inclined to agree. Synergy 06:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In a philosophical sense, I imagine that it could be argued that these pages are acting as a free web host for users. One has to bear in mind that these users have made no other edits to the project whatsoever. They've merely created a user page and then gone off to other things. For us to act as a permanent pastebin for these users seems contrary to our goals. While you're obviously correct that contributors' user pages can have pretty much whatever they want (mine has pretty pictures from Commons), these people are not contributors. They have mastered registering an account and creating a user page and nothing more, typical of MySpace-esque behavior, in a way. These pages inflate database dumps, SQL query results, and Google results. While the content may not necessarily be offensive or harmful, it does nothing to further the goals of the project. And while I can understand our leniency with regard to actual contributors, for us to serve as a permanent web host / pastebin / whatever for these pages seems a bit silly to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If anyone gets any sense that WP:NOT#WEBHOST is being violated, then they can then blank or seek deletion. However, I see no suggestion that information for external uses is being held, and even less suggestion that information is being changed for external purposes, as would be expected with any webhost. These userpages are neither webhosts nor webarchives for anything outside the project. Trying to deal with them is much more a waste of effort than letting inactive users be. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - We should keep these pages, thier histories and user edits indefinately (100 years) unless there is an actual problem because we want to welcome all editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all: Worthless; per nom and per the above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and have no more such nominations. The time, effort, and resources spent on them is more than they take to keep around indefinitely. They aren't worth the clean--up costs. According to the [nom| User talk:MZMcBride], these have been nominated as test pages to explore what to do about the 20,000 or so other pages of this sort. Ut's time to stop wasting not just computer resources, but human ones, on this. DGG (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We should delete all user pages of inactive users with little to no mainspace edits. VegaDark (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Efrym87. -- Ned Scott 03:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in principle (per nom, Tiptoety, etc.); user's only edit was more than one year ago. Also see comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Efrym87. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And just NOINDEX all user pages. Any possible problems solved so we don't have to make sure 3,000,000 users are current with their membership fees. rootology (C)(T) 06:50, 15 September 2008 (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 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 debate was Speedily deleted per user request. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Provincial Archives of Alberta

Reason why the page should be deleted: There is no requirement for this page. It is superfluous. -- Provincial Archives of Alberta (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2008 (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 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 debate was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gmanblues

Overly promotional user page. Declined speedy g11. User might have been creating an article, but user has not edited since July and article has been dormant since creation. Can someone please explain why this page hasn't been deleted yet? -- Spec ial K 16:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since user page hosts permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. -- Suntag (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is promotional, not related to building content. Could have just as well been blanked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the user probably just forgot about it. The content was once an article, but that article got deleted, and the author (and subject of the article) was very understanding and polite about the whole thing. He writes to one user "I really want to make the cut and be in wiki, but I want it to be REAL and not some social-engineering tactic.". I doubt he'd be upset if the userpage was deleted, and I have no real opinion on that, but I thought I would mention this. It's nice to see that people don't always take it as an insult that their article got deleted, and want to be included in Wikipedia on their own merits. -- Ned Scott 03:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blank or delete. I appreciate the user's ambition, but he hasn't made it yet, and from the looks of this, isn't likely to any time soon; so we have no reason to keep this information. I tend to prefer blanking user pages to deleting them outright, though. Terraxos (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or blank And immediately NOINDEX all User:* space related pages to prevent this happening in the future to where it can be detected outside of our site or affect the wider world negatively as easily. There is no reason to include User: pages or sub-pages on Search Engines. This seems to be happening too often now, and it's a waste of our manpower to go hunt down all these problem pages, since we may never catch them all with millions of user accounts. NOINDEX them all, the whole User: name space and subpages, fix the robots.txt filtering to catch any possible combinations of URLs, and bang, problem solved. rootology (C)(T) 16:10, 18 September 2008 (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 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 debate was Keep as historical - nominator changed position and tagged article historical based on the relatively large number of incoming links, although not dispositive, that combined with the weak to no consensus makes this a keep as tagged. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area/Translation

