From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WP:MFD

Deletion Debates Articles (by category) Templates Images & media Categories User categories Stub types Redirects Miscellaneous Deletion review policy - log - tools

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 article namespace, that aren't already covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for five days; then are either deleted by an administrator, using community consensus (determined from the discussion) as a guideline, or kept.

Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Please familiarize yourself with the following policies 1.2 Prerequisites 1.3 Notes for admins on closing discussions 1.4 How to list pages for deletion 2 Discussions 2.1 Active discussions 2.1.1 2007-04-09 2.1.1.1 Wikipedia:WikiProject: U2 Members 2.1.1.2 User:Thenthornthing/vote 2.1.1.3 Wikipedia:WikiProject Foreign relations 2.1.1.4 User:Sullivanheating 2.1.1.5 Canada highway WikiProjects 2.1.1.6 User:Feliciapeacock 2.1.2 2007-04-08 2.1.2.1 Wikipedia:WikiProject Nickelodeon Shows 2.1.2.2 Wikipedia:Large print Wikipedia 2.1.2.3 User:Mobouncemagazine 2.1.2.4 User:Jeendan 2.1.2.5 User:Domthedude001/ee 2.1.2.6 User sandboxes 2.1.2.7 Wikipedia:WikiProject:pokemon 2.1.3 2007-04-07 2.1.3.1 User:WIZARD826/Answering Machine 2.1.3.2 User:Grandnoble 2.1.3.3 User:ANNAfoxlover/Autographs 2.1.3.4 User:Kwhite8 2.1.4 2007-04-06 2.1.4.1 User:WEFology 2.1.5 2007-04-05 2.1.5.1 User:Orthogonal/non-famous person 2.1.5.2 Portal:Kurdistan 2.1.5.3 User:GRIMHAMM3R 2.1.5.4 Portal:His Dark Materials 2.1.5.5 Wikipedia:Straw is not a substitute for discussion 2.1.6 2007-04-04 2.1.6.1 User:Martinphi/Paranormal primer 2.1.6.2 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names 2.2 Closed discussions 2.2.1 2007-04-07 2.2.1.1 User:LegoAxiom1007/My templates 2.2.1.2 Wikipedia:Suicide threats 2.2.1.3 User:Sisterhood Agenda 2.2.1.4 Wikipedia:Attack sites 2.2.1.5 Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Geo.plrd 3/Daniel.Bryant's notes 2.2.2 2007-04-05 2.2.2.1 Portal:BEIRUT 2.2.3 2007-04-04 2.2.3.1 Talk:Leon sumbitches 2.2.3.2 User:Billy Talent II 2.2.3.3 User:Watchtower Sentinel/Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

[edit] Introduction

The only currently-used namespaces in which articles are eligible for deletion here are Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia:, User:, and 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.

To propose pages for deletion in the User and User talk namespaces, where the user has no recent edits and has made little or no contributions to the encyclopedia, please consider using the proposed deletion process. This lighter-weight process allows pages that are unlikely to be contested to be deleted without requiring discussion and consensus.

This process is also sometimes used to discuss shutting down undesirable projects on Wikipedia, although this is rare and used in extreme cases only. Sometimes when such projects are shut down, their pages are kept for historical reasons.

[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
• Deletion process — how to close debates

[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.
• However, if a proposal is not serious or is disruptive (e.g. "Proposal to reject proposal foo") it can be nominated for deletion.
• 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 list the redirect on WP:RFD if needed.

[edit] Notes for admins on closing discussions

See Wikipedia:Deletion process#Miscellany for deletion page for a more detailed description of the MfD closing process.

• The process for the Miscellany for deletion page is similar to that for articles, as outlined at Wikipedia:Deletion process, except instead of using {{subst:Afd top}} and {{subst:Afd bottom}}, you use {{subst:Mfd top}} and {{subst:Mfd bottom}}.
• If the decision is KEEP (including any variant such as REDIRECT or MERGE), remove the MFD Header from the page (be sure the MFD Category is also removed), and put a link to the discussion sub-page on the page's talk page. The template {{oldmfd}} is recommended for this, like so:

{{oldmfd|date= dateOfNomination |result= result |page= PageName }}

• After closing the discussions, move its transclusion from the Active to the Closed section of the page.
• To archive closed discussions remove an entire day's closed discussions from this page, reformat the transclusions to a bulleted list of wikilinks (change {{ to *[[ and }} to ]]) and place it in the relevant archive, creating a dated section if necessary. Do not archive a day until all discussions for that day and all preceeding days have been closed.

[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:md1}} Be sure to include "subst:", not just {{md1}}; 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 {{md1-inline}}.
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:md2 | 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:md3 | pg=PageName}} Put the page's name in place of "PageName" and include the page's name in your edit summary. Save the page.

It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating the miscellany. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the miscellany.

[edit] Discussions

[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] 2007-04-09

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject: U2 Members

Malformed members page for a deleted WikiProject. Unint 00:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - as page is an orphan page of a deleted project. John Carter 01:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Thenthornthing/vote

User has been canvassing votes from users such as here [1] and it's not the sort of stuff that should be lurking around in userspace -- Nick ^t 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - slightly harsh - his RfA had to be withdrawn earlier today. Not really a policy reason, but the page doesn't really offend me. Addhoc 22:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Foreign relations

I think that this project simply hasn’t been thought through well enough. Here are some of the insurmountable problems.

1) Definition of states. Will Wikipedia recognize the TRNC, Taiwan, Somaliland, or other countries on this list within the scope of this project? All of them have international relations, none of them are UN members, and in many cases to recognize or not recognize is a political decision that involves POV. Which leads us on to…

2) POV magnet. Articles on bilateral relations sound inoffensive when talking about Andorra-Tuvalu relations, but start throwing Greek-Macedonian relations or America-Iraq relations in there and I it would be simply impossible to write an entirely balanced and POV neutral summary. Which leads to…

3) Original thought – it will be impossible to synthesise foreign relations without a great deal of both original thought and original research.

