Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skip to active discussions

Shortcut: WP:MFD

Deletion discussions Deletion today AfD yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Files Categories (active) Stub types Redirects Miscellany Deletion review Deletion policy Process – Log – Tools Guide – Images – Admins

Purge - edit

Centralized discussion Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals Review: Provisional draft #2 of the new arbitration policy. Proposal: Proposal to create user-space redirects. Poll: Should WP:NOT#PLOT be reworded, moved, removed, or kept the same? RFC: Is there community support to change the constitutional relationship between ArbCom and Jimmy Wales? Poll: How does the community feel regarding how the civility policy is applied and enforced on Wikipedia? Discussion: Should notability criteria for pornographic actors be rolled back? RFC: Naming guidelines for Macedonia Preliminary (userspace) discussion on Wikipedia governance issues. RFC: Should Wikipedia prevent Google and other search engines from searching User pages? RFC: Should a bot unlink dates? RFC. Outside opinions are solicited on self electing groups. RFC: What is the community's opinion on using {{Italictitle}} to italicise certain articles' titles? RFC: What is the community's view of paid editing? Poll: About the preferred usage names as a result of WP:RFAR/West Bank - Judea and Samaria Discussion: Ordering and general presentation of talk page templates. RFC: Simplifying speedy deletion policy A new page to keep track of discussions throughout Wikipedia has been created: Wikipedia:Coordination A new noticeboard has been created: Wikipedia:Content noticeboard Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived. archive • talk • edit • history • watch

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside the main namespace (also called the "article namespace") 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 (determined using the discussion as a guideline).

Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Please familiarize yourself with the following policies 1.2 Prerequisites 1.3 How to list pages for deletion 2 Active discussions 2.1 2009-07-04 2.1.1 User:GymJunky/Hemingbrough Parish Council 2.2 2009-07-03 2.2.1 User:Douglas Truman Moss III 2.2.2 User talk:210.50.30.37/Archive 1 2.2.3 User:Mojo-hustla 2.2.4 User:Animalrightswiki/Jordan halliday 2.2.5 User:Dinakar.uppuluri 2.2.6 User:CalcbikeUSBPriapPs2/FINGER 2.3 2009-07-02 2.3.1 User:Lilyhoh 2.3.2 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wladimir Bravo 2.4 2009-07-01 2.4.1 User:UncleMortyTV 2.5 2009-06-30 2.5.1 User:Giggitysmalls/Chester thiriot 2.5.2 User:Flnclan/wireless 2.5.3 User:Regregex/User computer age 30 2.5.4 User:King Sweaterhead/Userboxes/Female Superiority 2.5.5 User:Pakalomattam/joel osteen 2.5.6 User:Elfworm/SuperSecretHiddenPage 2.5.7 Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians 2.6 2009-06-29 2.6.1 User:84.9.59.20 2.6.2 User:TruthbringerToronto/Publimedia International 2.6.3 User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: The Australian Outback 2.6.4 User talk:210.24.200.33 2.6.5 User:Hertfordshire1234/Prince Elliott 2.6.6 User:Hertfordshire1234/Elliott Windsor, Earl of Hertforshire 2.6.7 User talk:SurvivorHarryPotter 2.6.8 User:Gongpao/F&S International Education 2.7 2009-06-28 2.7.1 Wikipedia:Categorization of people/boilerplate fact policy 2.8 2009-06-27 2.8.1 User:Jethro Loves Shermerra 2.8.2 Template:User autoreview 2.8.3 Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Fix lowercase first letter problem 2.8.4 Portal:Åland 3 Recent discussions 3.1 2009-06-26 3.1.1 User:S0ointense and User:JasonFernadez101 3.2 2009-06-25 3.2.1 User:Kramerb 3.2.2 User:Jeffvlaming/Jeff vlaming 4 Closed discussions 4.1 2009-06-28 4.2 2009-06-27 4.3 2009-06-26 4.4 2009-06-25

[edit] Introduction

The only currently-used namespaces in which pages are eligible for deletion here are:

• Help:
• Portal:
• MediaWiki:
• Wikipedia:
  • This includes WikiProjects, although it is usually preferable to either mark the Project as historical or change it to a task force of the parent Project, unless the Project is entirely undesirable.
• User:
  • When a page in the User or User talk namespaces seems worthy of deletion, please explain your concerns using either a personal note or by adding "{{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~" to their talk page. While this step is not required, it does assume 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}}. The same applies to personal userpages you want deleted; there is no need to list them here, simply tag them with {{db-userreq}}.
  • Also be aware of not biting new users -- sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
• the various Talk: namespaces
• Userboxes, regardless of namespace.

The undeletion of pages deleted after having been discussed here, and debating whether discussions here have been properly closed, is the purview of Wikipedia:Deletion review, which operates in accordance with our undeletion policy.

[edit] Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

• Wikipedia:Deletion policy — our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion — whose guidelines on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
• Wikipedia:User page — our guidelines on user pages

[edit] Prerequisites

Please bear in mind that:

• Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy.
• Nominating for deletion a proposed policy or guideline page that is still under discussion is generally frowned upon. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
• User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
• Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
• If a page is in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), simply move it and tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-reason}} using the reason: Redirect left after a cross-namespace move - G6 Housekeeping and notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.

