Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Skip to active discussions.

Skip to active discussions
Shortcut:
WP:MFD
Deletion discussions
Deletion policy

Process – log – tools
Guide – Images – Admins
Purge - edit

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside of 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 five days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus (determined using the discussion as a guideline).

Contents


[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 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

[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 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.

or

{{subst:md1-inline|PageName}}
if you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page.
  • Be sure to include "subst:", not just {{mfd}}; this is easier on the servers.
  • 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 article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

    {{subst:MFDWarning|Article}} ~~~~

    to their talk page, replacing Article 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] 2008-11-20

[edit] User:Talentedtaylor

Blatant advertising and spam. — neuro(talk) 06:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:RTVG PR

User page is being used to track some imaginary reality series; user has made no other edits besides on this page. ... discospinster talk 02:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User is using this page without bothering anybody! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTVG PR (talk • contribs) 04:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: Even though they are not bothering anyone, this is not the reason there are userspaces. Please review WP:USER. – Jerryteps 05:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - If we didn't delete this because it wasn't 'bothering anyone', we'd by process be saying that any article that is not blatant vandalism should be kept. — neuro(talk) 07:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-11-19

[edit] User:Jwc4jwc4

User page of an account with a history of disruptive behavior. Makes dubious claims of being an administrator. Copied and pasted from an actual administrator's user page. The text has been reinstated after being blanked by an actual administrator. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The administrator whose "copyright" was violated is Thingg (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The user's response to being warned about this was to replace his userpage with a cut-and-paste of the warning admin's userpage. Given this user's history of disruption and dubious editing – and the number of warnings already on their userpage – I've blocked for 48 hours, and if this continues will extend that as necessary. I have no problems at all with people copy-and-pasting content from other pages – at least one userpage is directly cut-and-pasted from mine; I do have a problem with someone putting lies on their userpage ("this user is an admin", "this user has 40,000 edits" etc) and refusing to engage in any kind of dialogue and lashing out at anyone trying to help them. – iridescent 21:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Just in case it isn't obvious, I say delete, btw… Incidentally, while this user does have some valid edits, there's also a lot of recent problem behaviour such as vandalism disguised as typo fixing, blanking other user's userpages, and the ever-popular accusing other users of being Nazis. – iridescent 02:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Don't we have a policy somewhere that spells out that impersonating an admin is a no-no? Or does it just fall under other, more general policies? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not really sure. WP:Impersonation redirects to a section in the username policy and WP:Honesty isn't an official policy. (though I think we would all agree that we should be honest at all times) Either way, it's clearly not a good thing to say you're an admin when you're not one; regardless of whether a specific policy says that or not. Also, for the record, I don't really care if people copy/paste my userpage (even though it's kind of weird...), but if by doing so you are lying about something, than it's a problem. Thingg⊕⊗ 04:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I blanked it before for precisely the reasons that Iridescent mentioned. J.delanoygabsadds 22:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and block Disruptive user. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: A vandal and is lying about their sysop status. – Jerryteps 05:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-11-18

[edit] Portal:Public domain

Mostly empty portal. The entirety or the edits to date since its creation in April 2008 were a minor cleanup attempt in June and vandalism and reversion in September. -- --Finngall talk 22:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:E-Practice Editors

Userpage being used to promote the "ePractice initiative." Personally I think this borders on a G11, but a speedy delete request was previously declined, so to MfD it goes. Blueboy96 20:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: Seems like a company's account, as evident by their contributions which are solely on their user page and Egovernment factsheets. – Jerryteps 05:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ecoavila and User talk:Ecoavila

Set of User page and User talk page that has no meaningful content whatsoever (patent nonsense) and seems to be under attack by a plethora of anonymous IPs. It includes many copyright violations of text. Last contribution by user was in May 2008 for the User page, and December 2007 for the talk page. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 14:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete user and talk page. Patent nonsense, even if it's harmless, is still patent nonsense, especially if it's copyvio'ed. Talk pages can't generally be MFD'ed, but if this is indeed copyvio, I can see it going. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Userpages and related talk pages are supposed to help the user work on Wikipedia. These don't serve that purpose. - Mgm|(talk) 11:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per above. This user serves no purpose. – Jerryteps 05:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Announcements/French Christmas logo

