|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
|
Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside of the main article namespace which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for five days; then are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus (determined using the discussion as a guideline).
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.
-
- 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}}.
- When the user has no recent edits and has made little or no contribution to the encyclopedia, please consider using proposed deletion. (Please do not use it when these conditions are not met.) This is a lighter-weight process, and permits deletions which are unlikely to be contested to be made without requiring discussion and consensus.
- the various Talk: namespaces
The undeletion of pages deleted after having been discussed here, and debating whether discussions here have been properly closed, is the purview of Wikipedia:Deletion review, which operates in accordance with our undeletion policy.
Please familiarize yourself with the following policies
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.
How to list pages for deletion
Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area.
To list an article/page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)
| I. |
Edit PageName.
Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:
- {{subst:mfd}}
or
- {{subst:mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several related pages in an umbrella nomination.
Be sure to include "subst:", not just {{mfd}}; this is easier on the servers. Please include "Nominated for deletion" or similar in the edit summary and don't mark it as a minor edit. Consider checking the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This will help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by a vandal. Save the page.
- If you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page, consider using {{subst:md1-inline|PageName}}.
|
| II. |
Create its MfD subpage.
You should see a prominent link to "this page's entry" in the new article text.
Follow that link (to [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]) and enter this text:
- {{subst:mfd2 | pg=PageName | text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
Put the page's name in place of "PageName" and include a reason after text=. Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the ongoing discussion in your watchlist. Save the page.
|
| III. |
Add a line to MfD.
Follow 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" and include the page's name in your edit summary. Save the page.
|
- 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 miscellany. For your convenience, you may add {{subst:MFDWarning|Article}} to their talk page.
- If you are nominating a Portal, please make a note of your nomination here.
- If nominating a page that has been nominated before, consider placing {{priorxfd|pagename}} in the discussion area to link to the previous discussions.
Administrator instructions
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
I closed a previous MfD as 'conditional keep' indicating that the page might be usable if it becomes the page of an active editor but is going to be deleted if it is resurrected for the sole purpose of networking or the like. The latter has IMO been the case and I have therefore actually deleted it already in the past. As it has been recreated and considering that also according to the opinion of a fellow admin the previous closure looks like a keep, I am bringing it here once more. Tikiwont (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Redundant and confusing fork of protection efforts at WP:RFPP, Nominations and Patrol sections seem to remind me of other efforts have been rejected, like Wikipedia:CVU or Wikipedia:Stress alerts MBisanz talk 02:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, per arguments at WP:THINKTANK and Wikipedia:Neighborhood watch (forthcoming). Any confusion can be avoided by having a note on the page that requests for page un/protection should be taken to WP:RFPP. From what I hear, there are many hundred, if not 1,000 pages on indefinite/permanent protection. This is an attempt to gather some people together to work on this issue, come up with creative ways of addressing it, analyze systemic protection-related problems, etc. and keep a unified archive of related discussions in one place for future reference. I think it can be useful; let's give it a bit more time please to bear fruit. It was started less than a week ago. It should be noted that in the case of Wikipedia:Stress alerts, "Inactivity overcame the project and ceased after a while, and the page was marked as historical"; it was not forcibly overcome by MfD. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- What does this project actually do? Find articles that need to be unprotected and get them unprotected? An editor can just request at RFPP. If there are problems with a protection, discussing with the protecting admin or taking the case to a noticeboard is the correct course of action. This just seems useless, so it should be deleted. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- What noticeboard would it be taken to? WP:ANI blows, and WP:RFPP explicitly says it is not for disputed protections. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I think this is a unique idea that is separate from WP:RFPP. Lets admit it - its a lot more common to protect a page than it is to unprotect it. There are articles that get left behind that are protected long after the protection is actually needed. This is more like WP:TYPO than anything else. This project is simply a clearing house for helping to alert administrators to pages that don't need protection anymore, thus keeping Wikipedia the encyclopedia anyone can edit. -->Please feel free to check my user page and talk archives. I don't look for trouble or invest in things just to make a point. This is a good idea and I stand behind it. --mboverload@ 06:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Included in this MFD: User:SLJCOAAATR 1/Sandbox/Soul the Hedgehog