[edit] How to list pages for deletion

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area.

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

I.	Edit PageName. Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion: {{mfd}} for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd|PageName (2nd nomination}} or {{mfd|GroupName}} if nominating several related pages in an umbrella nomination. or {{subst:md1-inline|PageName}} if you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page. 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=PageName| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} -- ~~~~ replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion and Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted. 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. Save the page.
III.	Add a line to MfD. Follow   this edit link   and add a line to the top of the list: {{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 nomination 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.

• 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:MFDWarning|PageName}} ~~~~

  to their talk page, 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 Portal, please make a note of your nomination here and consider using the portal guidelines in your nomination.

Closing instructions

[edit] 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

[edit] 2009-07-04

[edit] 2009-07-03

Closing instructions

[edit] User talk:210.50.30.37/Archive 1

Utterly pointless to maintain an archive of warnings given to a dynamic IP address, and a bad habit to start (although this appears to be a lone occurrence). The people who received these warnings three years ago are surely long gone by now and wouldn't find this page again if they knew it existed. -- bd2412 T 23:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Closing instructions

[edit] User:Mojo-hustla

We talk a lot about db-spam at WT:CSD these days, and I'd like to get more feedback from MfD voters. My personal vote is to speedy-delete this as db-spam, with a nice note to the creator along the lines of "Your only two contributions so far to Wikipedia have been your user page and similar content in the deleted article Fly Security Services. This gives the impression that your only interest is promoting a particular company, but I could be wrong; maybe you'd like to edit other articles on Wikipedia. If so, please enjoy your stay, but first read WP:PROMO and WP:Your first article." - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that we should give these folks encouragement to stick around rather than giving them a hard shove out the door with a block for spam. –xeno^talk 17:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Xeno. Is that roughly the message you'd like to see on their talk page? How do you feel about speedy-deleting this userpage? And btw, what do you think of the link to WP:PROMO (a section of WP:SPAM) rather than WP:COI? PROMO seems easier to read, more to the point, and more forgiving to me than COI, at least for newbies. - Dank (push to talk) 17:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The only problem I see linking "PROMO" is that it's calling them a "spammer" which is a derogatory characterization. COI is a little less harsh in that regard. I think the page should be blanked, rather than deleted, they should also be pointed to WP:UP. –xeno^talk 17:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a great idea, we ought to be able to tailor a message for potential promotionalism on userpages and put it in a linked section of UP. I'll work on it this weekend. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] User:Dinakar.uppuluri

Biography like. Rabbit67890 (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - have you tried discussing this with the user? I have nominated the mainspace page he created for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7, but perhaps it would be a good idea to discuss WP:USER with him regarding his userpage? → ROUX ₪ 08:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete WP:G11, users only edit and clearly an autobiographical piece.--Otterathome (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per WP:BITE. There is nothing wrong with a user page being biography-like, so I don't even understand the nom. WP:CSD G11 does not apply, because the primary subject of the page is the person, not his company, as to which I am not even sure whether it really exists yet; the page implies that it may merely be his future plan. As to this being the user's only edit, well, he only registered his account within the last 24 hours or so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-07-02

Closing instructions

[edit] User:Lilyhoh

Lilyhoh (talk · contribs) is using Wikipedia as a webhost. The user has made hundreds of edits over the last six months to maintain this personal profile, but has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. Per WP:NOTWEBHOST, this is inappropriate use of Wikipedia's userpages. -- Peacock (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete not even a web site, a to-do list. DGG (talk)`

Closing instructions

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wladimir Bravo

More relevant to vandalism. Reported separately Jeffro77 (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-07-01

Closing instructions

[edit] 2009-06-30

Closing instructions

[edit] User:Giggitysmalls/Chester thiriot

Userspace version of a hoax article. →ROUX ₪ 22:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete pure vandalism.--Otterathome (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] User:Flnclan/wireless

• And Template:User wireless demander

Encourages and condones an illegal activity, see Legality of piggybacking. Otterathome (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Uh, no. It says their neighbour steals the connection. Doesn't seem like encouraging or condoning to me. As for the second, I see nothing encouraging or condoning about it. It's a mere statement of fact. Given the other MfD you put up, it might make more sense for you to go to WP:USERBOX and discuss there your issues with userboxes and propose guidelines. → ROUX ₪ 21:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  So would

This user commits credit card fraud.

