Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Amarkov (talk | contribs)
11,154 edits
Line 14: Line 14:
===[[2006-12-16]]===
===[[2006-12-16]]===
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wikiwebisode}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wikiwebisode}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee}}

===[[2006-12-14]]===
===[[2006-12-14]]===
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Community hash}}
{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Community hash}}

Revision as of 15:28, 16 December 2006


Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 7 disambiguation pages), Event: and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
  • Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}} if it is a userpage, or {{db-author}} or {{db-g7}} if it is a draft. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?
  • Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD
  • Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

I.
Edit PageName:

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.
If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.
Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
  • Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
  • Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
  • Save the page
II.
Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

  • Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
  • Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
  • Save the page.
III.
Add a line to MfD.

Follow   this edit link   and at the top of the list add a line:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".
  • Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
    Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
  • If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add
{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.
  • If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
    For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

    {{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~

    to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as

    Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
  • If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 0 0 1 18 19
TfD 0 0 12 7 19
MfD Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil). Lua error in Module:XfD_old/AfD_and_MfD at line 34: bad argument #1 to 'sub' (number expected, got nil).
FfD 0 0 1 8 9
RfD 0 0 0 25 25
AfD 0 0 0 3 3

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.


Discussions

Active discussions

Articles currently being considered for possible deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed.

Purge the server's cache of this page

2006-12-16

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, no encyclopaedic purpose has been demonstrated and the user has no edits outside of this page. Guy (Help!) 17:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikiwebisode

As can be seen from the userpage, this account appears to be some sort of internet television project. Every single edit made by the user pertains to the userpage and associated image uploads; no useful edits to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a free web host, nor is it a platform for advertising. A Train take the 14:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is crazy. What exactly does a person need to do in order to create (and keep) a wikipedia page? I've tried several things and you guys shoot everything down. I've literally started pages with the intent of making it purely informational, but that doesn't work either. Considering all the restrictions- I'm surprised that the wikipedia even exists. Completely frustrating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.176.16.75 (talk • contribs).
    • Please read what is appropriate on a userpage.--Dakota 06:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In article space? Write about a notable topic - something that more than a handful of people care about - for which good sources can be found. In user space? Use it like you'd use your office: tacking a few postcards to the bulleting board and hanging your death metal band's poster to the cubicle wall harms no one, but your boss will complain if you only show up to the work to practice with that band of yours in your cubicle. It's not really any harder than using a little bit of common sense... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. >Radiant< 10:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee

Okay. This project is based on the assumption that all articles should be short, and that having a long article is inherently bad. However, that's just not the case. The project also works upon people from it coming to an article that is too long, and changing it without asking any of the regular editors there. It might be fine if the idea were that you would have discussion with them, but the inherent assumption is that the people defending long articles are wrong. Some of the conduct standards are troubling, including a sentence on the main page which says something along the lines of "We need to make new warning templates for long articles, because the current ones are only suggestions". And, according to the project coordinator, this constitutes derogatory attacks. Huh? Included are all subpages, wikiproject templates, and the like, of course. Wikiprojects for deletion would make this easier, although nobody would ever see it. -Amarkov blahedits 15:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note the first discussion on the project, in which it was explained that admins would help prevent anyone from reverting the decision, blocking if necessary to break up the page. I'm not sure it's changed since then. -Amarkov blahedits 15:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - project coordinator has resisted all attempts at improvement in tone by well meaning editors and is resorting to bizzare behaviour such as the creation of {{ELAC talk header}}. The projects goals were not appropriate at its inception, and refusal to change by the creator makes me think deletion is the only way to go. pschemp | talk 15:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunate but strong delete - the project goal of dealing with extra long articles could have been a worthy one. Unfortunately, the Project coordinator appears unwilling to listen to the Wikipedia community or to understand consensus. The community opined about the tone and tactics of this project, and yet the coordinator deleted wording added to the Project page here, and re-added inaccurate statements about Featured articles, here. Featured articles are not exempt from limitations on prose: *referenced* articles are longer overall because of citations, but the prose should conform to the 30-50KB recommended in WP:LENGTH. Although the message was clearly sent, the coordinator seems unwilling or unable to adapt to consensus, so I reluctantly agree that this Project is off on the wrong foot, and is a ship that is not likely to be righted. Sandy (Talk) 15:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please don’t put words in my mouth. If you think a project to encourage and facilitate the division of long articles in Wikipedia is a bad idea, then delete right away. As for me resisting attempts to improve the project, I have done this only on two occasions: (1) when people have removed Wikipedia maintenance tags and (2) when User:SandyGeorgia changed the project page around so that it states that any article with over a 50kb “text” amount of size is too long and that those below this limit are fine, where as the published sources, e.g. How Much is Too Much, Speeding up Your Webpage, Rural Areas have Limited Access to Broadband, state that 30kb “total” article size (including images, references, etc). is too long. Other than this, I have had no objections to change. As to recruiting Admins, my intentions were to have possible help when a page editor removes maintenance tags repetitively, not to force a page to be divided as you are suggesting. --Sadi Carnot 15:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incorrect: Tim Vickers changed the page, you removed his changes and inserted inaccurate (retaliatory) comments about WP:FA editors and reviewers, I reverted back to Tim's version, which no one objected to for several days. You ignored the consensus surrounding his change. Sandy (Talk) 16:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look. I'm going to quote you exactly.
      • Second, if plan #1 stifles out in argument and indecision to act, for a number of consecutive weeks, than an breakup arbitration committee notice is placed on the talk page, putting an ultimatum deadline, such that either the regulars break up the page to below a certain limit by that date or an external breakup committee, enforced by a team of administrators, will do so.