The original post states "moving silliness here". Posting of an unconfirmed rumor that was not a Wikipedia announcement. -- Suntag ☼ 13:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Adminsteve

Temporary Wikipedian userpage, indef-blocked user, no encyclopedic value in keeping. Delete. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 00:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Is there a pressing need to delete this right now and not wait? --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This user was only recently blocked and could possibly return, in which case having the instructions to change his name would be very useful - Mgm|(talk) 10:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep We don't generally delete userpages that are this recent. Furthermore, it wasn't a vandal-only account or a throwaway account; it was blocked primarily for the username. While it is unlikely the user will return, the mainspace and related namespaces are where slightly different to the userspace, and while the user/talk pages are there primarily for project development, they don't have to conform to the same rules that you would find for an article. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: User pages are not meant to be encyclopedic, they are meant to help you contribute to Wikipedia, as said above, deleting it would remove the instructions to change his user name. But odds are he's left for good or already created a new account. – Jerryteps 05:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-11-17

[edit] User:Webwarlock/Nadia Nyce

This article has been deleted several times, and is unlikely to ever be in Wikipedia mainspace, so keeping it as a user sub-page is pointless. -- Tatarian (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Deleted several times from the mainspace can't be an argument, as we are not discussing the mainspace. Unlikely to ever be in Wikipedia mainspace is too much of crystal ball gazing, unless someone backs it up with logical assumption. This really is the best way to nurture articles before they are put to mainspace, and nurturing doesn't necessarily mean working on it every day. It is difficult to find mainstream sources on pornstars, and therefore it will need some time to mature. It is already highly appreciable that Webwarlock is not trying to put it into mainspace, but rather is trying to nurture it in a most appropriate manner. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is in my user space and I am working on it. I just happen to be busy working on other projects at the momement. The article has been deleted ONCE, not many times. Go over my lengthy edit history here, I have worked on hundreds of articles, so I have a good idea what my pace needs to be on this one. Web Warlock (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - please let work continue by the user! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Universal Hero/Marmayogi

Delete Userified copy of an article that failed to meet WP:NFF. As the article was userified to allow it to be worked on, and the film has been shelved, there is no further reason to retain. Mayalld (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

  • The claim the movie was shelved was added by an anon. Do you have evidence this is actually true and not an unfortunate bit of vandalism? - Mgm|(talk) 10:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment yes, multiple sources, such as this one are reporting the demise of the film. Mayalld (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am a little confused to see this at MfD. There is no guarantee if a project will take place or if it is truly dead. Userfying the article seems to provide a safe haven. I've written a number of film articles in userspace and retained them through bad news only to see the films finally be produced. Can we not just add a {{noindex}} template to it and be done with it? —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - this seems an unnecessary intrusion into userspace. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, it is a user page so keep, and also the film is not shelved per [1] Universal Hero (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per inappropriate intrusion; it is encouraged to userfy articles for uncertain projects so they can be moved in when they are verified to have begun. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - an unnecessary intrusion.Cinelover (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-11-15

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Calvary Chapel

Article outside the mainspace that may be used only to convey political/religious idea, which may be used to potentially stir trouble ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 19:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep! That is the talk page for a RfM, for crying out loud! Perhaps the one individual's comments were out of line, but the result should be the removal of the content, not deleting the talk page!!! --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The page consists of comments by a self-admitted new Wikipedia user about Calvary Chapel, which is the subject of the page for which mediation was requested. Instead of biting the new user, why not provide him with guidance as to how he can contribute to the encyclopedia's coverage of the topic? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Border

This page has been nominated once before (here). The result was "No consensus". The previous rationale for deletion, by Eleland still stands: This portal is not chiefly about borders; it's a clever POV-fork in portal space. The main article Border is featured, and a few links to List of land border lengths, etc, but the prominently featured content is along the lines of: Tom Tancredo, Eurabia (with a featured flag madeup by the portal author), Mexica Movement, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Jihad Watch, these are immigration issues, not border issues, and they all document anti-immigration POVs. In addition, I'd note that a) the "Keep" votes last time included two sockpuppets and one of their sockpuppeteers; and b) no improvement has been made in the intervening eight months. -- Pseudomonas(talk) 17:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - not appropriate for a portal. bd2412 T 17:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The editor who seems most involved has several other Portals he has worked on. Nor do they appear to be POV-forks. That you feel 8 weeks is enough for notable improvement means that you made no attempt to improve it either. Portals, as far as I can tell, are still in their infancy here, and deleting them for "needs improvement" is insufficient to me. Collect (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
a) eight months, not weeks. b) I only discovered the portal very recently, and judged it to be well beyond needing a little improvement. It seems immaterial what else the editor responsible has worked on. Pseudomonas(talk) 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Issues seem to run deeper than "Needs improvement". Seems to lack a clear focus. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete seems to lack proper focus and contains mixed content. feydey (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Geniusdream