Fanfic project in userspace. WP:NOT your personal webspace. Does not serve the encyclopedia in any way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry. I thought that we could have it under a sandbox... Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 06:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- There's pretty broad leeway for what you can have in your userspace, but generally it needs to be related to the encyclopedia in some way. Socializing is fine, entire projects unrelated to the encyclopedia generally aren't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks for correcting me! Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 06:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Do we really need to archive the talk page of a template that has been deleted many many times? It seems silly. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Don't we need it so we have a record of discussion that led to its deletion? Pagrashtak 02:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Pagrashtak - as the deletion of this template was a controversial matter that involved much discussion, it seems useful to keep a record of that discussion to refer people to when the issue comes up again. Terraxos (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it. This template talk is part of one of the most significant process-abuse scandals in Wikipedia's history. Circa May 15, 2007, about six people mass-changed 45,000-some articles without consensus by controversially misusing AWB, then claimed consensus was needed to changed them back one-by-one. They prevented any changing back one-by-one with an unfair opponent block and many follow-up intimidations, including another unfair block last December 2007 of an opponent who had gathered significant evidence of wrongdoing by senior admins. Last time I checked, the main debate was around two million bytes at six months time. The debate may or may not be over, since there are a million-some narrative suspense net-fans on the outside who probably object, since several new text tags were placed daily, but only a handful of well-placed clique members to hold them off for the rest of their careers on WP. Also, don't exaggerate – IIRC, each of the family of templates was deleted once only, by sequential processes of further abuses. Milo 04:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, for the same reason we keep talk page archives. They are records of discussions that might need to be referenced in the future. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Ads. Burningjoker (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, it's pretty minimal and could just be regarded as useful contact information for reaching him should an urgent Wikipedia-related matter come up when he's not checking his email. Might as well give him the benefit of the doubt. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Delete - appears to be a resume in userspace. And before someone suggests discussing this with the user first... he hasn't edited Wikipedia in over a year, I don't think you're likely to get a reply. Terraxos (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Prod as scratchpad of departed user. Burningjoker (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Reason for prod was fork. Burningjoker (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Question...why did you remove the prods just to bring them to MFD if you clearly don't disagree with them? --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Prod should only be used on articles, as its wording and documentation make clear. This isn't an article. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Prod can also be used on user and user:talk pages. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Then it should definitely say so in the documentation. The current wording says it is for articles, as does the template itself. Grutness...wha? 02:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- It does say so on the WP:PROD page: 'The only exceptions to this rule are pages in the User and User talk namespaces which may be proposed for deletion if the user has no recent edits and has made few or no contributions to the encyclopedia.' Not prominently enough though, I agree - I only discovered that line myself a week or two ago. Terraxos (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Anyway, Delete. This is clearly inactive (look at the history) and unlikely to ever become an article, so there's no need to keep it. Terraxos (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete this and the above two. I completely agreed with the prods. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Only ever one participant, three articles, no recent activity, and a very narrow and niche scope. I just can't see any potential for this project. Happy‑melon 14:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOT#MYSPACE. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Clearly a blog of off wiki activity. Synergy 11:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom and above. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 12:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Editors matter. The user has made edits to actual articles, and there is no blog here at all. There is a reference to a blog which is on a non-Wikimedia web site. Is the objectionable content the list of the user's YouTube videos? If so, why was that not discussed with the user first on his talk page, and why was it not mentioned in the nomination? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Metropolitan90. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Old project that never got off the ground, mostly the in-progress work of a single retired user. Duplicates WP:Help desk and incorporates some of the less desirable parts of the former WP:AMA. MBisanz talk 19:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I doubt that neither of the maintainers will ever return to Wikipedia because of incident well-known. Sceptre (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- Exactly what incident is this? Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- I wouldn't claim well-known, but I would claim exceedingly ugly. bibliomaniac15 20:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Restrictive membership, inactive, and duplicates other areas that function perfectly well. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per all the reasons given above: no need to keep the pages of this old, never-active proposed project. Terraxos (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Inactive and redundant. GlassCobra 02:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The {this is undergoing a major expansion" tag was added over two years ago. Keeper ǀ 76 15:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Inactive and creators are retired.--RadianSeize (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate of WP:SSP, falls prey to same issues as the WP:CVU had of being process-bloated, likely to encourage harassment or forum shopping. MBisanz talk 15:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, confusing and not helpful. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This organisation seems to duplicate the purpose of WP:SSP, as explained by MBisanz, and I don't think that's particularly helpful. By all means, if editors who would have signed on as "SUI's" wish to contribute to the field of sock puppet identification, I see no reason why they could not do so at SSP; however, establishing a separate club that ultimately is unrequired isn't the way to do things. Having multiple forums investigate the same issue simply leads to resources (ie., editors' time) being wasted. No, I think we should keep things firmly at one central location.