    • How can that be interpreted in a way that doesn't mean "An external breakup committee will be enforced by a team of admins"? -Amarkov blahedits 16:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I added direct quotes from Wikipedia:Article size to the project page. Unfortunately, this was then deleted by the major contributor to the project as it does not appear to match his own idea of what the style guide should say. This project is disruptive, aggressive and redundant. TimVickers 16:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. One needs to consider that Wikipedia can be published on paper, so download times or article size cannot be the primary element behind the format of an article; comprehensiveness is. Besides, there's articles with so many facets that they cannot be possible summarized in 30 KB, even if every single section has a subarticle. But then, even if size were the critical component behind an article's composition, the approach the project took, as evidenced in the previous MFD, cannot be ignored. Inappropriate, aggressive and collusive are the only ways I can describe it. Titoxd(?!?) 19:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. In theory, this project's goals are consistent with improving WP. In practice, many of the specifics advocated have failed to find broad consensus, and attempts to bring the project closer to established consensus have been rejected. Responses to attempts at discussion do not appear very cooperative. I have to agree with all the key points in Tito's comment above. But we should apply WP:BITE and WP:AGF and try further discussions before out-and-out deleting a well-intentioned Wikiproject. By the time this MfD is a few days old, I expect it will become clear whether such discussions are fruitful. Barno 19:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The talk page of "Sadi Carnot" today says he's giving up and dropping this project. I thought his comments were reasonable in tone there. His main mistake was to assume that because a few people agreed with his forceful approach which underemphasized consensus-building, that his article tags were "official Wikipedia maintenance tags". He asked someone what to do when such things get removed repeatedly, and learned about anti-vandal policies. He jumped against the established consensus thinking that his group had become that and he was fighting excessive WP:OWN. I change to Delete (the project and all subpages not deleted by the previous "some subpages" MfD), unless someone sees a GFDL reason to connect these to the modular-articles Wikiproject, or to keep it for historical reasons with a "rejectedproposal" tag. I encourage "Carnot" and the others in the project to consider helping the modularization project in more cooperative ways. Barno 20:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I've deleted {{ELAC talk header}} - it was doing nothing for the project apart from disparaging it. Yomanganitalk 10:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm going to go out of my way and be "rouge" here, but I really think this project could be helpful to WP, and deleting it is not the way to go. As it now appears that Sadi understands that his approach was too forceful, I'm not sure it's not too late to salvage a very worthy project. And, to address some of your concerns: 32KB might have been an obviously too low limit, but 110KB articles (which often duplicate content anyway) are a real problem and need to be fixed. Sadi might have been too forceful, but the idea was good: let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's not too late to keep the project and just tone it down. -Patstuarttalk|edits 21:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the indication of understanding anywhere, any change in the tone on the Project page, and there is still no mention of the distinction between readable prose and overall size on the Project page. There are 50KB articles that are too long (because they're all prose, no references), and there are well-cited 80KB articles that aren't too long (the KB is mostly in references). Unless the Project accounts for that (and working in a consensual way), some articles will have to sacrifice either WP:V or comprehensiveness. Sandy (Talk) 22:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 10:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above, it could be started again, though definitely not like it was this time. James086Talk | Contribs 13:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the conduct of this wikiproject and it's attitudes sank it from the get-go. Let's end this farce now. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me • Support Neutrality • RFCU) 21:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and Sandy's argument. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per User:SandyGeorgia, who seems to have a far better understanding of the issue than the project itself. Also, can confirm that User:TimVickers, who also opposes the commitee above, had modifications that were agreed elsewhere by much consensus over years removed. A proposal of the chief advocate of the commitee here, which states -