4) Finally, I think there is a problem with any one project attempting to take on as much as this one is, without having a great deal of members. There are already project boards dealing with, for example, Greek-Turkish relations: is this project going to supercede them? Vizjim 04:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• If anything is ill thought out, it is this nomination. The problems you list have no applicability to this project, and seem to be more an objection to the concept of foreign relations itself. I wonder if the nominator is aware that foreign relations articles, and indeed bilateral relations articles, are already present and of encyclopædic merit. All this project aims to do is improve and organize these articles, and fill in gaps elsewhere. So keep the project and let it get to work. The nominator can raise his concerns at the project discussion page, certainly a better place to hash them out than a deletion debate.--cj | talk 05:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• keep project, despite bad faith nomination. These issues could have been discussed on the project's talk page, and I have reservations about the nominator's own POV. Chris 05:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not appreciate the accusation of bad faith. Please explain your reasons for this. I believe that the Project is fundamentally flawed and contrary to policy, as laid out above: if community members disagree with me then my nomination will be rejected. Where is the bad faith? Vizjim 06:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Gladly. For you to nominate for deletion a project less than a week old that members are joining at a decent rate, each asking what needs to be done and setting parameters and guidelines, and actively building, and for which you yourself have not contributed to any of the discussions, fairly drips with WP:POINT. Chris 06:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You are simply wrong on that score, and failing to assume good faith. I am not nominating this project for deletion to prove a point, I am doing so because I think that its very basis is wrong, which is not something that could be cleared up using the discussion page. Please do not assume that you know what I am thinking. Vizjim 06:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The reasons provided by Vizjim are reasons to clean up articles (that don't even exist yet) with any such deficiencies, not to delete them, let alone the WikiProject. It's perfectly possible to write a neutral, encyclopedic article on Greek-Macedonian relations. Deleting this project will not prevent such an article from being written, and any standards to be established by this project will likely make the article better. Sandstein 06:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that this project may run into difficulties, but I think it has a good chance of improving the articles in its focus. Let us assume good faith and give it a chance. --Bduke 07:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Bizarre reasons for nomination. Having created and written several foreign relations articles myself, I can testify that none of the problems claimed in the nomination have ever arisen.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 11:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I have never written a foreign relations article, but if I wanted to, or to critique an existing one this sounds like a very useful project to turn to. Re definition of states - the world does not come in a box, and making sense of the inconsistencies and complexity is surely half the fun. Ben MacDui (Talk) 13:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The reasons given by the nominator are exactly what the WikiProject is here for! A Project is here for collaboration, and any mistakes in our procedures should have been brought up to our talk page. This project is gaining a steady amount of members every few days, and the chances of this project improving are steadily increasing. I created this less than a week ago! Shouldn't we be giving it a chance to form itself?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 13:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The arguments you have describe almost all Wikiprojects. And they're the things that Wikiprojects are supposed to help fix. For that matter, your arguments justify deleting all foreign relations articles... -Amarkov moo! 14:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - am adding the project to the list on the community portal to try to get it to both receive more members and to possibly draw improvement of the project page. John Carter 00:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canada highway WikiProjects

This nomination includes:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject New Brunswick Roads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject British Columbia Roads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Alberta Highways (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan Roads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Manitoba Roads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Ontario Highways (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Quebec Roads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Prince Edward Island Roads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Nova Scotia Roads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Newfoundland & Labrador Roads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Yukon Territory Roads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Northwest Territories Roads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Nunavut Roads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• All project userboxes and subpages (if any, I have not found any)

All of these projects appear to be inactive (they actually appear never to have been active in the first place). None of their project pages (which are unfinished) have been edited in several months. The projects only have three to five members, and have no articles. Merging into the Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads parent project may not be feasible since that project is also somewhat inactive, and highways seem to be covered well by existing provincial WikiProjects. I know that nominating these all in a single MFD may be weird, but they all have the same problems. --Coredesat 01:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. None of the projects have any dedicated editors, and, due to the low amount of articles, the parent Canada Roads project is a sufficient project to cover all of Canada. However, the possibility for recreation for each individual project should remain if enough editors/interest is found. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I declare myself a "dedicated editor" for the Saskatchewan project, thank you. Ultraflame 03:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It seems like too much organization for too little work being done. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. I agree, there is far too many projects for some provinces that have very little road. That being said, I think that they shouldn't be eliminated, but merged into the parent WikiProject as task forces, like in WP:USRD. --myselfalso 02:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So which provinces have "very little road"? Ultraflame 14:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. They're not doing any notable good. --TinMan 02:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. Just look at what I have been doing with the Saskatchewan project. I believe I am quite dedicated to the Saskatchewan Roads WikiProject. Sure, I do not edit the project page, but do you even know how extensive the Saskatchewan highway system is? Look at the list of Saskatchewan highways. Then look at the list of Saskatchewan roads. Thank you. Ultraflame 03:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No offense, but one person does not a WikiProject make. These projects were started and abandoned, and they have absolutely no articles. The parent project only has a few articles; the vast majority of highway articles are covered by the provincial WikiProjects. --Coredesat 05:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You called my project "abandoned". I don't think so. And look at the number of articles for the Saskatchewan project, please. Ultraflame 14:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The number of articles isn't the issue. The issue is the inactivity and current state of the projects. The project you keep referring to has no guidelines for the articles, no examples of templates to use, and is of no use of anyone trying to write articles on Saskatchewan roads. Because of how these projects were created (copy and paste), all of the projects have the same problems. Also, as Coredesat said, one person does not make a WikiProject. There's nothing wrong with the Canada Roads WP being used for all of Canada's road articles for the time being until more editors are found. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If the number of articles is not an issue, why do you think the person who nominated these projects (my project, in particular) keeps mentioning the "lack of articles"? My project does have guidelines for the articles. It has examples of templates to use. And it is very useful to myself, as a member of the Saskatchewan Roads WikiProject, to write articles on Saskatchewan roads. Ultraflame 15:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no structure and no infobox template (the default example does not count). --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "default example" and why does it not count? Ultraflame 15:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox projectname}} is not a valid infobox template. Please, look at WP:NYSR for what a road-related WikiProject should contain. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe our project uses that template. About your previous comment, we do have a structure, which is at the "Structure" section of the page. Many templates are used in the Saskatchewan Highways WikiProject, and you may view them at the List of Saskatchewan provincial highways. Finally, thank you for your demonstration of a WikiProject about roads. Ultraflame 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The problem with merging is that there's nothing to merge. Deleting the projects don't get in the way of the one active editor continuing to be active. Projects aren't required to organize the efforts of a single editor, and even if it were it's not doing the job. -- NORTH ^talk 03:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So it cannot even be merged with the WikiProject Canada Roads? Ultraflame 14:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing to merge. The project pages have no content whatsoever. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And what do you mean by "no content whatsoever"? Have you even read the project pages? Ultraflame 15:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Non-precedent-setting delete. Merge is what we've been doing with similar inactive road projects in the U.S. (i.e. WP:NVSH.) Not inactive to leave on their own but not pointless enough to delete. However, these are copy-paste jobs (sometimes the author forgot to change province names!) They can probably be recreated easily. So, reluctant delete but do not speedy delete as a recreation if someone bothers to recreate the project as an active and fully maintained project. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect the main project pages to Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads, nothing to merge. An example of an active subproject would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Golden Horseshoe Roads, which I think should be merged under WikiProject Canada Roads as well, but that's another matter. –Pomte 14:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "nothing to merge"? The links, perhaps? Ultraflame 14:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Which links? I am agreeing with some of the above that it appears there is nothing in these projects worth merging to WikiProject Canada Roads. Do not merge the member lists, because if they are active at all, they will sign their name up again at the parent project. Do not merge specific guidelines because they are boilerplate and WikiProject Canada Roads already contains a list of province/territory-specific conventions. However, if you find anything worth merging, go ahead. –Pomte 15:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All and redirect the project pages to Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads. As stated, nothing to merge here - and the projects have not seen attention for much more than a year. With the activity involved in this - one project page is good enough and that is Canada Roads. -- master_son^{Talk - Edits} 19:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep--as if we're all spending all of our living time on thse projects--these are works in progress, along with spending family time, work time, etc....and on wiki, it seems to be reversing vandalism on non-school days (Easter Monday)....Bacl-presby 20:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all the people who said to delete. There sure isn't anything to merge, and redirecting them all to WP:CRWP is fine. One person does not make a WikiProject, and there is no "I" in the word "team". WikiProjects are a team effort. One person does not qualify as a team.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 20:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Move all project pages as subpages under the Canada Roads WP, similar to the way inactive subprojects of WP:USRD have been demoted. Should a subproject regain interest, it can be "repromoted" by moving it back out into project space. —Scott5114↗ 21:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I have to say, there might not be much to merge in the sense of WikiProjects - but it should be folded into the main project. Otherwise, why not just delete WP:CRWP? Also, I don't think it's fair to apply USRD to CRWP - they are two separate countries. Unless USRD adopts Canadian highways, one can't apply USRD standards to CRWP. --myselfalso 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's easy to create empty talk pages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Ontario, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/British Columbia etc and link to them from WP:CRWP for specific discussion. A parameter on {{CANRP}} can group articles under province/territory-specific categories. –Pomte 21:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Per Scott5114. I have to admit, some Nunavut roads are interesting because they are seasonal. Some are made of ice completely and only available during winter. These roads are definetely notiable enough to be mentioned. OhanaUnited 00:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about the WikiProjects guys, not the articles. The articles will not be affected by the deletion of the WikiProjects. -- master_son^{Talk - Edits} 00:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Feliciapeacock