be acceptable then?--Otterathome (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I doubt anyone would use it, but I don't think it would violate any guidelines. Keep both (but userfy the 2nd) and urge nominator to take a look at former MFDs for userboxen. Mostly only divisive and inflammatory userboxes are deleted. –xeno^talk 21:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  One of them is being used on over 50 pages.--Otterathome (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  I was talking about your hypothetical "This user commits credit card fraud" userbox. –xeno^talk 21:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  I didn't know Wikipedia permitted users to brag about their crimes and encourage other users to do it too--Otterathome (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  If a userbox isn't divisive or inflammatory, it's usually left alone. –xeno^talk 21:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  The encouragement is where, precisely? → ROUX ₪ 21:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep argument by analogy is flawed, userbox is harmless, nominator is advised to go do something more useful. Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep- I think that the wording should say: "This user is a wireless thief (or something like that)", but otherwise this is a harmless template. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Jclemens. -T'Shael,The Infernal Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 00:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as it stands, though I would be wary if it were used an an attack by elsewhere identifying the neighbour. Collect (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep both. While these do say "steal", the intended sense appears to be misappropriation rather than theft, more in line with "This user steals his neighbor's parking space" than "This user steals his neighbor's blank checks". In the absence of actual misuse, it shouldn't be prohibited. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree with Gavia immer, this is just a harmless userbox. Besides, some people don't neccesarily "steal" their neighbours wireless connection, but instead use it on their User Page humorously, or to make their page look more decorated.

Dragpyre (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] User:Regregex/User computer age 30

Not even sure if it's possible to contribute with a computer that is older than 30 years old. Only being used on User:Jnivekk. Otterathome (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see how that userbox is hurting anyone, as it's not improper in anyway. I disagree with your rationale that having only one link to it is grounds for deletion. -T'Shael,The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 21:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong/speedy keep - no reason given for deletion. Many userboxen make factually loose claims such as "This user...uploads material directly to the Internet by using the awesome power of his mind." Why did you nominate this? It's not harmful in the least. –xeno^talk 21:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - If browsing via Lynx, one certainly could. Is there an actual reason why you think this should be deleted? → ROUX ₪ 21:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep 30 years in octal is doable, 30 years in hexadecimal is impossible, 30 years in binary is undefined, and 30 years in decimal is improbable. Since when are we the userbox accuracy police? Jclemens (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Nom note also note we already have these too which also serve the same purpose:--Otterathome (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Code	Result	Users
{{User:Regregex/User computer age 5}}	≥5 This user contributes with a computer 5 years old or more.	Transclusions
{{User:Regregex/User computer age 10}}	≥10 This user contributes with a computer 10 years old or more.	Transclusions
{{User:Regregex/User computer age 15}}	≥15 This user contributes with a computer 15 years old or more.	Transclusions
{{User:Regregex/User computer age 20}}	≥20 This user contributes with a computer 20 years old or more.	Transclusions
{{User:Regregex/User computer age 25}}	≥25 This user contributes with a computer 25 years old or more.	Transclusions

• Speedy keep - No reason given for deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Nice userbox. Plus it promotes respect for old computers. Very Green. Good for the planet. Dr.K. logos 21:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Question At the top of Wikipedia:Deletion policy, it says Redundant or otherwise useless templates template is being used on 1 user page. And on WP:UP#NOT there are many other reasons that apply. If none of these reasons are actually true then may I suggest they are removed?--Otterathome (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  That applies to templates in template space, not userboxes properly in userspace. And without pointing out what part of UP#NOT applies, I'm not sure what you're driving at. I would suggest you find a more useful activity, such as patrolling articlespace for BLP violations and such rather than worrying about harmless userboxen. –xeno^talk 21:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  I must agree with xeno and second his suggestion. -T'Shael,The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 21:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  I didn't know users had to do other activities before nominating things for deletion, could you point me to this guideline?--Otterathome (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  My point is that these nominations of harmless userboxen are counter-productive. –xeno^talk 21:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  I am trying to clean up unused userboxes, so I can't see how it is counter-productive. That argument could be used in any deletion discussion if you don't agree with a certain page being deleted, so it's a WP:NOHARM argument.--Otterathome (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  Deletion doesn't space. Focus on cleaning up templatespace (i.e. per WP:UBM), not userspace. –xeno^talk 18:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  They take up space on the page lists, userbox directories and contribution lists.--Otterathome (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  Who cares? → ROUX ₪ 21:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as no actual reason for deletion is furnished. Collect (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep- I think that we could also combine these templates and use a type that allows for the precise age of the computer to be punched in to gain the result. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  Indeed, a switch command could easily accomplish this. –xeno^talk 15:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] User:King Sweaterhead/Userboxes/Female Superiority

I have nominated this userbox for deletion because of the following concern: intended to be a gender double standard and dishonest opinion. If it is unacceptable to have a userbox stating male superiority, then it should be unacceptable to have a userbox stating female superiority. Gender double standards have been an issue to others and myself. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I do not believe that there should be any userboxes on Wikipedia that would promote any kind of discrimination, including that against men. I think this userbox should be deleted. Jprulestheworld01 (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• This MfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 16:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with the nominator - delete. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Wikipedia:CSD#G10.--Otterathome (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm a male, and I'm not offended by this whatsoever. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I'm in the same boat as Julian. -T'Shael,The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 22:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Question: Was there a male superiority userbox/MFD? can someone link it? –xeno^talk 23:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Perhaps this was meant in jest, but if taken literally it is basically offensive sexism. WP:USER makes it clear that Wikipedia pages are not for polemical statements. Perhaps most males feel very comfortable with their status and may not be offended but we can't assume that of everyone. Deciding it should be kept because it does not offend you personally sort of misses the point. Reverse the male and female roles in this userbox of its offensiveness becomes clear. Chillum 00:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am a bit surprised to see how this is going. If it was claiming men were superior to woman, or that whites were superior to blacks then I don't think it would be going the same way. There seems to be a double standard where sexism against men is considered harmless. Chillum 13:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Unless, of course, we would bar songs from "Annie Get Your Gun"? Collect (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This a neutral statement of opinion. While the opinion itself is not neutral, allowing editors to state it benefits the encyclopedia by documenting their potential biases. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment what about the transgenderers? Are they superior to both, inferior to both, or somewhere in the middle? MickMacNee (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete My lack of offense to this doesn't make this inoffensive. There seems little upshot in keeping the box, with plenty of potential downsides. Matt Deres (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] User:Pakalomattam/joel osteen