Here is a recent example in which I placed a "long article" tag on a page but it was quickly reverted; for this situation I would have needed administrative assistance.

indicates to me that there is a complete misunderstanding of the whole wikipedia process, which should rely on consensus, discussion and cooperation between concerned parties. Not bullying enforced by commitees backed up by wiki-police. --Zleitzen 22:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2006-12-14

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (Radiant) 10:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Community hash

I was cleaning out old bookmarks on my computer and found this. It hasn't been edited for over a year and seems to be dead. Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the the nontalk page that goes along with it redirects, shouldn't this page redirect to that talk page? 68.39.174.238 09:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. (Radiant) 10:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Criticism of Islam task force

  • Delete : The group is explicitly created to promote articles with a certain POV (i.e. "Criticism") Wikiproject:Islam already exists for all topics regarding Islam to be discussed, a separate group for efforts promoting a negative view is inappropriate. Taskforces directed at advocating for articles that violate NPOV (eg articles that can be seen as criticizing Islam) is unprecedented. "Criticism" is usually a subsection of an article, and occasionally they get forked off into separate articles. Creating projects around pushing criticism is POV-guided from the start, and therefore violates Wikipedia rules. If this is okay, then I should be allowed to open a taskforce for articles promoting or admiring Islam, or a taskforce for articles that criticize Israel.Just examples. Shams2006 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um... Yes, you should be able to. You also can. -Amarkov blahedits 04:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes you can create a taskforce that improves articles that put Islam in a positive light - these taskforces are actually already there, if you saw the project's main page (Muslim scholars, e.g. - this is actually what this new taskforce was based on). I dont see whats the alarm about this taskforce. Its created to improve articles of a certain type (which are critical of Islam, e.g. Criticism of Quran, of Muhammad, of Islam (the last is the main article). Improving articles is not against the law.--Matt57 14:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Does Criticism of Islam also exist to promote a negative view of Islam? It does not and therefore, a collaborative effort to improve articles on the main theme of Criticism of Islam is not promoting a negative view, rather it is striving to improve these articles which is a noble purpose. If "Criticism" looks POV to you, lets rename this taskforce to "Islam and Controversy" taskforce. --Matt57 21:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A dishonest response. The taskforce mentions 'articles related to criticism of Islam", not the article "Criticism of Islam" itself. Therefore the purpose of this group is to promote anti-Islamic articles. Such discussions can be held in Wikiproject Islam itself, but your intention is to create a meeting ground for those with this POV bias.
      • So what? Articles about anti-Islamic things deserve to be well written, too. You would have a claim if this were being used to promote adding anti-Islamic bias, but it isn't. -Amarkov blahedits 03:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So what? There is one "Criticism of Islam" article, so what "articles about criticism of Islam" is Matt talking about? Wheres that category of articles listed? What Matt is talking about is articles with a theme that critisizes Islam in his own view. What he means is articles with a clear anti-Islam POV. He wants Wikipedia to feature articles that arent unbiased but critisizes Islam. That kind of promotion of one POV is unprecedented here. Would you be ok if I made a taskforce on topics criticizing Israel or America or Christians? No you wouldnt. Shams2006 03:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • So they want to improve that article. If you're going to complain someone is an evil POV pusher, you had better have evidence to back that up, not just an assertion that the project is intended to push anti-Islam bias. You have no evidence. -Amarkov blahedits 03:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Shams, you wrote: "He wants Wikipedia to feature articles that arent unbiased but critisizes Islam." - Wikipedia doesnt ALLOW articles that are biased - thats called POV. The main article Criticism of Islam is not a biased article. If it was, it would only be showing Islam in a bad light. Instead it is supposed to show and it does show both sides of the story. You have to know first though what goes on in these Criticism articles - continous edit wars. If the articles are well polished and structured, the edit wars can be reduced, thats one thing I hope that comes out of this. I dont know why you feel alienated. Is there anything that can be done to make you believe that this is an effort of which you and other like minded people are also to be a part of equally? Do you want to rename it to a Controversy and Islam taskforce? In that case its fine with me. I'll tell you what, other users like Striver dont feel the same. They are even a part of this taskforce (he said he'll leave if it goes sour, which is not the purpose). Here's the thing: you must think of ways of how you and others can participate in such a taskforce positively, and for example defend the Criticism in those articles. A better article can thus be built on a whole if we act together rather than against each other. --Matt57 05:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The project's goals as stated on the page and talk page are not contrary to Wikipedia policies. I think the nominator misread the intent, so perhaps a different name would help. Also not sure if deletion is the right avenue to discuss an active project. —Doug Bell talk 21:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it clearly states that they the purpose is to improve the quality of a narrow (though there are a fair number of