Project sub-page that never really got off the ground. Created and only one other significant edit since February 2007, the remaining edits were me categorizing into the project, two edits by a spammer, and one of me reverting. Redundant in concept to Wikipedia:Translation. - Optigan13 (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag as historical –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked at Template talk:Historical, but did not find any clarification between tagging as historical and when to delete (perhaps someone would be so kind as to add such clarification to the template usage documentation.). In any event, there does not seem to be much history in the page worth preserving. -- Suntag (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tag as historical or redirect somewhere useful. Internal organisation of activities, whether wikiprojects or project space activity, is and should not normally be deleted. It could be re-used, or used to learn from, perhaps as an example of what not to do. The lack of extensive history just means that the storage costs will only be a small fraction of negligible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tagging as historical doesn't make sense as it never got started. Tavix (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which would make more sense: making this into a redirect towards Wikipedia:Translation; adding the {{historical}} banner and a see Wikipedia:Translation for further information; or some other solution? I just noticed a link to this was included as part of the old welcome template so there are many inbound links from user talk pages, so not sure how to handle this page since creating a redlink may be confusing. -Optigan13 (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2008 (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.

2008-09-10

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 debate was Keep (non-admin closure) — if two users have already voted to keep, then it seems that there is minimal interest to keep the barnstar around. Note that this will be moved to the Nintendo task force. MuZemike (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo/Award

Barnstar that has not been awarded to anyone except its creator. It is part of the (soon to be task force) inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo. MuZemike (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now: This award is transcluded on a couple user talk pages. So I'm a bit apprehensive about deleting it, but could be convinced to support deletion. The easiest solution that comes to mind is simply moving it to something like Template:Barnstar Nintendo. I don't know if that's the best solution though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not convinced it has to be deleted. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A few people have received the award[1] and it is listed at Wikipedia:Personal user awards as a topic-related award. -- Suntag (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2008 (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 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 debate was Delete, talkpage is archived. Keeper ǀ 76 19:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo/Kirby

Inactive task force under an inactive WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo) that will itself shortly become a task force in itself. There is little or no content on this page in which may warrant keeping around. MuZemike (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional~~ delete: The task force page can be deleted after the talk page is archived similar to previously deleted/redirected inactive projects: MMO games archive, Neopets archive, Runescape archive.
This page began as a separate Project, but another MfD merged it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo as a task force. The history for the main page show edits that were mainly cosmetic/maintenance, about a third of which consist of inactive/deletion tagging and bot edits. The main page has no significant history worth keeping, but the talk page has some discussions about sourcing that is worth keeping. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Done talk page archived. MuZemike (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Archived talk page link here. The old page is a redirect now which can also be deleted. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not much history to preserve. -- Suntag (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Suntag. --Izno (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2008 (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 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 debate was Delete Keeper ǀ 76 19:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo/WikiForce Megaman List of Members