Abandoned userspace draft; user has not edited this page in over a year and has not edited at all in over six months. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - per no good reason given for deletion. –xeno^talk 15:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Uh... what part of the reason is bad? The page has been abandoned and is an external linkfarm. It's also being used as a free webhost. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Page appears to have been used as a sandbox for the mainspace article of the same name. What's to say the contributor won't return? NOINDEX seems to be a better way to deal with it if there are other concerns. –xeno^talk 15:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge anything worth keeping with the main Joel Osteen article then replace with {{userpage}}.--Otterathome (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Blank. User can unblank if he wants to work some more on it. No point fussing with the unreliable NOINDEX for something that no one has a reason to look at. No need to delete, it doesn't hurt by exisitng in accessible history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

Closing instructions

[edit] Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians

This page is a prime example of Wikipedia bureaucratic cruft. On one hand, it is a memorial, so please see WP:NOT. On the other hand, it's a rather pointless list of people who have simply stopped editing for one reason or another. There is zero reason for such a list. If there is an argument that we need to keep a list of "people who were important", well, how do you measure importance? This is just a general list. Finally, it could very well constitute a privacy issue, as some people may have stopped editing for privacy reasons, and adding their username to a tally sheet isn't helping them to disappear. Even if they don't necesarily want to "disappear", people should not be adding the usernames of others (particularly editors in good standing) to lists of names. This should be deleted as it does not help the encyclopedia and may even be harmful. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I created the page. It's now a part of Wikipedia history. I suggest perhaps listing it as historical. While I appreciate the desire to clean up our meta pages - in fact I may enlist your help in dealing with certain related matters - that is not to say that setting oneself up at the woodchipper and throwing various things in should be considered helpful. -Stevertigo 03:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and continue. Read Wikipedia:Editors matter. WP:NOTMEMORIAL doesn't apply to wikipedians in userspace/project space. See a relevent recent discussion, and the current wording of WP:NOT. Keeping track of our colleagues, having a care for them, is important for the community of editors. There is nothing in the list warrenting the nom's concerns of measures of importance. Privacy concerns can readily be dealth with: You can remove your own entry; you can mail wikipedia where it will be dealt with responsibly and respectfully. Please don't start acting on imagined privacy concerns of people your don't know. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It hasn't done any harm so far and I doubt it will. It's useful for historical purposes so I'm not opposed to tagging it with historical or even moving it to the meta site but deleting it wouldn't serve any purpose. And anyone who doesn't want to be listed can easily remove their name or request that it be removed. The first nomination was a unanimous keep and I say keep for most of the reasons listed the first time. -- œ^™ 05:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the above reasons. As pointed out, WP:NOT doesn't apply, and privacy matters are easily dealt with by the opt-out nature of the list. It is useful as a chronicling of the early days of Wikipedia, and continuing it will ensure that it also helps in the chronicling of current 2009 wikipedia in the years ahead. Grutness...wha? 06:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The pricacy concerns are very real. If someone is "missing", they are likely gone, so how can they opt out? Furthermore, people shouldn't have to opt out. This is like an unscrupulous telemarketer who calls trying to sell someone timeshares. The person says "why are you calling me, I have no interest in this product and the telemarketer says "well, you can opt out at any time". That's not the point... the point is, the call (or in this case, the addition to the list) should never have happened in the first place. Editors in good standing should not be added to lists on the basis that they can later ask to be removed (IF THEY EVEN KNOW THE LIST EXISTS!). This is a bad precedent. We need to be proactive, not reactive, when it comes to privacy and the rights of editors in good standing to not have their usernames added to lists. The only way to make this right is to allow only the editors themselves to add their names, which would, by default, make the list irrelevant as they would no longer be missing. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be the simplest thing in the world to create a template saying something like "This user has left Wikipedia. For privacy reasons, do not add his or her name to Wikipedia: Missing Wikipedians". Any editor wishing to leave WP and not be traced could simply place this on their user page when blanking it as their last edit. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, how would they know this particular page even exists? I didn't, until just last week. And again, people should not be added to lists on here unless they do it themselves, unless they're some kind of blocked troll or abusive vandal who administrators need to keep logs of information on. Lists of names are not good. Doesn't anyone out there see this? If I were to stop editing, I would not want someone to come along and add me to a list somewhere simply because I stopped editing and they decided I was "missing". This could certainly happen for a number of reasons and I'm sure it happens every day. If I hadn't stumbled on this accidentally, I would never have known it existed. It seems nobody agrees with me, so I'll just leave it at this: nobody should ever add anyone else to a list anywhere unless they're a troll/vandal. Editors in good standing don't need to be kept track of. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason you didn't know about this page is that you are not someone who is likely to become a missing wikipedian with major privacy concerns. It seems unlikely to me that anyone wishing to remove all traces of their Wikipedia activity (which anyone leaving WP in circumatances where privacy is an issue would almost certainly do) would fail to check user name policy pages such as Wikipedia:User name. The page Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians should be mentioned there, along with methods for avoiding listing. As for being a troll/vandal, I've added names to Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles; which do you consider me to be, a troll or a vandal? Grutness...wha? 01:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A misunderstanding: I meant that only trolls and vandals should have their usernames added to lists. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Multixfer, you have this backwards, or perhaps WP:DENY has got this wrong? We want to recognise that who have worked postiviely for the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Although this doesn't quite work this way all the time. As in the case of Kurt Weber where he made a request at the talk page for someone to edit the comments about him because they were too negative. If we keep the page we must take precautions so that this can be avoided. Dr.K. logos 03:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Apologies - I did misunderstand you. Mind you, that leaves the question of those listed on Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles... Grutness...wha? 01:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I feel the same way about that: if someone here wants to add themselves to that, then let them, but it should be that person. But seeing how this is going I'll probably just drop the whole thing once this is closed. :-) <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per common sense. 211.30.100.235 (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what does that mean? Not much of an argument for keeping. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The encyclopedia was built by people, and they matter. If someone spends years of their life, of their free time, writing hundreds of articles, and they leave, they leave a name, and that name matters, for it is part of our history. The memory hole is for organizations without compassion and care. Please read Milan Kundera's Book of Laughter and Forgetting to get yet another view of the importance of historical memory. This is a big thing we are doing here, and don't ever forget it; it's already the largest collection of information in the history of the human race, and the laborers who built it matter. "Who built the pyramids," asked Bertolt Brecht, "Who built the Seven Towers of Thebes? The books are filled with the names of kings..." Editors matter and this is part of our history. Antandrus (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why is the list so small? How many people just lose interest, stop editing, and move on to other pursiits but aren't listed here? Seems a bit... elitist? Either that or totally random. Some of the best articles here have probably been written by people who weren't wiki-pals with anyone, or were just quiet and preferred to work on articles rather than engage in the social aspect. So, is this a list of people who mattered to the encyclopedia or a list of people whose current status of "missing" saddens their friends? A true and accurate listing of people who contribute significantly but then get bored or just stop for whatever reason would probably be in the thousands, if not tens of thousands. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - a useful list to show that we at least have some concern for our fellow editors' well-being. We care that they haven't been around lately, we wonder what happened to them - are they ok, did they just get bored, or did something happen to them? We don't know. But this list is harmless in any case. See also Wikipedia:Friends. I assure you, whenever I notice an editor who used to be a regular here just go cold turkey in their contributions, I get very worried for them. Majorly talk 23:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can feel free to close this, the consensus is clear. -- <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-06-29