pages) topic. Can you demonstrate that they are doing something other than that? Koweja 01:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a statement made by the person who created this taskforce: "I believe the WikiProject Islam is not enough NPOV. There are many places on WP where people non-critical of Islam have grouped together, but there was no place there people critical of Islam could group together for collaboration." Firstly that statement is incorrect, there is no grouping for people with pro-Islam view. If this taskforce is allowed, a taskforce for articles promoting Islam should be allowed as well. Realistically I think we need a taskforce to address anti-Islam activism on Wikipedia. I trust you will all agree with that taskforce too? Shams2006 03:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A blatantly dishonest quote, Shams, since Matt57 struck out that quote two days ago after I pointed out to him that it was phrased incorrectly: [2]. - Merzbow 18:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The dishonesty is all yours actually, you asked him to strike that out so the arguement against this group wouldn't stand. That doesnt change the actual purpose for this group which is for islam-bashers to have a meeting place to push articles critical of Islam. Shams2006 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um... you can make it if you want, although I doubt it's necessary. -Amarkov blahedits 03:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, their mission objective is "This is a project aimed at increasing the quality of the articles related to Criticism of Islam and its related articles, elevating the articles to "Good article" standard, and then all the way to "Featured article" standard" which is a perfectly acceptable goal. Now, as for the creator, I don't know, it does sound like he might be agenda pushing based on that one statement. Or he might not be and actually mean what he says. I read the talk page and that discussion was going nowhere and not revealing anything. Wikipedia requires us to assume good faith so I will for now. Should he prove to be a POV pusher, then he, and he alone, will be dealt with according to policy. Now, if it turns out that the taskforce is in fact pushing an anti-Islam agenda, then we can get rid of it (and the involved users). However, the group as only been around for about two days and doesn't seem to have done anything good or bad yet. I'm still going to remain as "keep", but if they do start problems I will be more than willing to change my view. Koweja 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the above. - Merzbow 01:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Sefringle 10:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm a bit afraid that project my evolve in a negative way, but we presume innocence and WP:AGF... even if I, as a fact, know that intent of at least one of the people there does not merit such assumptions. ie, The project goals and nothing wrong with, and my illusionist stance rather keep it even if it is aimed at promoting criticisms. I am still so very angry that they deleted WikiProject 9/11 Truth Movement! Even if a bigoted consensus killed that, i am not going to retaliated by killing this project, even some part of me wants to revenge. But if this project evolves in a negative light and starts to push for non-reliable sources to be included, i will be the first one to vote delete for this. --Striver 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should mention how WikiProject: The Muslim Guild was redirected to this now present much more NPOV title. The same is true for the 911 Conspiracies Guild which was also deleted. Their titles seem to be pushing a POV. If the title of the project itself has a POV, then that leads to it being deleted. If 'Criticism of Islam' was a POV article, it wouldnt exist. The aim again is to improve these articles. If you think anything is wrong, just remember the basics: there's nothing wrong with wanting to improve a group of articles. Keeping that in mind, what do you think is the best title of the project? "Islam and Controversy" taskforce is one option. I definitely do not want one POV to be active in these articles. Ofcourse even you and other like minded people have an equal interest in improving the Criticism articles. --Matt57 16:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I view that "Criticism of Islam" and "9/11 truth Movement" are just as fine project names as "Judaism" or "Cristianity" or "Religion" for that mater. "WikiProject Judaism" is most certanily as pov or npov as "WikiProejct 9/11 Truth Movement". --Striver 16:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you saw on the project's page, there are many other task forces (or sub-projects as you said). Also, Criticism of Islam is not just one article. Its an area under which many articles fall. --Matt57 00:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and I say delete them all. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Whats wrong in making a taskforce to focus on a certain group of articles? This is helping improve Wikipedia, is it not? --Matt57 03:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You edited the "Dhimmi" article to add it as one categorized under this "criticism of Islam" task force. Dhimmi is a historic practice and event, why ad it here? Because YOU want to push a critical POV on that article? That's exactly what I feared with this taskforce. Wikipedia shouldnt have taskforces that push activist prejudice-driven agendas. That is what this is. You want to promote a negative take on all things related to Islam. And no, that is not helping improve Wikipedia. Shams2006 04:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am against it because I am against the taskforces in general. I think they cause too much division. Everyone in WikiProject Islam should be working together, not in individual groups dedicated to specific parts. What's the point of even having a WikiProject Islam if each of the taskforces is going to be independent of each other? Wikipedia is not just a collaboration among similar-thinking people, it should also be spread to those who disagree as well. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. (Radiant) 10:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:TLAs from AA0 to DZ9