Wikipedia is not myspace. And, nominating because of privacy violations. Real96 05:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, violates WP:USER. The user's other contributions are less than useful, as well. --Coredesat 05:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: per above. WP is not a free webhost. IvoShandor 13:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete contains excess personal information. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007-04-08

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Nickelodeon Shows

This is a second nominatin of this Project, its previous MfD in October 2006 only just passed with consensu being mostly keep (shown here). This WikiProject has been inactive for months now, it only has one template in which is transluded onto not a single article talk page, it only has two members and little information throughout, the Goals section has been under construction for months, with not a single change. Therefore it seems appropriate to MfD it. Tellyaddict 21:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, um, I was going to MfD it, but forgot. Delete. 1ne 21:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Having nominated an inactive WikiProject myself, I know that this will have a very small chance of being "brought back to life." Delete as inactive. Tohru Honda13 23:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I was going to MFD it as well because it was redundant to WP:NICK. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NICK is redundant to this; Nickelodeon Shows came first. 1ne 02:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - inactive, no goals. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"To improve, clean up and promote Nickelodeon cartoons and live action shows to FA status." isn't a goal? 1ne 03:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Large print Wikipedia

A project to create article forks using the <big> HTML tag. This is fundamentally misguided because most modern browsers (including IE and Firefox) allow the text size to be changed by the user. Windows also has a magnifier function in the Accessibility section for visually-impaired individuals. This was improperly listed as a speedy delete; I've posted it here so it can receive a full discussion. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a bad idea, trying to maintain manually modified version of pages is just impractical given the 1,000,000+ pages and the frequent changes made to them. If the browser doesn't have a font size function or the OS a magnifier then a simple monobook.css should be able to do this, or if really needed a function added to mediawiki to have similar results. --pgk 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I considered this proposal some kind of a joke... and figured it fit in as a speedy deletion the way many random joke articles are speedy deleted under G3. Anyway, per above I don't buy that this is a good solution to making Wikipedia more accessible. However, integrated some usability functions like larger display fonts and high contrast text backgrounds might be something mediawiki developers should look into, if they haven't already. --W.marsh 18:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If we provide support for this at all, as opposed to passing the buck to browser and operating system features, it should be as a large-print skin, certainly not by forking every article. —Cryptic 19:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Sorry if this was meant to be a serious project, but April 1 was a week ago. Wikipedia:Large Print Wikipedia/How to in particular is BJAODN material. Sandstein 19:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. With 1,727,811 articles as of this comment, this is too impossible to accomplish. Besides, as has already been noted, increasing text size in the browser is a much easier and far more efficient way to do this without even making a single edit. This could also be seen as a joke, too (I don't know if it is or not, though). Finally, if someone followed that how-to page's directions, then the GFDL would be violated (no contributor history). Simply put, this is a bad idea. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless renamed to Wikipedia:Wikiproject How to Hack Your monobook.css, Heck, Even Your Web Browser User CSS File, to Make Text a Lot Bigger, which would regrettably kind of defeat the purpose... =) Seriously, I don't think it's necessary to make separate "big" versions that lag behind when we have wonderful presentation technology, right in MediaWiki itself and on client side in web browsers too (as pointed out by others) just for this purpose. Perhaps someone could make an essay/help file on helpful tips for people with sight problems. Content forks are not necessary when technology works. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this was previously deleted after being made as an article - I speedy requested it becauser it had been re-made. Hawker Typhoon 21:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if this is a good idea, as mentioned above, it should be done by fiddling with the CSS code for a skin, not by making forks of every article. -Amarkov moo! 00:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete while well-intentioned, it's redundant since both explorers and windows can help visually impaired people to read Wikipedia. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 01:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Impractical to do this manually. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If you want to make the text bigger on the webpage, you can configure your browser. Real96 05:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Configure your browser instead. Resurgent insurgent 09:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete obviously. Someone doesn't understand GFDL, css or how browsers work. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - configure your browser, or even your monobook. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with the nominator. It's good for Wikipedia to support accessibility, but this is certainly not the way to do it. I'd like to see the front page have a link to a help page for increasing text-font size in several of the most-used browsers (at least IE, Firefox, Opera, and AOL's browser); and a link to a help page for using a text-to-speech reader. I know there's a page somewhere for setting up a user's monobook.css but it would be nice to have a link to it where someone of limited vision would realize it's a potential solution. Forking every WP article is not a potential solution, and I hope this idea was an April Fool's joke. Barno 23:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jeendan