I would like to have this userpage and talk page of an indefinitely blocked user, per "no shrines for vandals" rule. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - Whats there to delete, no shrine at all? -Marcusmax(speak) 03:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep'. Contains information that would be valuable in investigations if the user decides to sockpuppet again. Deleting it would make it harder to find if it's needed. - Mgm|(talk) 10:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep' this is useful information, and is not a shrine. Where is the WP:no shrines for vandals page or rule? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:DunnyGunner

The user, after getting his storage space of his fantasy football team in the mainspace deleted, has moved it to his user page. That isn't allowed, I believe. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 02:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Indeed it is not (especially given the invitation to "add your friends here" at the bottom). Delete and direct this person to E-Blogger, and the multitude of other websites that give people space to do this sort of thing. bd2412 T 02:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per BD2412. Icewedge (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I have amended the page, please see if I can do anything else to keep it. Now all information is true on the page. Also I moved it back to my user page BEFORE the Falcon Football Club page was deleted as I thought it would be a more personal page rather than keeping it on the mainspace. DunnyGunner (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The truth of the information on the page does not enter into it. Wikipedia is not Myspace or Facebook (try those if you'd like to set up a page with this information, or eBlogger). This content is not encyclopedia content, and has no place here. On top of that, you are using both names and images of real persons who are not encyclopedically notable. Both the images and the names will have to be deleted. bd2412 T 04:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
      • What is encyclopedic content? I wouldn't think User pages are meant to be encyclopedic are they? DunnyGunner (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
        • User pages are an adjunct to the encyclopedia - you can provide information about yourself that is relevant to your contributions to the encyclopedia, and information about the pages or projects that you are working on. But you can not use Wikipedia as a sort of poor substitute for MySpace or Facebook - either of which would be better for the sort of content your page contains than we would. Wikipedia also has very strong policies to protect the privacy of non-notable people. That's why you can not post the names or pictures of your friends on your user page. bd2412 T 00:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Don't worry about the non-notables, they have my permissions, but now i understand what the encyclopedic user-pages are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DunnyGunner (talk • contribs) 12:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 2008-11-14

[edit] User:Mattobluey

Primarily a promotional page for user's machinima production, which was deleted here. Recreated on userpage and user talk page, using youtube channels as refs. User is linking to the userpage from his Youtube channel as "My updated Wikipedia page" --Drat (Talk) 08:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete userpage, edit away the stuff on the talk page and advise user accordingly.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jason E Ramsey

Like User:Jarredland, a violation of WP:USER. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Special:Contributions/Johnbuckman shows the only work the Editor did on Wikipedia was to his own articles or articles on his authors/friends showing the editor to be a SPA making COI edits. There is not any indication that if the only work has been done to a userpage in a set time frame than an editor is not allowed to create a user page that talks about their personal achievements. Likewise there is no indication that an editor who either makes COI edits or is a SPA can not create a userpage page about their selves. Please take a closer look at both pages and you will see almost zero difference in the content except that Buckman's userpage has links to WP articles about himself and his companies and was first created on August 24, 2007 as a redirect to his Wikipedia article page and than, on June 13, 2008, created his "1st pass at my bio page" while Ramseys userpage says it will have links to WP articles and was created on October 12, 2008. So why not voice a "keep" and revisit this in a year to see what changes have been made? Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I apologize. But, I am only getting started. I thought of this page as my bio page. Details on me, so anyone who wants to can know who is making contributions to articles, etc. Additionally, I also am using my user page as a way to learn how to use the various wiki functions before getting heavily involved, while reading what I can to learn the ropes. I view this as my "personal profile", so to speak. Details on me (I'm not hiding or editing things anonymously like some folks) and a place to practice using wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason E Ramsey (talk • contribs) 05:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • keep a user should be allowed to write about themselves if they want to, it is not on the same scale as an advertisement or promotion in this case Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jarredland