I have asked around to try to establish any use or purpose to this sequence of pages and failed to find any encyclopaedic purpose. I am not proposing a Transwiki because there seems no merit in adding it to Wiktionary either. This is a multi-nomination for all similar pages in Category:Lists of TLAs. Delete all. BlueValour 03:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Several of the creators and contributors to these pages, such as User:Ceyockey, are still active editors; may I ask whether you asked them what they envisioned the pages being used for, and if so, what responses you got? On the merits of the pages, while they will never be featured articles, on a first read I found them refreshingly free of, among other things, the slightest hint of any verifiability problems, original reseach, or libel concerns. Newyorkbrad 03:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhm... (changed to keep) What is this page for anyway? I guess it shows us a group of redirects that need to be created (AA1 -> AA-1, for instance) and is sort of interesting. I'll vote keep if someone can show up and tell me what this page is supposed to be for. --tjstrf talk 04:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Bearing in mind WP:NOT#IINFO I would argue that the redirects should be created when needed not just because they are not there! I agree, if there is a good reason for being kept then fine, but since they were created in August 2005 little has been done with them. BlueValour 04:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Actually, I would say that creating non-contradicting redirects whenever reasonable is a good thing and does not break NOT#INFO in the slightest. Redirects are not articles, they don't contribute useless information but rather make navigation easier. For instance, making 5 or 6 redirects to a person's name (macronized and non-macronized, different romanization systems, etc.) is helpful because it aids in searching. For all intents and purposes, non-printworthy redirects are a form of meta-content. --tjstrf talk 05:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is it supposed to be? In what planet does this make sense? Why is there a list, in PROJECTSPACE even, consisting of all of the 46656 combinations of three letters and numbers? -Amarkov blahedits 05:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Absurd use of project space for what should be a category, if anything. --Dgies 06:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and stop being simple-minded. All these lists include important linguistic information and do not take much of Wiki's space. They do NOT violate WP:NOT and should stay. Ah, someone above says that since they were created in August 2005 little has been done with them. But of course, they don't need any updates, but are used by many as a starting point to research acronyms. There are many uses for these lists, for example, people looking for new names for computer communication protocols, for new products (including software products), marketing brands, linguistic trends and much more. Keep and stop nagging. --Gabi S. 06:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A list like this one is useful when determining what acronyms/TLAs we still need pages for. If we were to use categories for that, we'd have to do an incredible amount of scrolling to find the combination we need (if it's even an existing page). A list like this can list the as of yet non-existing ones and makes finding all the existing ones a lot easier. - Mgm|(talk) 09:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't need pages for every possible TLA, only those that have notable subjects under that name. If someone wants a page for a particular TLA they can just search for it and see it is missing. According to Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context, redlinks should not be made for pages which will never be created, which is about 90% of the content on these pages. --Dgies 07:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If nothing else, it's justified because creating redirects between the hyphenated and unhyphenated ones where one of the two exist sis a perfectly valid use for the list and would be unfeasible without that page since you would have to look at all of them by hand. --tjstrf talk 09:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The purpose of the page is to look at the links and see which are blue and which are red. --ais523 12:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a useful page, but an introduction should be added making it more clear what the pages purpose is. Danbold 19:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Two questions.
    • 1. Why is it necessary to have articles on all TLAs?
    • 2. Why is such a list in projectspace?
  • -Amarkov blahedits 00:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a useful page to find combination. Maksim-e 13:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - combination of what? Sorry to be obtuse but I really don't understand the use to which this page can be put. It would be helpful to hear from someone who does use these pages as to what purpose they find that they serve. BlueValour 03:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I've been invited to say something here. I'm not going to input as either keep or delete because I can see reasons for and against inclusion and I've been deeply involved in the past in creating and maintaining pages of this kind. The reasoning for inclusion relates to the appropriateness of including almanac-like data in the Wikipedia namespace. I think that the standards for inclusion are different between the main and wikipedia article spaces, and this sits in the wikipedia space; if memory serves, it and articles like it were moved into the wikipedia space because there was consensus (albeit slim) that they did marginally violate the WP:NOT#INFO policy. However, I recognize the strength of categories in dealing with this kind of information; where alphabetical lists are involved, I have become more and more convinced that categories are sufficient. The 'identification of holes and missing information' is a laudable argument for inclusion, and the WP:CRYSTAL does not really apply here, as we are not predicting future events, we are describing a known and finite combinatorial character space - which fits with the content being almanaic in nature. Does the page and its type do harm? No, not in my opinion. Does the existence of the page further Wikipedia article development? No, not in my opinion - which I need to explain ... anticipatory creation of redirects and articles is not looked highly upon; redirects and dab pages should be created upon need not in anticipation of need. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Are we going to list all of the 2-letter/number combinations, 4-letter/numbers combinations, 5... etc? (Pardon my sarcasm). I would suggest just having a page filled with a list of common acronyms, but not a red link factory. Do we need such a list anyway? It's easy enough to find any abbreviation on Wikipedia, just by going to the relevant page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$ABBREV). Cheers, Yuser31415 01:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently no notification of the this deletion discussion has been added to the pages that are being considered for deletion; only on the 'top' page of the stack. Why has this important step been omitted from the deletion process or was it done and the notices subsequently removed? (see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unlike articles, Wikipedia project pages should be kept unless they either are detrimental to the encyclopedia or serve no encyclopedic purpose at all. As some of the commenters here have expressed that they have a use for this, it should be kept out of good faith. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (Radiant) 10:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sean Canavi