Closing instructions

[edit] User:TruthbringerToronto/Publimedia International

Multiple articles on Romanian magazines, originally created by Cristina.danilescu (talk · contribs) in November 2006 -- no, not a typo -- and moved into User:TruthbringerToronto's userspace, where they have remained completely untouched for the last 31 months. The pages are:

• /Publimedia International
• /Acasa Magazin
• /BUSINESS Magazin
• /Ce se intampla, doctore?
• /DESCOPERA
• /ProMotor
• /TARGET
• /The ONE

As user space is not a permanent storage space for the unwanted, it's time to delete these. -- Calton | Talk 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just blank such pages. There is no need to advertise abandoned things, and then debate them. If they are abandoned, no one minds if you blank them. Blanking is far less confrontational to the user when he returns. If you don't delete them, you won't upset some completely unexpect use of them. Deletion offers no performance advantage over blanking. Delete these if you like, but necessarily with the proviso that the user can have them undeleted on request (making it more bother than it is worth). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: The Australian Outback

Also User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: Africa, User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: Pulau Tiga, User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: Malaysia, User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: Marquesas, User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: Thailand, User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: The Amazon, User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: All-Stars, User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: Pearl Islands, User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Sims Survivor: China and User:JuiceTOtheMAXX/Survivor: Micronesia Fanfic.