The text of the page makes reference to me specifically (another editor removed my name) in a setting where his/her assertions can go unchallenged and unedited. Joestella 17:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The assertions are free to be challenged on the user's talk page, and this is no better and no worse than literally hundreds of users' user pages who are active, have gone on wikibreak or left the project. I do, however, agree with the removal of name-specific information which has already taken place. Orderinchaos 18:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 18:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep not NPA - NYC JD (interrogatories) 21:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep so the nom said Jeendan is referring to him criticizing him as POV-pusher for Australian Liberal Party. Joestella, You might really have done it, IMHO, so don't try to suppress people who criticize you. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep just another WP user whom Joestella has pissed off. Joestella made his own bed. Timeshift 04:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep If the specific reference to the user is gone, then this deletion debate does not need to remain open. Needless to say, I can understand why another user has got pissed off with Joestella (And i've only become aware of the user in question in the last 24hrs). Just a shame to lose another WP editor. thewinchester 04:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see anything there that attacks anyone. the nominator is a big boy and quite capable of defending himself with the written word rather than trying to censor Wikipedia. DanielT5 05:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I would have thought that WP:NPA (particularly "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme") is being violated here. As for the idea that this represents censorship of Wikipedia, the user pages aren't a part of the encyclopaedia itself. Joestella 07:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see, the text doesn't dismiss or discredit - or even disparage - anyone's views, just takes an issue with behaviour. I would have thought this edit or this one much closer to an NPA violation personally. Orderinchaos 07:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree. But even so, users are free to respond directly on talk pages, or edit articles. This use of a user page allows the attack to go unedited and unchallenged. Joestella 07:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Extra-strong delete this is just some bitter person having a go at another editor, not even trying to make a specific article better ... if jeendan really is gone then he doesn't need a userpage any more. there's nothing else to discuss about it guys. GROW UP ChampagneComedy 20:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Nowhere in policy does it say that a departed user no longer needs a userpage - I know of several cases of Wikipedians pushing up daisies with extant userpages. The above user is reminded of WP:NPA and closing admin is advised, if considering this vote, to check the user's contribution history. Orderinchaos 20:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Domthedude001/ee

Appears to be a game/hunt of some sort hosted in a user's subpages. Wikipedia is not the host for personal games. I see no tangible benefit to Wikipedia to host these for the user. This MFD covers the main page for the game and the 5 subpages of the game. Metros232 15:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• User:Domthedude001/ee000
• User:Domthedude001/eea0b
• User:Domthedude001/ee122
• User:Domthedude001/ee1a1
• User:Domthedude001/ee001
• User:Domthedude001/ee

Note from nominator This is not related to the holiday that is today (Easter) in any way. These pages relate to easter as in easter eggs (virtual)--hidden gems in movies or video games. This is not an easter egg hunt like with bunnies and candy, it's a "find the hidden things within my subpages" game. Metros232 03:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Doing fun stuff on holidays adds to interpersonal kindred spirit and doesn't detract from the Encyclopedia. In fact, it can benefit the project by fostering good faith and human feeling between users. Remember, we aren't robots. Nardman1 15:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment on holidays? This page was created in May of 2006. It's easter egg as in like hidden things in movies and video games, not easter eggs as in bunny rabbits. Metros232 01:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: per Nardman1 --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. User has plenty of mainspace edits [2]. Abeg92contribs 22:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't know if my vote counts but.. My easter egg hunt is actually a helpful way to teach people how Wikipedia works. Someone with little knowledge could learn about adding comments, image pages (how they get linked), etc. I didn't know it would disturb anyone. And by the way, I did create it for this Easter. Domthedude001 03:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks to the people that voted to keep it. Domthedude001 04:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Unlike the WP:FUN games this one actually takes skill in knowing wikisyntax, and can teach new users as well. –Pomte 14:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I am having a difficult time seeing how this is related to the project, the guiding principle here would be WP:NOT and WP:USER. Thanks, Navou ^banter 20:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep a game intended to help new users. Save it. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 01:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject:pokemon

Well, where to start with this Project, This was created way back in September 2006, since then the Project has had no edits at all, does not even have a Project discussion page, I cant see a single template for usage internally within the Project. As for the text inside, it is all just a cheat and glitch guide (violating WP:NOT), has no actual useful information and the creator of the Project has not edited since late September, approaching seven months ago. If that is not it, the Project is not entitled correctly, (in terms of capitalisation and the use of :). Due to the lack of activeness and the fact that its blatantly being used as a cheat guide, MfD was appropriate. Tellyaddict 12:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not a wikiproject, scope already covered by WP:POKE. MER-C 12:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unused/redundant/not a WikiProject. –Pomte 14:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for redundancy. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 16:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even worth a redirect due to the miscapitalization. —Cryptic 20:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As has already been noted, the Pokémon Collaborative Project essentially acts as a "WikiProject Pokémon", and seems to be doing fine in that regard. Additionally, a "cheat and glitch guide" simply isn't a WikiProject (and besides, Wikipedia is not a games guide anyway). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Yeah, the Pokémon Collaborative Project is a Pokémon WikiProject, so there really is no need for this. And some mistakes I found and corrected in red: Wikipedia:WikiProject/Pokémon. My English Teacher will be soo proud of me! :D Ahem, yeah, delete. Tohru Honda13 00:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - redundant. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

*Redirect to Wikipedia:Pokémon Collaborative Project Change to delete per above Simply south 22:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007-04-07

[edit] User:WIZARD826/Answering Machine

• Strong Delete and Speedy delete/close Same as a talkpage. I've edited it more than anyone else. He hasn't even edited it! Speedy close because it doesn't seem like this page will be kept. WikiMan53 (talk) (click here) 13:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Same as a talk page.  ~Steptrip 15:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Same as the talkpage. Slightly annoying, if you ask me. Squeak
• Delete - The equivalent of a talk page. Tohru Honda13 18:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No response from user on page. –Eisenhowerofficial (e) 16:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC) 22:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's just a talk page, and if a user is away, people will edit the real talk page for the user anyway. The page history shows this. Obviously, that makes this page redundant. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Grandnoble