Anthøny 16:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Pointless duplication of WP:SSP Mayalld (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep You guys aren't understanding the main point of the unit. We're not looking to do cases or give conclusions or outcomes on a socketpuppet situation. We want help investigate an ongoing or potential case on WP:SSP. We are also looking to help editors with what to do before summiting a case on WP:SSP or any other noticeboard. We're not in anyway looking to duplicate the WP:SSP but to just help other editors draw up cases, give help and advice and tell them the right page to submit the case. Like I said, NO outcome or conclusions will be made by the unit. Please let me know if you have any other questions. --DJS24 16:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- likely to encourage harassment or forum shopping. MBisanz I don't find that to be the case, editors would come to us for help, we wouldn't be searching for trouble. Just because that might have happened at CVU doesn't mean it would occur with us. Like I said, editors would need to come to us before we helped them out.--DJS24 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- SSP is perennially in need of competent, fair-minded investigators. It seems, however, that it would be better to put a "List of users who are willing to help format and investigate cases" on SSP or its talk page, rather than create a separate wikiproject. Thatcher 17:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- After the merger at SSP2, wouldn't that sorta list be redundant to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks. MBisanz talk 17:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- I believe Thatcher is understanding our point. We are looking to help investigate the cases ON WP:SSP and to help other editors with questions on (Where to summit the case; what evidence to include; How to draw up a good report: ect..). By no means are we looking to duplicate to WP:SSP. --DJS24 17:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Projects lead to "projectism", such as the disputes between the US Highways wikiprojects and individual state roads wikiprojects over naming and other stylistic issues. Such factionalism is bad. It seems that you can accomplish your purpose without a project page and special userboxes and such. Thatcher 17:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This is just going to complicate matters, and I don't see what's wrong with WP:SSP or WP:RFCU in the first place. Checkusers are always available and will respond quickly, and if an SSP report sits for a little while, you can poke an admin or experienced user. Not a big deal. Let's avoid WP:CREEPing around here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, go ahead and help by all means, but this project isn't needed for you to do that. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete redundant. miranda 01:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete However, the two involved users are certainly to be commended for their exuberance and willingness to help out. DJS24, perhaps you should look into helping clerk at SSP? I imagine they could use another set of hands there. Unfortunately, I'm not sure who you might ask about procedure and such. GlassCobra 02:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I would rather not have MFD take on the role of deciding what is and isn't redundant. If the group is not needed, it should be able to merge/shut down/redirect/etc. on its own without the need for outsiders to forcibly interfere. WP:NEIGHBORHOODWATCH Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unneeded or redundant. Clerks and other experienced editors individually can fulfill this role, if you are still happy to help. Synergy 11:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I understand the concept of the unit and it is a good idea. But I think the rassle dassle should be limited. (userboxes,etc.)--RadianSeize (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete encourages over active sock hunters which poison the project every time they accuse somone of beign a sock when they aren't ViridaeTalk 08:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
As discussed here, this seems like an obsolete, out-of-date page which has not been flagged as historical. It also seems like the current template page covers everything that has been here, rendering this page effectively useless. In addition, I do not see keeping this page as "backups" is useful at all if it's not going to be used for that purpose. MuZemike (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I stated most of my reasons in that discussion. The gist of it is that I think it should be deleted as it is purely superfluous. The current template page covers just about everything on that page and is far more up to date as well. I see no value in retaining the history either, as it is pretty much adding these "backup" templates to the page. --.:Alex:. 10:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I created this page back when we were trying to come up with a video game infobox. We've had a completed one for quite a while now. This temporary work page can be deleted now. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Since the most relevant history is already kept at the Template:Infobox VG history, this page appears to serve little purpose. Deleting will prevent editors from stumbling across this stray page and trying to engage in discussion at a defunct talk page. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC))
- Comment: Should Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Template//Experiment be added to this deletion as well? (Guyinblack25 talk 22:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC))