Memberlist which is part of an inactive task force, which is part of an inactive WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo) that will soon be a task force under Wikipedia: WikiProject Video games. Also, there is already a memberlist at the newly-formed Mega Man task force, making this list completely obsolete. Page has not been updated in nine months. MuZemike (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's really no reason to keep a redundant page with no talk page and only three edits (one of which was tagging for MfD). (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely redundant. Someone another 21:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since redundant. -- Suntag (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not just redundant, but perplexing. I don't really understand the need for a separate member list for a task force... --Izno (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be used as one of the features of a task force. See WP:TASKFORCE#Task force content. MuZemike (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps you misinterpreted. I think lists of users are fine. I think a subpage for an entire WikiProject is also. I don't think a subpage for a task force is. --Izno (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why not? Cannot task forces gauge who is participating? The guideline suddests it's a common thing for a task force to do. Again look at WP:TASKFORCE and also look at our current task forces as well as those from other WikiProjects such as the Military History WikiProject and tell me what you see in each of them. Keep in mind that the now old WikiProject Nintendo (I mention this because I see an MfD for this in the near future, despite our inheriting of everything from the old WikiProject and that the old WikiProject's page has moved and blanked to reflect the current membership) has had a separate page for a long time, and if by chance we get a bit of participants into our task force (as we have over 800 articles to deal with) it can be necessary. (I will copy-and-paste this in the event the Nintendo Task Force's memberlist page gets MfD'd.) MuZemike (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again reading WP:TASKFORCE, I see nothing encouraging it [a member list] as a subpage. Only that lists are typical of task forces to produce. Task forces generally don't become large, even when they are of a broad scope. Take for example, the WWI task force. That only has 30 contributors. Would you set aside a subpage for that few? Or how about the WW2 task force? It has over 100 contributors to it, something I don't think even Nintendo (much less Mega Man) could match; yet their task force participation section is not in a subpage of the task force either. This category supports my assertions — while I think your approximation of 800 articles is inappropriately low, I don't think it can muster the number of articles present in that category (15k, plus a few "needing attention"). Taken together, I again say I don't think a task force needs a members list that is a separate subpage of the task force page. --Izno (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2008 (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 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 debate was Keep. Synergy 16:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Martinphi/WEIGHT changes

This is a userspace fork by Martinphi of a set of changes that have been rejected at WP:NPOV; Martinphi is under ArbCom sanction for using Wikipedia as a soapbox (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Findings of fact), and a good part of that soapboxing is his self-admitted aim to resist "debunkery", which is his term for the mainstream scientific POV in respect of pseudoscientific and fringe subjects such as parapsychology. Martinphi is keen to change WP:UNDUE because he keeps being knocked back for violating it, but I don't see that happening as it would undermine the entire concept of WP:UNDUE as outlined by Jimbo. This fork is a hopeless crusade and needs to go. The changes have already been debated and rejected, so there is no purpose to be served by keeping them here other than to allow Martinphi to continue to believe that one day if he continues his usual technique of relentless civil POV-pushing, it will make it into policy and finally allow him to write the mainstream POV out of the fringe and pseudoscience articles. I don't think that it's fair to Martin to give him that false hope and I don't think it's appropriate to give the small number of fellow-travellers a rallying point for their campaign to roll back WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No thanks. I want to keep this userspace page. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 12:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems unnecessarily intrusive. Where's the harm? Having bad thoughts contrary to the majority view? Oh, I see: I don't think that it's fair to Martin to give him that false hope... JzG wants to save poor Martin from the disappointment of a hope he (apparently) also mean to dash. Very kind of you. Yet JzG's kindness for Martin's feelings doesn't seem to extend to other areas -- like this MfD, for example, which he has turned into a BfD for no good reason. Why didn't he take his kindness one step further, and leave this little sandbox alone. --nemonoman (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is that a keep vote? (-; ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 15:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes:--nemonoman (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The findings of fact do not appear relevant to this MfD. This page appears to be a study of wikipedia policy. I don't see what it is a fork of. Even if everyone else thinks this study/ambition of policy is hopeless, it should be welcomed as a UserEssay as a matter of principle. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Clarify. Guy seems to be misinformed. NPOV is preparing for an RFC on changes that have been made and could be made to the policy article. This is obviously a comparison of edits on NPOV past and recent. Since I have been copy editing there I am familiar with the environment over there. I am not sure what Martin intends to do with this, whether a personal compilation for his personal use or to open it up to the NPOV editors. It is however valuable to a least one editor who will, I would imagine be involved in the RFC and may be useful to others as well. Seeing this as a user space fork seems far fetched. This shouldn't be touched. Please note changes at NPOV should be characterized as being under discussion rather than rejected, thus the RFC.(olive (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Does not violate WP:USER, especially the line your (constructive) opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed. There may have been disruption at WP:NPOV lately (I have not checked), but this page is not itself disruptive. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Martinphi is free to discuss changes in his user space. Now if he were doing this on talk page of an article/policy he was restricted on, that'd be a different issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a userspace page being used to work on drafts of policy. I'm not aware of any reason to delete it. Consensus on policy does not mean sweeping minority viewpoints on policy under the rug. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it needs to go, the proper avenue is to convince Martin that it needs to go, not put it through a process. Especially not a process it has no chance of succeeding. We need to talk, not process our way in and out of things.--Tznkai (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Does not violate WP:USER. He seems to be working out his thoughts in a logical, non disparaging way. It seems a hopeless crusade, but it is contained within the proper Wikipedia space and is related to the encyclopedia. Blocking one of Martinphi's last few creative outlets in Wikipedia may eventually amount to a defacto block of him, which may overlap blocking process and deletion process. Suntag (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nemonoman, SmokeyJoe, olive, Eldereft, Rlevse, Coppertwig. Also, regarding the nominator's comment that "The changes have already been debated and rejected," - that is an inaccurate description of the discussion at WT:NPOV. The debate was and still is incomplete and inconclusive, other than the general agreement that to change the policy, or to re-confirm that it will not be changed, a wider community consensus is needed; and that one of the ways that could be determined is with a policy RFC. Preparing for a major RFC is a complex process and user-space draft pages are completely appropriate for that use. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2008 (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 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 debate was Delete Keeper ǀ 76 21:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andries/list of self-proclaimed deities