Walled garden of band vanity. Wikipedia is not myspace. Also nominated is User:Guardiansofthebay1, Image:Guardians-of-The-Bay-1B.png and Image:Guardians-of-The-Bay-1A.png. Users concerned have made zero encyclopedic contributions. MER-C 06:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Nearly all of the user's edits are to his userpage. And Wikipedia is not Myspace--$UIT 06:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not MySpace and blatantly violating WP:USERPAGE.Tellyaddict 10:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Violates WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, and WP:USERPAGE. -Panser Born- (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT, inappropriate use of userpage. Terence 16:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Kyra_~(talk) 06:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails our userspace guidelines, and Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. All edits appear to be to userspace or to user talk pages. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Several attempts at pointing them towards userpage policy, and protracted conversations with the chap concerned led me to throw my hands up (in the nicest possible way) and let them know that someone else would, inevitably, come along and nominate both for deletion anyway. Bubba hotep 11:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:ANNAfoxlover/Autographs

Based on the overturning of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Autograph books, I am listing this single autograph book up for deletion. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, which is what this autograph book violates. It promotes the violation of WP:SIG, and it violates WP:USER as it's unencyclopedic material. On top of this, ANNAfoxlover has a link to this subpage in her signature, spamming this page and requesting that people sign it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete, in spite of Jimbo's comments (which are not in themselves policy). I don't really have any problem with autograph books in themselves anymore, but this is ridiculous. This isn't so much an autograph book as it is a social networking page, and Wikipedia is not a social networking site. It also does violate WP:USER as unencyclopedic material and by promoting discussion unrelated to encyclopedia-building. There are also problems with canvassing here (after all, she does promote this in her signature, and it gets posted everywhere she signs). --Coredesat 06:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I don't see the harm in having this page, since the user appears to be a productive one. I have no time for social pages of unproductive users. I also don't see a problem with the signature, which appears to have been toned down from an earlier version.-gadfium 06:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per Coredesat--$UIT 06:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I dont see a problem with Autograph books, I personally have one, they are not much of a problem.Tellyaddict 10:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep While this would be clearly unacceptable for a user who makes little mainspace contributions, it appears that this user has made quite a few contributions to the mainspace, and therefore I don't think it's causing any harm. -Panser Born- (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Granted this is not a MySpace or AIM but the user IS keeping up in mainspace and autograph books are nice to meet other wikipedians and to get help in editing so I say keep WikiMan53 (talk) (click here) 13:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Week Keep if... the user takes the yellow banner off her talk page. She seems to be productive now and not sig-crazy. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 14:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and speedy close Jimbo is the final authority, as established here by the ArbCom. If Jimbo says it no one should really run counter with it. Also this user is an established user, which should be given more leeway. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 15:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This cannot be speedily kept because there are arguments to delete. Also, I just mentioned that Jimbo's word is not policy (he himself says as much!). The user in question is one who has been warned quite a few times for various things, and this is more than just an autograph book. --Coredesat 19:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per my rationale in all previous MfDs on people's userspace. ANNAfoxlover is a hardworking contributor with well over 2,000 edits on Wikipedia. There is nothing to be gained by deleting her fun page, which is doing no one any harm. This recent spate of MfDs on user subpages is simply serving to drive more and more users away from Wikipedia, and has to be stopped. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I'm aware that Anna has been spamming, and the Autograph Book resembles that of social networking, but Anna has been contributing greatly to this encyclopedia. Perhaps I would reconsider if mostly all of her edits were to her book. Tohru Honda13 18:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I like the autograph books and I want Wikipedians to have their autograph books because they can be friends with other Wikipedians, but this is not MySpace(R). Jet123 ^{~~My talk page~~} 23:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This user has had problems in the past, but she has recovered nicely, with many mainspace contribs. We must draw a line in the sand somewhere, and say, "No, this is a well-established user, and we need to give her some leeway in her userspace." Abeg92contribs 23:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see any evidence the book is being used for social networking, rather it promotes cameraderie among editors (which is highly beneficial considering well-known general problems with edit-warring, lack of WP:AGF, etc.) If the user in question has been spamming then it is safe to assume it wasn't maliciously. If the link to the book in the signature is a serious problem then politely requesting its removal would be more conducive to a friendly, productive atmosphere. Suriel1981 03:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I fail to see how this particular autograph book strives for any more or any less social networking than other autograph books. If you'd like her to remove the link to it from her sig, tell her. –Pomte 12:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I would also like to reprimand the nominator for this nomination. It's a very good way of driving a valued contributor away from the site. MfDs for autograph books en masse are one thing, but, with all due respect to Ryulong, this simply seems like unfair treatment of one particular user. Besides, with all due respect, I don't think the creator of User:Ryulong/Penguin Cabal should be commenting on the utility of anyone else's subpages. (Although admittedly that shouldn't influence anyone's !vote, as it has no direct bearing on this matter.) Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The only difference between an autograph book and his penguin cabal is that one is filled with humans, while the other one are full of penguins. :-) Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 16:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And humans are more beneficial to Wikipedia than penguins. :) Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actively seeking out people to work on that page. There is solely a link on my user page and my user talk in the form of the penguin itself. I do not have a secret link to that page in my signature.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; as I said earlier, I wasn't intending my mention of the Penguin Cabal to influence anyone's vote, as it has no direct bearing on the validity of this MfD. Wooyi and I used smiles to clarify that our comments were intended as humorous. However, my reprimand for this MfD still stands. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Absolutely nothing wrong with autograph books. -- Ekjon Lok 15:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. User seems to be actually doing good contributions to the encyclopedia, so it probably isn't harming anything. Promotion of the page should be toned town considerably, however. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Really, now. We already noted autograph books are basically harmless, and this is not worse than your average example. The only potential issue is the sig link, and that has absolutely no relevance whatsoever on whether the link target should be deleted - basically, MfD is the wrong venue for that, you need to come to amicable agreement with the user through discussion with the user, or other venues. (Frankly, I'd say bringing User: stuff to XfD to enforce user conduct is generally not a good idea if we're talking of an otherwise active contributor, and saying this article fails user space/encyclopedia building rules even after the sig book MfD sounds an awful lot like grasping for excuses.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep See:

Here is a word from Jimbo Wales, himself, about autograph books and why you shouldn't tag them for speedy deletion “ You keep asking how they help build an encyclopedia. But you also link to WP:EA. I think that is your answer, no? 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. ” --Jimbo Wales 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep: These seem to not be a problem, but get in the way of writing an encyclopædia per users asking other users to sign their's and not doing any article-writing.  ~Steptrip 16:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kwhite8