- Yes, and delete - superfluous. There's not much value to keeping completely obsolete history around. It's just a temporary page has since become useless. Randomran (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like this page was never added to the main MFD page. I've just placed it there. Pagrashtak 15:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I was one of the people involved in designing the video game template. This page up for deletion was created as a 'common sandbox' for our efforts, and since it is no longer needed it is best deleted. --ShaunMacPherson (talk) 09:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete serves no purpose.--RadianSeize (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOT#WEBHOST. This page is the creator's most edited page. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 14:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Something for MySpace or another such site. -[[Ryan]] (my desk) 14:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - Policy says dont create articles about yourself. But, unless he is thinking of moving the article to the mainspace, then it should be kept because he could just be using that page to tell more about him/herself. Gears of War 2 15:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment - I see that clearly, but it has no harm. If he wants to waste his carreer editing that stupid article, then thats up to him. But it has no harm on anyone except for himself. Now, if he moves this page to the mainspace, it should most deffinetly be deleted. Gears of War 2 15:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment-Read WP:NOT#WEBHOST. Focusing his career on one userpage is disruptive. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 15:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment -
Y Done I have asked him to move the informaton somehwhere else before it's deleted. Gears of War 2 17:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep, and comment to all of you - policy does not say "Don't create articles about yourself", and it is a perfectly acceptable use of userspace to use it as a sandbox. I strongly suggest you withdraw this MfD. – iridescent 23:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- WP:NOT#MYSPACE is about the use of Wikipedia as a social networking site. You can't simultaneously be arguing to delete something because it's fictional, and argue that he's posting his resume. And before the pair of you start throwing social-networking allegations around, you might want to do a quick mote/beam analysis, seeing as 50% of your edits are to user talk pages. – iridescent 00:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- THE DEAL I MADE WITH EAST I made a deal with User:east718, he said that once I get my page back I could do some of the things I was doing on it on seperate sub-pages. I haven't though, instaid I am creating new subpages for other things, I am also planning to remove the real people in the template on the bottom. Plus, there is NOTHING in wikipedia that states that subpages can't be used in any way. I doubt it even mentions subpages. I think that deleting is stupid, considering there is no reason for it. Altenhofen (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Coment Myspace was mankinds worst creation. and also, I am not trying to social network, do any of the things i do seem "social" to you? I am in my room 24/7 an the computer, I call that being a loner. Altenhofen (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- CommentAltenhofen: WP:NOT#WEBHOST is the correct guideline. This is the page you edit the most, your primary focus. Your primary focus shouldn't be a user subpage about you fantasizing about being in a band (i don't mean to be unkind or anything). And no iridescent, I will not withdraw. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 00:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- And no, I'm not saying subpages cant be used. Just that they cant be your focus here. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 00:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Then I won't focus on them, I will make ALL OF YOU a deal. I will make 500 edits to wikipedia (in the mainspace) before cruefest on the fourteenth. If I can do this, I want the deletion template removed. and the deletion aborted. Deal? Altenhofen (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh. Go ahead and make those edits, but Wikipedia isn't about making deals. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 00:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Not "a deal" I actually intend it to be proof that I can contribute to wikipedia properly.
- We know you can contribute properly. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 00:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but everything needs proof. And this will be proof to back up that last claim of yours. Altenhofen (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've looked at your contributions. Your contributions prove it. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 00:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per iridescent. Silly MfD. All of you go edit an article. —Giggy 14:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete useless and should be somewhere on myspace--RadianSeize (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:USER. This is clearly not a work in progress but a personal webpage. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- If it is going to be delted, the templ;ate needs to be changed. The deletion policy does not say anything about subpages. so unless you people find the right template it can't be deleted, because saying "This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy" is lying. IT IS NOT IN ACORDANCE TO ANY POLICY. Altenhofen (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- ALSO Subpages ARE FOR yourself. Altenhofen (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE and/or WP:UP#NOT Oroso (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, looks quite like an encyclopedia article and easily causes confusion, so it should be deleted. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, blatant advertising/promotion/spam. Keeper ǀ 76 14:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:BITE. No effort was made to explain the problems with the page to this new user before nominating it for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per Metropolitan90, without prejudice to renom. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
No encyclopedic value. WP is not a webhost, nor is it a soapbox to air grievances; in this case, against Disney. The "IL7Infobox" pages are all redundant to their respective pre-existing templates. GlassCobra 04:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Nominating the following pages for the same reason:
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Bored/More
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Bored/More/Special
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Bored/More/Special/Bored
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Bored/More/Special/Bored/More
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Bored/More/Special/Bored/More/Ha Ha!