Article in userspace; hasn't had a constructive edit in almost two and a half years. See also List of people who have been considered deities. —Bkell (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Synergy 00:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - User subpages are not meant to host permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. -- Suntag (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per suntag --Izno (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful resource for a potential article. That's on the condition that someone actually does something with it. Terraxos (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2008 (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 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 debate was delete Keeper ǀ 76 21:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alterego/sandbox/List of human deities

This is an article in userspace; it hasn't had a serious, constructive edit in three years. —Bkell (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Synergy 00:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - User subpages are not meant to host permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. -- Suntag (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful resource for a potential article. That's on the condition that someone actually does something with it, of course. Terraxos (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2008 (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 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 debate was Keep and also blank Keeper ǀ 76 21:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alterego/sandbox/List of people who have said they are a god

This is a pseudo-article in userspace; it hasn't had a serious, constructive edit in over two years. —Bkell (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Coatrack Deletions

This page is a content fork of Wikipedia:Coatrack created by a user who is unhappy that their articles and edits keep getting removed as POV content forks. It appears to be an attempt to get around the Wikipedia:Coatrack essay. -- Edward321 (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just another soapbox. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Soapbox, content fork. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The user has also created Wikipedia:CoatrackDeletions, though it lacks content at the moment. Edward321 (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Soapboxing. I'm fine with moving it to userspace....I guess. As long as the last paragraph is removed. It's a legitimate way too feel about WP:COATRACK, even if I don't agree with it. However, the tone, presentation and content don't belong outside of userpace. Protonk (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Soapbox, POV fork. I'd accept moving it to userspace, as well, per Protonk. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 03:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this article and I am new. How do I create a user page "to move it to" userspace", as is suggested above. I thought this was called a user page where i created it. I modeled it off of the WP:Coatrack article page to create it. Where should I create things, and how do I get there to create them? I have no problem moving it wherever you want. EricDiesel (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would create it with your own username as the prefix: User:EricDiesel/Coatrack Deletions. Although I would advice you not to do this until this debate is over. Synergy 03:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is this subpage, then? User:EricDiesel/Coatrack_Argument_for_Deletions. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's my origninal version, which some one moved there for me. I didn't know how to find where they moved it so I rewrote it. The newer version is better. EricDiesel (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy or redirect~~ to Wikipedia:Coatrack, keeping the full history available. Policy debate, including material to support debate, should not be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per EricDiesel below. He has a valid point. Wikipedia:Coatrack is overused/misused as a deletion rationale. This is a pertinent issue that belongs in Project Space for continued debate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong userfy -- do not simply delete. Other users' personal essays exist and have been referenced as rationale in some cases. This user's opinions, whether coherent or not, should not be deleted if the user is trying to have a legitimate policy discussion, or express a good faith opinion. Obviously, it does not belong in Wikipedia space unless it is a majority-held or significant minority consensus opinion. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soapbox? - These are the conditions to be a SOAPBOX - Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment, Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, Scandal mongering or gossip columns, Self-promotion, Advertising. I do not understand how it falls into any of these categories to be called a soapbox. EricDiesel (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy.~~ Or preferably, keep. This essay doesn't appear to have consensus, judging from the strong negative reactions above, but as far as I can tell it isn't violating any of Wikipedia's policies (WP:SOAP only applies to blatant partisan advocacy with no benefit to the project, which this isn't), so there would be no problem with the author moving it into his userspace. Terraxos (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited after reading EricDiesel's reply. There's nothing wrong with this in project space, and essays don't need to have consensus - that's the whole point of them. Terraxos (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and slap on an {{essay}}. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - Looks like he is working out his thoughts, but in the wrong Wikipedia space. PerWikipedia:Wikipedia essays, "those essays are poor candidates for broadening should be relocated to a subpage of the user that authored them." If the next editor agrees, they should be bold, userfy, and delete the redirect. -- Suntag (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userify there might even be something to some parts of it. DGG (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Don't want to pile-on, but the essay expresses an opinion of another essay. Both essays directly relate to the encyclopedia. WP:USER allows userspace to be used for concise (which this is) essays regarding Wikipedia content. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per DGG and Suntag. Stifle (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy?~~ This essay was NOT put in userspace. I recently wrote my first Wikipedia article, after reading I should be BOLD, so my first Wikipedia article was on Sarah Palin’s church. The article was quickly deleted, citing WP:Coatrack, then restored citing abuse of WP:Coatrack, then deleted, then restored… then the article sections were repeatedly deleted and reverted using the same WP:Coatrack as the only argument for deletion. This essay WP:Coatrack Deletions was then written in response to a specific request in the talk page of WP:Coatrack that someone write an essay on this topic, to clarify WP:Coatrack. Is arguing for placement of this essay down in userspace, rather than where it currently is, an example of being WP:BOLD? EricDiesel (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All objections above responded to and incorporated into most recent rewrite of essay. Essay responds to request for creation of this essay by others on talk page of WP:COAT. EricDiesel (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2008 (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.

2008-09-09

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 debate was DELETE - This should have been nominated at TFD, not here, but based on my experience there it would likely be deleted so I'm deleting here based on WP:IAR. This actually used to be used at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/sandbox and was overwritten in 2006. I've substituted the template there in case they want it. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Doctor Who sandbox

Misplaced, unused sandbox from 13 April 2006 unconnected to Template:Doctor Who. "Template:Doctor Who" is relatively straight forward and not in need of a sandbox. -- Suntag (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Test page? Not needed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Use a User subpage of the Sandbox for this. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Template:Doctor Who needs no sandbox - its usage is simply {{Doctor Who}}. The sandbox is unused. Use a user subpage for this. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 03:05, 10 September 2008 (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 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 debate was Keep. Synergy 23:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Emo

A NPOV and OR violating WikiProject. Created to define what bands are "Emo" and what are not. Originally nominated a while back; but has grown; but is barely in use. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 22:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this is an MfD for the actual project itself? If so, it would be good to actually add the MfD tag to the project page. -- Ned Scott 07:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close MfD - I was not able to find any prior WikiProject Emo deletion nominations. The project wasn't tagged with MfD (lack of notice) and the only outcome of this deletion discussion would be the deletion of the WikiProject Emo talk page, not WikiProject Emo. Close and allow nominator to relist anew at MfD if desired.-- Suntag (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Emo. And here is another one: Wikipedia:Emo And Punk Music. -- Suntag (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How does this violate NPOV and OR? The bands for which there are discussion pages have genres cited in their infoboxes, so whatever the outcome will be, it will not affect how a band is "defined" on Wikipedia. WikiProjects are meant to improve articles, not impose OR or violate NPOV. No evidence has been presented as to why the latter might be the case. And there isn't any. The project has grown recently, and is undergoing a revival. --Pwnage8 (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a discussion page of a WikiProject. A Project has to define its boundaries somehow, and discussion is the correct avenue toward consensus. Also, I see no evidence of any policy violations. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2008 (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 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 debate was Speedy G2/G6 Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AWB Sandbox Heading