Wikipedia is not myspace. Also nominated is User:Smbtuc. Users have no encyclopedic edits. Contested prods. MER-C 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It seems a tad excessive to delete these two user pages. They haven't even been active this year, so it hardly counts as being used as Myspace. -Panser Born- (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's the point. No encyclopedic contributions + inactivity = deletable crap. We need to get across the point that Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for vanity (i.e. myspace lite) hence this needs to disappear. MER-C 13:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. User pages are for Wikipedia users, which Kwhite8 is not. —Cryptic 17:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both:

• User:Kwhite8: Not an editor's page: Only edit (in December) was to his user page. WP is not a permanent free webhost/MySpace substitute. If and when he actually starts contributing, he can get it back.
• User:Smbtuc: Not an editor's page: Only edits (12, in August and October) are to his userspace. WP is not a permanent free webhost/MySpace substitute. If and when he actually starts contributing, he can get it back. --Calton | Talk 01:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both as Wikipedia is not a webhost; the only edits these two users have made are to their userspace, and with SMBTUC's talk page, it seems like it has only been used for (minimal, four edits in the history) chatting. Kyra_~(talk) 06:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both as per Calton. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poeloq (talk • contribs) 09:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
• Delete both. Neither user has edited in the encyclopedia, or anywhere outside userspace. Obviously, that means Smbtuc has not made the promised contributions to The Underland Chronicles pages. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Kwhite8's user page is a very short bio. Mine is filled with userboxes. Both share the same purpose, to tell anyone reading it a little about yourself. It's in user space and not being abused, so what's the problem? Nardman1 22:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Er, it IS being abused, as in "the purpose of a user page is not as personal homepage or used as a general webhosting service, but as way for active editors of Wikipedia to introduce themselves to other editors", and not as a permanent free webhost/MySpace substitute. --Calton | Talk 08:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007-04-06

[edit] User:WEFology

This user page contains no Wikipedia related content about the user and is being used as an advertisement/webspace promotion for a group, WEFology. The article has been speedily deleted twice after User:WEFology created them. Since this is a new user, I would recommend delaying action in hopes that the user changes the page. However, in the event that doesn't happen, I am raising this MfD now. Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 19:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now, but add {{PROD}} if the user has not made any edits outside user space after a couple of weeks. As a user page it is not offensive. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this looks like an obvious promotion to me. --Coredesat 06:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Whoops, didn't realise the user was new. I agree with keeping it for now - it can be prodded or MFDed again in a couple of weeks if the user doesn't contribute. --Coredesat 06:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam article masquerading as a userpage. —Cryptic 17:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak keep as per above. I do think this should go eventually, but we should probably wait a few weeks to see if the user will have it stay or not. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007-04-05

[edit] User:Orthogonal/non-famous person

Curious problem here. User:Orthogonal (now a former user) made this page way back in 2003, apparently as a draft for an article on Easter Bradford. Last August it was vandalized by anonymous users, and flagged as an A7 attack page by Midnightguinea this morning. On first glance I rejected the speedy, reverting the vandalism. However it wad then pointed out to me that we have an article at James Bradford which appears to be about the same individual, written at a later date with better sourcing. The Orthogonal draft also included a section on the 'Tori Amos' controversy which was wholly unsourced, which I have blanked for the duration of this MFD. I have no problem with deleting this draft article provided it was never used for writing the current article; if so, page history will need to be merged. -- nae'blis 16:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Orthogonal draft was def. NOT used for the current James Bradford article. This came to my attention because I recently purchased one of Bradford's albums and found my way into his Wiki article. There was a previous article for "Easter Bradford" written on or around 2003, before Bradford had any accomplishments which would really warrant a Wikipdia article. There were a chain of insignificant articles branching from it, all of which were voted for deletion (and subsequently deleted.) The "Non Famous Person" page on Orthogonal's talk pages was apparently created during that deletion and voting process, but has since become a respository for potentially libelous claims and gossip. Bradford has only recently risen to enough notability to have had a wiki-article created about him again (which was again nominated for deletion but this time the vote was to KEEP.) The problem is that contained within the page history of the Orthogonal article are the same potentially libelous statements (or variations upon them.) As far as I can tell there is no content in "User:Orthogonal/non-famous person" which merits merging into the current James Bradford article. The only current sources for the biographical information come from Bradford's own web page, which is not sufficient as a source. In conclusion I still posit that the best solution is the complete deletion of the Orthogonal article, including it's entire history, without change to the current "James Bradford" article. (As Bradford's notability increases or declines I feel his article will be altered accordingly in the natural spirit of Wikipedia.) Midnightguinea 22:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as unsourced per WP:BLP. Nardman1 22:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Kurdistan

• The Portal focus on Kurdish-related articles only unlike any other geographic portal. Compare/contrast with Portal:Asia which not only focuses to a variety of topics but also a vast number of wikiprojects.
• Kurdistan is a non-defacto (it doesn't claim to be a country) and non-dejure (no one recognizes it as a country) region. Kurdistan however is currently an aspirational country (WP:CRYSTAL applies)
• Kurdistan's borders are ill-defined. (google image search, some examples of inconsistent maps: [3] [4] [5] [6]). Hence the scope of the portal is also ill defined.
• Boundaries of Kurdistan are currently defined at the moment by wikipedia editors' personal opinions on what falls inside and what doesn't rather that being based on reliable sources. So topics displayed often violate Wikipedia:Attribution#No original research and/or Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources
• Kurdistan exists as a dictionary entry, however Kurdistan is a controversial term. For example displaying a map of it to Turkish authorities had lead to a Pentagon apology. While controversial terms as project/portal titles are somewhat 'OK', I strongly feel they should be avoided whenever possible.