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Bored/More/Special/Bored/More/Secret
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Bored/More/Special/Bored/More/Secret/Guestbook
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Bored/More/Special/Bored/More/Secret/Here
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Bored/More/UBXes
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Bored/Srange Page/More
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Bored/Strange Page
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Bored/Strange Page/More
- User:IL7Soulhunter/LOLcat
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Anti-Disney list
- User:IL7Soulhunter/PTOYP
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/.doc to .txt?
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/AK47
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/IL7Infobox
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/IL7Infobox/Single
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/IL7Infobox/Single/doc
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/IL7Infobox/album
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/IL7Infobox/footer
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/IL7Infobox/footer/doc
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/IL7Infobox/navbox
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/IL7Infobox/navbox/doc
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/IL7Infobox/otheruses5
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/IL7Infobox/plz
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/IL7Infobox/plz/doc
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/IL7Infobox/v.d.e.
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/IL7Infobox/v.d.e./doc
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/Story
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/Story/AK47
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/Story/LOLcity
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/Story/Nukes
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/Story/Planes
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Sandbox/Story/Ships
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Signpost
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Story of a WikiDragon
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Templates
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Vandalize Me!
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Vandalize Me!/Edit
- Delete all - inappropriate use of userspace. Terraxos (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all except the guestbook. It may have no encyclopedic value, but, as Jimbo says,
| “ |
Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. Unlike divisive userboxes, the autograph books seem to just be about saying hello and being friendly. |
” |
BoL (Talk) 05:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all per GlassCobra. This is an insane waste of user space. --Chet B. LongTalk/ARK 05:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep all I see no attempt at all to address these concerns with the user before taking this to MfD. -- Ned Scott 09:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
At the top of this page it says (green):
-
- 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.
Perhaps this step needs to be "required". I see nothing blatantly wrong with the above user pages. If the anti-Disney stuff is too much soapboxing, and not enough "friendly information about this valued contributor", then you should first raise your concerns with the user. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete All per WP:NOTMYSPACE Oroso (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Ned and Smokey are correct, I should have discussed it with this user first. I apologize for this; however, that is by no means a justification for invalidating this entire MfD. The step is not required, though Smokey is correct in saying that perhaps it should be. GlassCobra 23:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all per past consensus and uselessness to an encyclopedia. Same as the below MfD on the same user. Synergy 02:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Massive violation of WP:NOT#MYSPACE; clear abuse of userspace to host pages about non-notable vanity bands and all their "albums." This MFD is related to a simultaneous IFD of all images used on these pages, located at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 4#Image:Boom cover.jpg and going down. GlassCobra 03:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Nominating the following pages for the same reason:
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Area 51
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/C.O.R.P.S.E.
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/C.O.R.P.S.E./C.O.R.P.S.E.
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/C.O.R.P.S.E./Dark Funeral
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/C.O.R.P.S.E./Destroy
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/C.O.R.P.S.E./Noise Attack
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/C.O.R.P.S.E./Plague
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/CLC
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/CLC/77
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/CLC/Brainmaster
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/CLC/Gang
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/CLC/Nowhere
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/CLC/Tittytots
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Corn Snake
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Corn Snake/Everybody Get Anthrax
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Dark Sounds (1990s)
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Dark Sounds/Cover
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Dark Sounds/Dark
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Dark Sounds/EP
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Dark Sounds/Marijuana
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Dark Sounds/Rebirth
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Dark Sounds/Rebirth pt2
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/GNT
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/GNT/Destroy
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Proceed
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Queen Vlumv
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Rock 'n' Mole
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Self•Destruct
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Self•Destruct/Armadillo
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Self•Destruct/Cameronophobia
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Self•Destruct/Cameronophobia (song)
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Self•Destruct/Discography
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Self•Destruct/HJL
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Self•Destruct/Intro\Outro
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Self•Destruct/New Album
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Self•Destruct/Psychedelic Hell
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Self•Destruct/Self•Destruct
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Self•Destruct/Timeline
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/TechniKILL
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/The Cheeky Monkeys
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Total Matusha/Cottage
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Total Matusha/Matushas album
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Total Matusha/Sludge
- User:IL7Soulhunter/Associated acts/Total Matusha/Song
- Delete per nom. DurovaCharge! 03:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all - inappropriate use of userspace (and arguably vanity/advertising). Terraxos (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all BoL (Talk) 05:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all Per nom and this is an almost commic amount! Yamakiri TC § 08-4-2008 • 05:07:10
- Delete all per GlassCobra. This is an insane waste of user space. --Chet B. LongTalk/ARK 05:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete them all! I made a mistake by choosing housekeeping but User:GlassCobra fixed them. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!Talk 05:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep all I see no attempt to address this issue with the user before taking this to MfD. -- Ned Scott 09:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- MdD is NOT a arbcom. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!Talk 23:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- A factual statement that has little to do with my comment :) This is more about giving polite notice, as well as to find out about things the nom might not even know about. In a lot of cases we have the user going "oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I shouldn't have posted that" and let's us speedy delete the subpage.