Unused, misplaced sandbox created by now blocked indefinitely user. Suntag (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's unused and seems to be unnecessary. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary sandbox, use a user subpage or the main sandbox itself. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:17, 10 September 2008 (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 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 debate was Speedy deleted by Edgar181 as user request. Synergy 18:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Allen Bukoff

POV fork of Allen Bukoff with disparaging terms. Please see the user's contributions here and here. Note also that the user does not claim to be the subject of his own user page, on the contrary. Bonadea (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Leonard^(Bloom) 01:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV fork. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 03:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The user has now tagged the page for speedy deletion. --Bonadea (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2008 (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.

2008-09-08

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 debate was delete the user page (no prejudice to recreating without inappropriate content) and blank the talk page except for the MfD notice. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tykunzelman98

User is using both their user page and talk page as ads for "albums" they say they have, while a google search or search of the listed record label brings back zero results. Edgehead5150 ^talk 20:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an inappropriate user of userspace. how do you turn this on 16:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is advertising. Blank on site. Consider blocking (preferably) or deleting only after attempts to persuade have failed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an inappropriate user of userspace. -- Suntag (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2008 (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 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 debate was delete. Image:Sukrirahman.jpg is nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 September 14#Image:Sukrirahman.jpg. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sukrirahman

Used to host user's professional résumé. No other edits. Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If the user had any actual edits I would reconsider, but they only made edits to this page, images used on this page and username changing requests and even that was back in April. Hut 8.5 16:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the editor doesn't appear to be interested in Wikipedia, only in promoting themself. how do you turn this on 16:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blank on sight or delete in the absence of constructive contributions to wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an inappropriate user of userspace. -- Suntag (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inappropriate for userspace, and delete the image too. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2008 (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.

2008-09-07

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 debate was move to sandbox. In this case, it would be at User:Race Amazing/Sandbox. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk: Race Amazing

Fails WP:USER Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inappropriate use for a talk page. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to sandbox and blank. Advise user, from WP:NOT:

If you are interested in using the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on something else, even if it is just a single page, there are many sites that provide wiki hosting (free or for money). You can also install wiki software on your server. See the Wiki Science wikibook for information on doing this. Scratchpad Wiki Labs also allows personal wikis. See also Wikipedia:Alternative outlets.

No need to delete/bite yet. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to a sandbox It's a clear misuse of the talk page, but I'd be happy with it being in a subpage. how do you turn this on 16:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a user page sandbox such as User:Race Amazing/sandbox and place notice on user talk page about content movement and what talk pages are used for. I don't think we can delete a user talk page in this way. -- Suntag (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2008 (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 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 debate was DELETE Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Faction

Very meager coverage, only five articles in its scope. It would barely qualify for a task force with its coverage. A Link to the Past (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Five articles doesn't seem to be worth a WikiProject. how do you turn this on 16:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created by new user. Five articles doesn't seem to be worth a WikiProject or even a task force. -- Suntag (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider merging effort into a taskforce addressing the larger set of games that share things in common with the Red Faction series. We can always use dedicated task forces to improve overall article quality, but we also want to avoid over-organization. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:41, 12 September 2008 (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 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 debate was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Samuelle2004

This page is simply the user's resume. The only edits are to the user page and the image page of his photo. He has not been active since April/07. WP is not a personal webpage.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Also, why can't we have a speedy close if things are blatantly obvious? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Painfully obvious. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also per nom. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the user's only purpose was to promote themself, and they haven't edited for nearly a year and a half. how do you turn this on 16:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not a personal webpage. -- Suntag (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2008 (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.