• Delete or Rename to "Portal:Kurdish people" -- Cat ^chi? 13:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. We will neither delete it , nor rename it. We have decided here .[[7]]. --Bohater 14:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  Voters must be careful about their words and tones. "We will neither.."", "We have decided.."; Firstly you cannot dictate your POV to others,Secondly Who are you?(Are you a suspected sock?) What you decided?(I couldnt saw any decision in this link). Lets assume another decision for another article, Why interested for us here.?Must.^{T C} 14:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  That is a no-consensus and has no bearing here. That particular discussion was dominated by Turkish/Kurdish/Greek wikipedians. I am seeking a more general opinion. Weather the portal stays or gets renamed will be determined by the wikipedia community, not you. -- Cat ^chi? 14:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  Also that survey was for renaming the wikiproject, this is for deleting the portal, not that relevant I'd say. Also, there wasn't a consensus, and it was a survey (so the results are not binding). nationalities should not matter so much. deniz^T_C 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, with mixed opinions on renaming. Portal is new but appears to be off to a good start. Topic is widely acknowledged as an aspirational nation with hopes of statehood and as a de facto semi-independent part of Iraq with genuine discussions of combining with primarily-Kurdish portions of neigboring states. I don't think it's practical to split into two portals, one for the broader "Kurdish people" and one for "Kurdistan"; therefore the related WikiProject needs to decide how to focus this, unless they make a decision which is clearly against Wikipedia policies. Bohater pointed to the project's discussion so far; there is a self-selected group of users participating and no firm consensus, but this makes it incomplete rather than invalid. Yes, there is considerable international controversy associated with the topic; as long as the portal and the related articles are clear about this, rather than claiming current statehood, WP isn't taking one side. (Where such claims appear, this is a matter for editing, not for deletion.) The portal will need ongoing attention to WP:NOR and WP:RS, but this is not a reason for deletion. Barno 14:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  Currently project claims/implies Diyarbakir is a part of Kurdistan (by displaying a photo of diyarbakir). On the talk page my argument was countered with a "The capital of Turkish Kurdistan is not part of Kurdistan?" comment. (A geographic region can't have a capital/Aspirational capitals fall under WP:CRYSTAL) -- Cat ^chi? 14:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Must.^{T C} 14:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Again an attack on the Kurdish gathering in Wikipedia, its done by Turkish users and it is not funny any more because Kurdistan is official in Iraq and it is detailed enough to have a portal and a WikiProject. Ozgur Gerilla 15:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  Portals and Wikiprojects are not intended to gather a specific ethnicity. Kurdistan can't be "kurdish specific" it is a geographic region.
  Also, Iraqi Kurdistan officially claims to be a part of Iraq, yes. They do not claim to be a country, they don't claim non-Iraqi territory, and even their borders are disputed (Kirkuk for example).
  -- Cat ^chi? 15:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  No body said the gathering is only by those people whos ethncity is Kurdish, it is also people from other background, actually the majority of interest on Kurds in Wikipedia is by non-Kurds. So don't start the usual defensive paragraphs. Ozgur Gerilla 20:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Due to lack of similarities to other Portals, as well as being very small (however its quality, not quantity).Tellyaddict 16:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/rename per Tellyaddict/nom - I had explained my position many times - no inconsistency. Baristarim 17:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep When the topic has an article in Britannica and other encyclopedias it merits an article on Wikipedia and a portal. This should also apply vice-versa, if particular topic doesn't merit a portal, then it has no business having an article (policies should apply throughout Wikipedia). We have portals like Portal:Middle East and Portal:Europe which also have vague frontiers (is Armenia in Europe? is Cyprus in the Middle East? etc) If you're concerned about Diyarbakir, don't worry about that either - that's also mentioned as part of Kurdistan in Britannica. I must say, I don't like the way Cool Cat misquoted me above, presenting me as if I had said something without a source when that is clearly false from the diff. If petty tactics like that are what one has to resort to to get the portal deleted imagine the weakness of the arguments.--Domitius 18:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a wide-ranging topic that has a number of high-quality articles. Whether it's a country or not doesn't matter; neither does the size of its borders. CloudNine 20:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  It does matter, what is the inclusion criteria supposed to be? -- Cat ^chi? 21:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  "The idea of a portal is to help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas." It doesn't claim anywhere that's it's a country; it's a informative portal with a clear mission and should be kept. I'm not sure why you're trying to delete it. CloudNine 10:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  Inclusion criteria is entirely subjective (What falls into Kurdistan? Who is to say?). Kurdistan is a "wanabe country" and is a political term, weather the portal directly claims this or not is irrelevant. -- Cat ^chi? 12:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  'Kurdistan is a "wanabe country" and is a political term' - no sources, it's your opinion, your POV.--Domitius 12:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  This is not an article but I'll get you a source. Here: [8]. Granted it ain't the best source. -- Cat ^chi? 12:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  Great. Whether or not it is a country has no bearing on it being a portal. If it's a collection of articles on a particular subject, then it should be a portal. Would you say that a Chechnya portal had no suitable articles? No, because there are Chechnya articles. The same applies here. I see no inclusion critera for portals, let alone what you're talking about. CloudNine 14:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  Chechnya has verifiable borders (it is a Russian state officially). It is officially recognized internationally. A portals scope is well defined right there. Very poor comparaison since Kurdistan is not recognized in any similar manner. A "Portal:Nagorno-Karabakh" would be fine. -- Cat ^chi? 15:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  How about my examples, Europe and the Middle East? Where is Armenia, where is Cyprus, where is Iceland...--Domitius 15:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  If you look at {{Europe}} or {{Middle East}}, you will see disclaimers/footnotes explaining what is being disputed. That is for entire countries. I have no opinion on those individual disputes. -- Cat ^chi? 15:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DennyColt (talk • contribs) 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
• Keep - Strong nationalist attacks, keep informative area. Artaxiad 21:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• strong keep Kurdistan is a region, even if unofficial it is cited by google books many times.[[9]]. 3000+ hits in google books which are almost virtually all scholarly books is not a joke. Also has a Britannica entry. [[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9046469/Kurdistan--alidoostzadeh 23:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedia has articles on terms like Nigger or Negro. Both of those terms are controversial/insultive and would make poor portal titles. -- Cat ^chi? 12:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  Indeed, this is where the difference lies: Britannica has an article on Kurdistan, yet no articles on "nigger" and "negro".--Domitius 12:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There is no reason to delete regional or provincial portals. If there is concern about nationalism, that is no reason to delete as we can keep an eye on it and make sure nationalists do not make the portal a soapbox for their politics. But I am sure at this point in the juncture of WP the nationalists are becoming fewer in number so this should not be a problem as most Kurdish editors are interested in the information, not propaganda. Khorshid 03:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  The term "Kurdistan" enters soapbox area (grey area at best) - "Kurdistan" is a "wanabe country" after all (doesn't matter if that is the intention of this portal or not). Kurdistan is a highly controversial political term. If this was called "Portal:Kurdish people" we would have lesser problems. It is much easier/neutral to relate something to "Kurdish people" than to "Kurdistan". How can we talk about neutrality on a portal if its title is controversial needlessly? -- Cat ^chi? 12:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  '"Kurdistan" is a "wanabe country" after all' - I think that's a paranoid way of looking at it. As far as I can tell, it's devoted to a region only; the word "country" doesn't appear anywhere in reference to Kurdistan.--Domitius 12:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  I frankly don't understand. Why are you claiming that the term "Kurdistan" is without any controversy whatsoever? Why would be pentagon apologizing then? -- Cat ^chi? 13:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  What they are apologizing for is for displaying (=endorsing?) a map with negative territorial designs on Turkey. This portal doesn't endorse any of those designs (when one believes one sees separatists everywhere, that's the paranoia I was talking about).--Domitius 14:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  The fact that Turkey is bothered by it makes it controversial doesn't it? Please take your paranoia accusation else where (such as WP:ANB/I). -- Cat ^chi? 14:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  No proof of that. What bothered Turkey was the idea of losing territory, not the name. You're trying to say that 1=2.--Domitius 14:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  The very notion of Kurdistan is controversial, not just its name. That news article and pentagon's statement is proof of that. -- Cat ^chi? 14:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  All it proves is that Turkey doesn't like people discussing schemes which would involve loss of territory. Considering Turkey's imperialist attitude in the Aegean, I'd say this is more than understandable.--Domitius 14:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  Do you have a source for that claim? Are you are saying we should tag Aegean islands under Turkish territory? (If Kurdistan is fine such a thing would be fine too) -- Cat ^chi? 14:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  No, just citing Aegean islands (and I forgot Cyprus) as examples of Turkish imperialism. Turkey is trying to gain territory there, they wouldn't want to lose their own back yard (Turkish Kurdistan) at the same time.--Domitius 14:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  Please stop. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground -- Cat ^chi? 17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  Come again?--Domitius 21:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  See it this way: if the map had not called it Kurdistan, but something like "Diyarbakiri Republic" would, in your opinion, Turkey have not objected?--Domitius 14:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  I would not know, that would be original research. Such a discussion would be pointless here. -- Cat ^chi? 14:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  Well your speculations are unsourced anyway - that's all you've been doing thus far. The fact that Turkey protested to those particular maps being used by that particular institution at that period in time does not mean that the name Kurdistan is controversial. Linking the two is original research on your part.--Domitius 14:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - portals are useful presentation and navigation aids, much more user friendly than categories. A portal that has significant positive interest that covers a number of reasonable articles (not a walled garden) should be kept by default. Addhoc 13:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to Portal Kurds, or Rename to Portal Kurdish people, or Keep deniz^T_C 16:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the way it is is fine. Renaming it is not a very good option, although I'm rather fine with moving the article too. Terence 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Defined regional region, no confusion, no controversy, no offense for other countries, portable for a notable geographical region and culture, looks to cover a considerable number of articles.--Yannismarou 17:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  Huh? Why is Pentagon apologizing if Turkey wasn't offended? -- Cat ^chi? 20:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  Answered by me above.--Domitius 20:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  Cool Cat, I think you could something more constructive instead of commenting on each vote you do not like.--Yannismarou 09:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  You are welcome to actually answer to my question. -- Cat ^chi? 20:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  You are welcome not to make again and again the same questions to the "keep" voters.--Yannismarou 08:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  I have already answered above when you asked this question the first time. Are you intentionally doing this, asking a question and once it has been answered, ask the same question again and pretending it was never answered?--Domitius 21:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - This seems to be bordering on harassment of all things Kurdish. --Diyarbakır 13:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:GRIMHAMM3R