-
-
- This is an active user who has made a number of edits to the article namespace. When I see that, and then see their userpage going to MfD, I try to ask if they were talked to first. I normally don't care as much if the user only made edits to their userspace, or is no longer active.
-
-
- I'm not mad at the nom for not doing this, but take my position here as a reminder that it's a very good idea, and can even help speed up the process of removing bad content. -- Ned Scott 08:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Ned is correct, I should have discussed it with this user first. I apologize for this; however, that is by no means a justification for invalidating this entire MfD. The step is not required, though perhaps it should be. GlassCobra 23:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all. It really doesn't matter that this was not discussed with the editor first. There are too many useless pages here to convert all of them to sandboxes, and we delete these per past consensus. Also as GlassCobra states, because the editor wasn't notified is not a reason to over look the uselessness of these pages. Synergy 02:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- IF the WP:MYSPACE violation is not quite blatant (if some of the above pages individually weren't so bad), then an easy non-delete option is to convert them all to redirects to the top userpage, with a polite note to the user. No need for each to be a sandbox.
- And then they would be deleted as useless redirects. I see no other options other than delete all, and no other avenues to be explored by talking it over with the editor first. Synergy 15:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete All Sorry, userspace isn't there to document this sort of thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Those animations are trippy. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all clear violation of WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Userpage appears to be used as free webspace/social networking site. User already had 2008 Celebraties Draft article deleted. ZimZalaBim talk 03:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - recreation of deleted content, and something which will never turn into a valid article. Terraxos (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, surely. However, couldn't this have been speedied as G4? Also, this user should probably have a name change; ZimZalaBim, you might consider leaving him a note to that effect. GlassCobra 02:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Old business
Everything from here on down is old business; the current 5-day review period has ended. Everything from this point on 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 may be closed at any time without further notice.
Previous 'Long Term Abuse' pages on longterm vandals have been deleted, and I believe this one should be as well. While the vandal in question does seem to be still active, I'm not sure there's any use in actually having this page; the type of vandalism here is relatively easy to spot and revert, and doesn't need any particular experience to deal with. Apart from issues with WP:DENY, this page also has privacy and WP:BLP concerns, in that it prominently mentions the names of two (arguably non-notable) real people. If the aim of this page is to get mentions of those people off Wikipedia, having a page about them here seems counterproductive. Finally, this page itself has been targeted by the vandal, through both direct vandalism and malicious redirects; it's now semi-protected, but that suggests to me it's more trouble than it's worth. For all these reasons, it should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Simply because it isn't written like the other LTA pages (partly that, but mostly becaus the others are all or mostly deleted already), my instinctive reaction is Delete. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 01:54 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- If the vandalism is not continuing, it should be sufficient to blank and protect. If you're sure that this vandal won't return to vandalism, and there is no possible value for internal research purposes, then delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Vandal isn't evidently active. Nothing special about this vandal either; WP:DENY. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment (as principal author of page) -- this page was created because Madman C's various subtle vandal edits were *not* being recognized as the work of one person. Because a lot of it was redirects, sandbox edits, etc, nobody had realized that this was one long-term vandal, and a lot of his sockpuppets weren't being blocked. That said, it won't bother me too much to delete this page (it seems to attract Madman C's attention), but a short summary should be added to the main long-term abuse page so that new admins and editors will be able to recognize this pattern. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Closed discussions
For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.