The titles of these pages makes the intention obvious. More internet reality TV show nonsense. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. 245/247 of this user's edits are to the userspace. MER-C 10:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Burn with fire, er delete. Many fine webhosting services are out there: Wikipedia is NOT one of them. --Calton | Talk 17:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• (Speedy) delete. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Does not look to me to be so obviously not suitable for development into mainspace content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] User:Hertfordshire1234/Prince Elliott

[edit] User:Hertfordshire1234/Elliott Windsor, Earl of Hertforshire

User Hertfordshire1234 (talk · contribs) (currently blocked for a week) and his sockpuppet Englandrules123 (talk · contribs) have input numerous hoax articles purporting to show that "Elliott Dashwood" or "Elliott Windsor" is a member of the British aristocracy. These user pages are more of his fantasies in preparation and have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. -- JohnCD (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete if these are hoax articles in waiting. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Had to go through a shed load of the hoax articles myself and these two pages are more of the same. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] User talk:SurvivorHarryPotter

User talk page used solely for unrelated activity. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. -- Kotiwalo (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The page "User talk:SurvivorHarryPotter" is not using Wikipedia as a web hosting service. Facebook is the web hosting service for this Online Reality Game. The Wikipedia User talk page is being used document the experience of the Online Reality Game Survivor "Harry Potter.": http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?gid=87952521775#/group.php?gid=87952521775. SurvivorHarryPotter (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not meant for unrelated activities. They are meant for communicating with other users about Wikipedia and improving it. Kotiwalo (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete this is a scratchpad/tally page for some facebook game. Keep it in facebook, or if not there, some wiki farm. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The user actually blanked the page already twice, but I reverted since the afd tag states that the page shouldn't be blanked. Thus I doubt anyone will oppose deletion. Kotiwalo (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and I believe a page can be speedy deleted if the sole author blanks the page - but I don't know how much this conflicts with a deletion process. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I never had any problems ignoring some rules when necessary, but I want to play it safe Kotiwalo (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Actually, the user IS using Wikipedia as a webhosting service: he's trying to use it to host game stats. --Calton | Talk 17:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a webhost. -T'Shael,The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 19:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] User:Gongpao/F&S International Education

Similar to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Synapse8/PrintGlobe Inc., this is a userpage created in October 2008, by a user who hasn't edited since then, so it is unlikely to ever be introduced into articlespace. Falls under Wikipedia is not a webhost. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to user's userpage if it bothers you. No reason to delete. No Reason for MfD debates. We should assume that the user will return, and not bite people for inactivity. Maybe he will return if you ask him what he intends with the page? Maybe you could even welcome him. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Frankly deleting every page of a person absent as an editor for 8 months is not productive. Page violates no rules, hence no reason to delete. Collect (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep- Who says that this isn't their sandbox? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Assume good faith, something the nominator seems to have forgotten. -- Ricky28618 (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-06-28

Closing instructions

[edit] Wikipedia:Categorization of people/boilerplate fact policy

The page creator has asked me to MfD this. I don't believe there's any support for the page at this time; it was intended as a way to store information from 2 or 3 pages, including WP:BLP, so that the same information could be transcluded on all pages. This is a strategy that was tried on several style guidelines pages for a while, and consensus was that it didn't work; people who weren't very likely to keep up with changes on the style guidelines pages lost all interest in keeping up with changes when those changes moved to a separate page, because it wasn't possible to look at a diff in the history. Disclaimer: I'm not uninvolved here, I made an argument at WP:VPP that I didn't like this direction. I'm opening this MfD because the G7 speedy was denied by another admin, and the page creator asked me to MfD this. - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: the G7 wasn't denied by another admin, it was removed from the page by Debresser (talk · contribs). He routinely reverts my edits, and opposes my XfD nominations.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree per nominator. I myself have mentioned this argument as well in this diff.

G7 indeed wasn't appropriate for several reasons: 1. several other editors had edited this page 2. policy pages should be commented upon by the community, in my understanding. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Then your deletion of the G7 tag was WP:POINT, as you now agree that it should be deleted.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as page creator -- no other editors have made any significant contributions, all changes without prior discussion have been reverted. Once upon a time, transclusion of subpages was routine. There is support for it in the base software, specifically <onlyinclude>. Actually, the history is easier to track, as each subpage has its own history. Apparently, it has fallen out of use, as regular editors don't readily understand it. Once that was explained by Dank, I was happy to agree on another way to prevent textual drift, specifically by removing the text in all other places, and using the {{main}} and {{details}} summary style templates to cross reference. Please delete at your leisure.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - it is difficult enough to keep an eye on one policy page without having to watch subpages as well. I prefer the present set-up using {{main}} and {{details}}. Occuli (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per User:William Allen Simpson. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-06-27

Closing instructions

[edit] User:Jethro Loves Shermerra

user page being used as a blog or personal web page. Nearly all user's edits have been to this page and to deleted page of now blocked username, aside from one or two to their talk page and to another user's talk page. It appears both this user and the now blocked user were involved in playing some sort of fantasy TV network game. -- Exploding Boy (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

can you wait until i move it to another site.User:Jethro Loves Shermerra

You appear to have several blogs going online already. Anyway, all you need to do is save this to a file on your computer. It shouldn't take more than a minute, but this is not the type of content that belongs here. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Rapid delete no point in waiting further. DGG (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all pages, including User:The Ally Network. WP is not a webhost for someone's fantasies. --Calton | Talk 04:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• User:The Ally Network has been deleted. Note that many of this user's edits were to that page prior to its deletion; they claimed that User:The Ally Network asked them to continue editing it after that user was blocked. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Nope, it's still there, with a 77-edit edit history. I said "delete", not "blank". --Calton | Talk 18:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Aha. Since the user has already been blocked, I'll take the liberty of deleting their user page. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all pages Actually they had more pages which were deleted and few of them were blocked for username violations and spamming.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] Template:User autoreview