Seems like a violation of WP:USER. Only edits were creating this page and by User:Jason E Ramsey (his vice president and another page of interest). Ricky81682 (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Special:Contributions/Johnbuckman shows the only work the Editor did on Wikipedia was to his own articles or articles on his authors/friends showing the editor to be a SPA making COI edits. There is not any indication that if the only work has been done to a userpage in a set time frame than an editor is not allowed to create a user page that talks about their personal achievements. Likewise there is no indication that an editor who either makes COI edits or is a SPA can not create a userpage page about their selves. Please take a closer look at both pages and you will see almost zero difference in the content except that Buckman's userpage has links to WP articles about himself and his companies and was first created on August 24, 2007 as a redirect to his Wikipedia article page and than, on June 13, 2008, created his "1st pass at my bio page" while Lands userpage says it will have links to WP articles (When they are created) and was created on October 12, 2008. So why not voice a "keep" and revisit this in a year to see what changes have been made? Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Article space is not user-space. If he created articles, that's fine, even with a COI. It's simply creating a user page, which nobody else really edits, that's the problem. As an article, it may have survived, it may not have. As a user page, we don't want the thing to become littered with spam. If someone finds it worth keeping, they can always copy parts of it to a new article and see if that survives. They are separate issues completely. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Correct. So your comment about "Buckman was a regular user with a detailed user page" is also a null point as it relates to "regular user". As it relates to a "detailed user page" is and that was what I was saying in response to you - that the reason that user page was "keep" was not based on any of the user history, only based on What may I not have on my user page?, which says that a user page may not contain Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia. The user page in question not "more than a couple of pages" worth of personal information. The other end of this is what a user page can have on it, part of which is information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth. As I said - the userpages in question have only existed for a few weeks. If nothing happens in a few years it will be another issue all together. Just to be clear my vote for a keep in this case has nothing to do with notability of the user or their edit history, only that the content is allowable as currently written. Can this content be reformated? Yes, but unless another editor will do it right now there needs to be time allowed for the user to come in and redo it. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete, (self-)promotional spam, user contributed zero encyclopedic edits. --Martin H. (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete' WP is not myspace. It's appropriate for an actual contributor to have some bio information, but this is just useing wp to post a resume. DGG (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Question: Would any of the editor voicing a "delete" here like to open a DRV on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Johnbuckman? I first brought that to MfD for the reason being that it was (and still is) a personal myspace/facebook/bio yet the editors who all voiced "keep" backed up why it wasn't a personal myspace/facebook/bio using the guidelines. It makes sense and the current guidelines back it up that same way it backs up this one as well. I am looking at this as a pure consistency issue based on content only. DGG says "It's appropriate for an actual contributor..." and Ricky81682 says "Buckman was a regular user with a detailed user page" yet I have made if very clear that this is not based on edit history as it was shown not to matter in an MfD and it should be based on exactly what I already stated - content. However, If the underlying message here is that an editor who is a SPA making COI edits is allowable, thusly can use their user pages as an extension of self promotion and a new user who creates their user page first, and does not make any other edits in three weeks, needs to go than I think we all need to move this to a policy and guideline discussion as it touches and many things that are not made clear in any of them. Please note what I first said: "While my personal opinion is that this is not acceptable..." Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-11-13