2008-09-06

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 debate was DELETE - based on the assertion that nothing originating on this page was ever copy pasted to the article (if that is untrue then deletion would create a GFDL violation); page appears to have been substantially unused and is just asking to create a GFDL problem. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sarah Palin/sandbox

A little-watched POV fork of Sarah Palin - seems to be a place for people to add controversial information that's not included in the real article. If people want to develop the article offline, they can use their own sandbox and post the proposed edit at Talk:Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 22:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not belong in mainspace. Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary sandbox page - POV fork or not, articles should not be sandboxed as a subpage of the main article's talkpage, but in a user's own userspace. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 07:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both of the above are wrong. This is in talk space. Subpages of talk pages are definately appropriate. If it is "A little-watched POV fork", which is far from clear, then it could be protected, but not deleted. If it has been actually used, then deletion creates GFDL issues, if it has not been actually used, then there is no issue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I put a note on the talk page about the sandbox before it was created. When the article is protected a sandbox is very handy. When the sandbox is not in use it can be blanked. See Talk:Sarah Palin#Sandbox for article improvements. By the way, Kelly has personal sandboxes. If Kelly thinks sandboxes are inappropriate then why does Kelly have sandboxes. QuackGuru 18:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is rather tenuous; you are comparing userspace sandboxes to sandboxes in the article's own talkspace. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 05:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. More editors are viewing subpage sandboxes than personal sanboxes. A subpage of an article is normal practice on Wikipedia. Those of you who don't want a draft for this article will NOT succeed in deleting the draft that many Wikipedians are editing. See Talk:Sarah Palin/Draft article. If you think you are right you should MFD the draft that many Wikipedians have edited or admit you are WRONG. QuackGuru 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why not just discuss changes to article on the talk page like everyone else. QG has a history of creating such pages, editing them to his liking, then edit-warring his changes into the articles.--Hughgr (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is why the talk page exists. And if you have a genuine need for a sandbox, you can make on your own userpage. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article talk page states at the top "All registered editors are free to edit Talk:Sarah Palin/Draft article, and constructive edits will be transferred to the main article." Talk:Sarah Palin/sandbox is redundant of Talk:Sarah Palin/Draft article. Suntag (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see anything wrong with having a community sandbox for that article. It's a particularly contentious article right now, so it would particularly benefit with having such a place to work on it how do you turn this on 16:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never substantively used, in as much as no proposed edits were ever on this page. I also note that I've nominated Talk:Sarah Palin/Draft article for MFD at this time, the benefit of having a semi-protected draft for a semi-protected article is rather limited. GRBerry 21:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very very bad idea. Sandboxes should be limited to Userspace with a few exceptions. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:15, 11 September 2008 (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.

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 09:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC) ended today on 17 October 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

2008-09-03

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 debate was KEEP - Although the page has numerous issues, the user is extremely new and deserves time and offers of guidance/assistance. Furthermore, the nominator failed to notify the user, which combined with the newness of the user makes this extremely BITEY Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Way2Grow

This userpage is only being used for advertising an organization. The page's creator has not edited any other pages. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 01:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a brand new editor sandboxing an article. We should not be jumping on deletion the moment we see these kinds of pages, but rather go to the user talk page and try to help them. From there we can see if there is any reasonable potential for notability. -- Ned Scott 06:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now...the page is very spammy, but as Ned said, it seems it's being used as a sandbox and not as an advertisement. At the moment, anyways, it's too soon to tell. This is a good place to offer help, not slap on deletion tags (really, it's been less than a day) --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on balance. I deleted it once as blatant advertising a few days ago & I think that is still my view. I also concur with the point the nominator makes that there are no other contributions, something that always makes me look rather carefully. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's only the 2nd day for this editor. The organization is possibly notable, so he should be helped to write an acceptable article, not hindered in it. DGG (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blank. Looks like advertising. Keep available in case someone wants to build an article from it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2008 (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.

2008-09-11

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Sarah Palin/Draft article (speedy delete)

2008-09-10

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa knott (speedy delete)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Instruments (speedy keep)

2008-09-09