Since moved to Template:User wikipedia/autoreviewer

This is a rather unusual nomination as far as userboxes go. This userbox is not derogatory or anything like that. However, it does encourage a view about autoreviewer that we should avoid; people should not care about having this "right". The entire point of the autoreviewer usergroup was to help New Page Patrollers out as they patrol articles;it's an entirely "behind the scenes" thing. If users did not even notice that it was added to their account, it would not matter at all. There is no conceivable benefit to having this userbox, as it is easy to identify users in the autoreviewer usergroup through other methods, and it is best to avoid autoreviewer being seen as a status symbol or an extra hat to collect. NW (Talk) 22:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Something we don't need is more users trying to collect these flags as status symbols. — Jake Wartenberg 22:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or move to userspace. This would be akin to a userbox that said "this user is autoconfirmed": this tool is granted with one specific purpose, and is even granted without the knowledge of the recipient in some cases. This template seems a bit pointless to me. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, although this seems self-promoting, we have a rollback template that is similar to this, and that is on many user pages. I know that this might seem unnotable, but why not have a template concerning your userright. As long as we don't have anybody being affected, there is no need to get rid of it. I agree that it is at the level of the autoconfirmed users, but not everyone can be confirmed as an autoreviewer and rollbacker. This is just like having the administrator template. As I said before, this isn't harming anyone and can be useful in a short notice on the userpage. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per PeterSymonds' reasoning. -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 01:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Given that we have Template:User rollback, I don't think it makes any sense to delete this UBX but not that one. This isn't to say I don't disapprove of the two (and maybe more, similar) boxen, but I don't support deleting one and leaving the other, since they're the same thing, just a different permission. ÷seresin 06:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I believe the nominator put it perfectly: that we don't need this to be another hat to collect. And while the admin userbox is similar, it can be useful for Wikipedians to know whether a user is an administrator or not when it comes to asking for help with certain tasks, etc., especially for new Wikipedians who may not know where to find admins otherwise (I know that I stumbled across an admin with a userbox long before I ever encounterd WP:LA). I also agree that Template: User Rollback should have the same fate as this userbox, whichever way this MfD goes. – DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 08:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. It serves to advertise a projection functionality, and doesn't hurt. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Advertise a... what? Zetawoof_(ζ) 19:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Advertises Wikipedia:Autoreviewer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I understand the argument about avoiding "status" impressions, but that doesn't seem like a real issue for this situation. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, but move to Template:User wikipedia/autoreviewer for consistency and clarity. (Y Done) I realize that some editors like to collect these rights like shiny coloured baubels, but that's not the userboxes' fault. –xeno^talk 13:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Violates nothing. And unless we prune down the total number of userboxes, barnstars and the like, removing it proves little. Collect (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Users are allowed and at times even encouraged to display their roles within the project. In this instance, among other things, users with questions about any new autoreview functionality might be assisted in knowing whom they might ask. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per NYBrad's rationale - I feel that such encouragement is bad. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • So when someone posted the tags on my userpage that I had been chosen as an administrator and later an arbitrator, I should have reverted him? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Should you have? Well, it depends on what kind of image that you want to produce. If "being an admin is no big deal", which meant that it doesn't give you a special status, then why would you feel the need to display that status in some kind of fancy manner that seems more like collecting decorations than anything else? If our primary concern is to edit an encyclopedia and not be myspace, why have any such things? You can see from my own user page where I stand on the issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Ottava Rima, Why do you feel that such encouragement (of role display) is bad? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Because I spend a lot of time working on a very large to do list in 18th and 19th century literature that are completely ignored but have tons of sources that are easy to get a hold of. There are major authors that could have 100-200 pages added to Wikipedia with hundreds of sources to use for information that aren't being completed because we just don't have people willing to put forth the effort. But we do have people willing to decorate their user page. We are an encyclopedia, no? Then lets ban the myspacing and encourage people to help me. I want an encyclopedia, and Literature articles are barely up to 1% of content completed, if that. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I disagree, largely as per Wikipedia:Editors matter, because harassing editors who fuss and fiddle in userspace is likely to drive good and potentially good editors away from wikipedia completely, and because I don’t believe that it will encourage the fussing fiddlers to take an interest and develop aptitude in serious literature. On the contrary, I think your interest would be better served in attracting interested editors if your userpage did contain focused userboxes and other links to wikiprojects. These things catch the eye of casual visitors who take an interest in your activities. As it is, your userpage strikes me as reflecting a person who knows what he is doing and who likes to work alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
        • If someone is busy with their user page, they are not busy with article space. Their priorities are completely backwards. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Per that line of reasoning, your priorities could be declared similarly "backwards" because you could have been working on an article rather than commenting here. But, as we all know, there's more to Wikipedia than simply the articles themselves. Providing incentive through some fun side activities can't do anything but encourage participation and collaboration. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Incorrect. By pushing for a delete, the loss of time here would be countered by the even greater gain of people being left with one less myspacing option and thus pushed towards editing an encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Then why not eliminate userpages altogether? No fun, only work here at Wikipedia. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Because user pages are able to accomplish what mine accomplishes - help in working on various items. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • Not everyone shares your all-business, no-frills philosophy. Qqqqqq (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
                    • Yes, hence why people like you are supporting these boxes. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Hurts nothing. Most userboxes are relatively useless, when it comes down to it. Until those are pared down to identifying only the quality of a user's contributions or some other similarly businesslike purpose, there's no reason to selectively restrict which kinds of interests or characteristics contributors are allowed to display. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Hurts nothing is not a valid keep. There are many things that "don't hurt" that are specifically not allowed here. See WP:NOT. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Fine, but no argument I have read here in favor of deletion convinces me at all. The default is to keep the status quo unless deletion is convincingly advocated. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • And playing the WP:NOT card is a very weak justification for deletion. What specifically about this template is prohibited, in your opinion? Qqqqqq (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Attention!- Guys, stop arguing about who is better. I don't think that we need to war over this on a deletion page. We all have our likes and dislikes, and no user is better than another user, as we all share a same goal. Please show a bit of maturity here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Quite opposite, there are definitely users who are better than others, otherwise, no one would ever be banned nor would people become admin. There is no egalitarian society. This is a meritocracy. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about you two saying that the each had a better view on what the ideal editor was. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Fix lowercase first letter problem