[edit] User:Sikh-history

Clear misuse of userpage, per WP:USER#NOT. Tan | 39 17:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Blank all but userboxes. Statements like "We believe in publishing the truth, no mater how unpalatable that maybe for some" suggests intentions here that are not building an encyclopedia. GlassCobra 18:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I really do not understand the reason for the deletion for my user page? Why now? Why after all this time? What has brought this about? Please answer my question? --Sikh-history (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The reason for the nomination for deletion of this material is because the extensive personal opinion material on it is against the content guideline of WP:USER. "Now", because someone finally noticed you were improperly using your user page. This was brought about by, again, someone finally noticing that you had inappropriate material on your page. I hope this answers your questions. Tan | 39 19:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Blank all but userboxes and intro paragraph. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 02:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The user has simply given an itroduction of himself instead of hiding any facts. It seems to be OK. --Singh6 (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok read the current revision my purpose was only to give an idea of what I am about, what I have done in the past and an example of the sort of material I review for external sites.--Sikh-history (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Uh, you removed 170 bytes from a 79K file. All that material needs to be removed. Tan | 39 14:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
delete and request that the user change their username due to conflict of interest with the website of the same name. βcommand 21:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - the user has moved the offending information from his userpage to his talk page: [2] and [3]. WP:GAME anyone? -MBK004 01:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Misplayed as it violates WP:User talk, anyway. Louis Waweru  Talk  14:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete:This is simply unacceptable. The user just changed occurences of "we" to "I". --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 18:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Instead of trying to work with the user an ANI thread is started, then MFD is jumped on? WTF, guys? This is not how we handle these situations. You guys just freaked out because you saw he had a website talking about the same stuff. I could understand if he only had edited his userspace, but this is an editor in good standing. "STOP HIM, HE HAS A WEBSITE!" Next you guys will be after me because I have nedscott.com! -- Ned Scott 03:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Please note the reason put forth in the initial nomination. If you used your user page in the same was, I would start an MfD. Tan | 39 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
You mean you wouldn't try to talk to me about it first? -- Ned Scott 04:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Though, to be fair, I really can't blame you for jumping on MfD right away, given the state it was in. Maybe I was too quick to comment here. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per the WP:UP#NOT:What may I not have on my user page? guidelines, number three states Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia. The information currently on this user page in not even one page. Per the What may I have on my user page? guidelines it states: Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth. (If you are concerned with privacy, you may not want to and are by no means required to emulate this.). This user page, in its current form, does exactly that. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: Before replying or making a decision, you might want to read what the other people said, or check out the history of the user page. It's one page - now. When this started, it was a 79K file. This is because user moved all information to talk page. Still violates WP:TP, which states, "Talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Tan | 39 23:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Because he just moved it to his talk page in an effort to Game the system. -MBK004 05:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Double Standards - MBK is the information of your page not similar to mine. Does it not represent information about you? The quotations you have used are they not "platforms for their personal views." --Sikh-history (talk) 08:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - admitting to being an SPA, not a good idea. This isn't a blog. Grsz11 →Review! 03:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments in response to tan and Grsz11: Please see Special:Contributions/Johnbuckman and it will show that the only work the Editor did on Wikipedia was to his own articles or articles on his authors/friends showing the editor to be a SPA making COI edits. Now look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Johnbuckman and you will see that it was a clear "keep" and it was not based on edit history, notability or COI edits. That MfD is 100% relative because it was 100% "keep" because of the reasons I stated above. From what I see User:Sikh-history now has an acceptable user page that follows the exact same format that USER:Johnbuckman uses. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
So you want to abandon this MfD, and start up a new one for the material that is clearly unacceptable on the talk page per WP:TP? I thought that we could all agree that this discussion was for the material involved, regardless of where the user is currently keeping it. Halfway through that MfD, he'll move it to another subspace, you'll vote keep because his talk page is now okay.... where does it end? He's gaming the damn system. This isn't MySpace; this isn't a forum to espouse one's personal views. Tan | 39 13:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi I am not trying to GAME the system. I have moved the information that you wanted to deleted to my talk page till I figure out what to do with it. The information was meant to give an illustration (especially to some Sikh users), of some of the very controversial subject matter I try and deal with in a subjective and NPOV manner. I am open to suggestion, but please do not slander my name. I have always tried to be fair in my dealings with people here and have made enemies within the Sikh Community who would wish to post information here that is from a POV. Please tell me what to do and I will do it. --Sikh-history (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as edited. Please keep in mind that the editor is active in editing the actual encyclopedia and so should be given some leeway as to what he can keep on a subpage. Let's try to offer some guidance about that rather than just negativity. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's Television Programmes of the U.K.

Inactive project since March, project seems to have been created on a whim by new Wikipedia user. Not active/notable/really doing anything. -- SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 13:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 13:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The nomination is incorrect. There are edits on the talk page (where, as is common with WikiProjects, the actual business of the project is transacted) dated 2008-