User's page being used to create and house a content page that has already been deleted as a result of a speedy delete (was noted under db-bio) Mhking 21:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, that's a perfectly legitimate use of userspace (though it usually isn't front-and-center like that). Keep. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. In the mainspace, this would be non-notable vanispamcruftisement and in the userspace it would be myspacery (which Wikipedia is not). MER-C 02:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. How is it myspacery? Users are allowed to have personal information on their userpage. And better there than in an article (where, I agree, it would not meet WP:BIO). Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No encyclopedia contriutions, blatant usage as MySpace.Tellyaddict 16:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Six weeks with no edits outside user space is long enough. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - User has no edits outside his userpage--$UIT 04:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - All edits are on userpage. Userpage is used as MySpace. Tohru Honda13 19:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:His Dark Materials

This portal was created back in October 2006, and since then has not been updated or edited by any other user, despite having a link to it on the main article about His Dark Materials. It would seem that no one is interested in participating in this portal, and so I believe it would be better for it to be deleted rather than never be updated again. -Panser Born- (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom unless updated and maintained; it should also be noted that there is no WikiProject on His Dark Materials, so there might be a problem with the portal's scope being narrow. --Coredesat 03:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete scope too narrow. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Scope of the portal is too narrow. Cheers, [sd] 11:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete To much of a small scope, no edits their, totally inactive.Tellyaddict 17:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per above.  ~Steptrip 19:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This should have their own wiki site, not creating a niche within wikipedia.--LifeStar 14:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Straw is not a substitute for discussion

This is essentially an essay written as a pointed response to a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Polling. (→Netscott) 14:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, it's a bit of harmless fun. We have plenty of bits of harmless fun in CAT:E and CAT:HUM. >Radiant< 15:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with User:Radiant!, although its small its still a little bit of humour, wont do anyone any harm. Tellyaddict 17:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• keep stop the war on humor on wikipedia! In non-articlespace light parody (excepting attack pages) and self-referential humor are entirely appropriate. Wintermut3 17:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If this gets deleted, I might climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Er, maybe not; I might be in trouble with a rouge admin. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not positive that this is actually "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point" as the nominator states. --Ali'i 19:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Wastes server space and Bandwidth.  ~Steptrip 19:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  See WP:PERF. Picaroon 01:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep label it "humor" like the spiderman page. It's short so I don't expect it to clog up bandwidth that much. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 21:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep For WP:POINT it seems awfully harmless. I don't see how a little humor essay can be disruptive. --Minderbinder 21:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A little fun won't do any harm! We don't need to worry about wasting sever space and it doesn't disrupt a point. Sr13 (T|C) 05:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Stop the war on humor on Wikipedia! General Eisenhower (talk • contribs)
• Delete - I hate Wikihumor.--WaltCip 10:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"I don't like it" is not a good deletion argument. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 15:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that. I'm simply stating the only argument that can be used against this. Take it with a grain of salt.--WaltCip 16:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007-04-04

[edit] User:Martinphi/Paranormal primer

Due to the length of this discussion, please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Martinphi/Paranormal primer. Thanks! Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

Due to the length of this discussion, please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. Thanks! Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

[edit] 2007-04-07

[edit] 2007-04-05

[edit] 2007-04-04