Old bit of JavaScript that has been entirely replaced by {{lowercase title}}. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Is actually used in 2 users monobooks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/Fix_lowercase_first_letter_problem. Rich Farmbrough, 13:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

Having been replaced, the script is never activated. It can be deleted without trouble. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] Portal:Åland

Portal that won't happen RSN - only a skeleton since 2007 -- Rich Farmbrough, 13:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

• Delete. There's no actual content here besides a really old copy of the lede from Åland, and there doesn't appear to be much interest in expanding it. I've notified the author, as - atypically for abandoned portals like this one - he's still editing actively. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• It would be preferable to merge, redirect, or mark as historical. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - has shown no real activity since the day it was created, and I have never seen a portal marked "historical", although I would have no objections personally to turning it into a redirect to Portal:Finland. John Carter (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete- I would delete it only if we can't find anyone to expand upon it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Recent discussions

Everything from here on down is old business; the 7-day review period that began on 26 June 2009 has ended. Everything below this marker should be dealt with and removed from the workflow. Move this marker up as time passes. 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.

[edit] 2009-06-26

Closing instructions

[edit] User:S0ointense and User:JasonFernadez101

Here we go again. Even more userspace reality TV games. Wikipedia is not a free web host, nil encyclopedic contributions, blah blah blah. I note that the former user has 1553/1574 edits to his/her user page. MER-C 14:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete both. Not related to wikipedia. WP:NOTWEBHOST. Refer participants to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, allow participants to move material offsite. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - blatant infringement of WP:NOT. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 07:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-06-25

Closing instructions

[edit] User:Kramerb

Also User:Jase 17, User:Mattrman 08, User:Avilsta, User:OoSleePLesSsoO, User:Pac rac and User:Eurotom1234567890.

More userspace reality TV show crap. Wikipedia is not a free web host. These users have negligible encyclopedic contributions. For context, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive505#Web forums using Wikipedia as a webhost and various examples in the MFD archives. MER-C 03:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep User:Jase 17, as he fixed the problem himself (diff). No reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC) modified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• User:Kramerb,
• User:Mattrman 08,
• User:Avilsta,
• User:OoSleePLesSsoO,
• User:Pac rac &
• as per User:MB Games below:

Delete. Not related to wikipedia. WP:NOTWEBHOST. Refer participants to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, allow participants to move material offsite. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• User:Eurotom1234567890 Contains some suitable content; user is a contributor, edit to remove games stuff from page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep User:Jase 17 because they have edited their page to get rid of the problematic content. No recommendation yet as to all the others yet; perhaps they will do the same before this MfD ends. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as fixed. Collect (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Except for Jase 17, they don't look fixed to me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing instructions

[edit] User:Jeffvlaming/Jeff vlaming

Spam in userspace. Reads like copyvio. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. New user. This nomination is too bitey. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for now, per WP:BITE. It's a AGF nomination, but new user could use some help before having user subpage deleted. — Becksguy (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Agree it reads a little copyvio, but also reads like beginnings of an article, and this would be legitimate use of userspace suppage. Quick research shows Jeff Vlamming to be a writer (screenplays etc) and could potentially be notable under criteria. Given "username", however, user should be made aware of relevant policies, particularly WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIO and WP:BLP (specifically WP:BIOSELF) before proceeding.--ClubOranje^T 11:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Not a violation on its face -- hence no reason to delete and a positive one to Keep. Collect (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotional, and editor's only contribution. If he wants to contribute, no one's stopping him. --Calton | Talk 18:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

[edit] 2009-06-28

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Allsterecho talk redirects (speedy deleted)

[edit] 2009-06-27

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium Porting (keep)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Xgsdev (speedy delete)

[edit] 2009-06-26

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:ChristofferMunck (content blanked)

[edit] 2009-06-25

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Pkoulop (Speedy close)