Not an editor's page: Only edits (3, all in May) are to this page. WP is not MySpace/a free webhost. Was tagged with PROD, but removed by User:Doug Bell with the flatly wrong rationale of made incorrect assertion regarding last edits to page (were on Oct. 31st, not in May)--needs to go through MfD. Doug Bell, it turns out, assumes that the contributions of 87.127.74.230 (talk · contribs) are probably User:Sean Canavi -- but since those contributions are equally nonsensical ("I love I love I love I LOVE STEVEN SEAGAL I love I love I love"), I don't see a dime's worth of difference here. Calton | Talk 01:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This user's talk page shows people inquiring about copyrighted images, with no answer; also Calton's 7-December prod tag's message, with no "justaminute" nor other answer. If the user logged on under this username in Nov/Dec, the "new messages" orange box with link would have been shown. The user is inactive under this name, and if active as anon or another account, the user has abandoned the nominated userpage and its talkpage. Barno 01:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you believe describing someone missing the obvious is "rude", it's certainly no ruder than your pejorative misapplication of the term "misuse" in defending your narrowly bureaucratic reading of the guideline. --Calton | Talk 06:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2006-12-13

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. (Radiant) 08:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground

Finishing nom for User:Jrockley as requested here [3]. Procedural nomination, I offer no opinion in this nomination, but reserve the right to offer one later BigDT 19:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • See also first mfd --BigDT 19:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments at the prior MfD discussion. Doesn't purport to be a policy or guideline, acceptable as an essay. I see no apparent inconsistency with policies such as WP:LIVING, but any such should be resolved by editing or in consultation with the creator rather than deletion. Newyorkbrad 19:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish keep - per Newyorkbrad - doesn't seem that bad...Moreschi
  • Keep (as creator). Read it, please. Read the example and see if you can think of any parallels in deletion debates. The purpose of this essay is actually the opposite of what you might think; it's to encourage people to establish in the article why we should care about their pet subject, as well as a way of guiding people who argue about subjects they can't be bothered to write up in sufficient detail to attract keep advocates. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - from the first MFD: "This is a way of explaining why, when absolutely no evidence whatsoever is provided of the notability of a given subject, some people at AfD will vote to delete it, because in the end it's not really right to slap an article in and then expect somebody else to prove that it should be there by finding the evidence of notability. Article creators should, at the very least, provide basic evidence of meeting WP:BIO". JzG said that. I agree with it. The fact that there are policies and guidelines relating to WP:BIO has nothing to do with the point of this article. Too many people seem to say "Well, he's not notable but we can find something later", vote to Keep and Cleanup, and the ignore it forever. The essay is a point in trying to show why that doesn't work. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Makes the valid point that people too often refuse to delete things on the grounds they might be cleaned up to show notability/verifiability eventually, despite that not having happened. -Amarkov blahedits 04:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NYBrad and inasmuch as, the considerable merits of this particular page notwithstanding, we generally don't&madsh;or at least ought not—to delete essays that seek to advance encyclopedic purposes or discussions about such advancement. I suppose I can conceive of why one would think the essay to be inconsistent with LIVING, but I can't imagine that any such argument should be persuasive. Joe 06:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good advice. --Improv 08:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Terence Ong 09:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep May need a copy editor or a renaming, but raises good points in a civil way. --Dgies 06:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A good, non-sarcastic essay with a valid point. Koweja 01:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Illustrates Wikipedia guidelines and general opinion on bio content/notability masterfully. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And additional note: Yeah, it may need an another title. Look at me, I'm not a native English speaker, and here I am, wondering, in general, why the heck some weird foreign people, counterintuitively enough, compare random passers-by to geographical features... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly under another title. Marked as essay (not policy), begins by pointing reader at the most relevant policy pages. Makes a bunch of useful points that come up at least several times a day on AfD. I fear a newcomer may follow an editor's link from an AfD discussion to this page, read only the title, and get offended. Otherwise it's not sarcastic or excessively ironic, it doesn't advocate anything counter to policy, and it gives a very helpful example to illustrate. If people told us what is most memorable/significant/etc about a person when they start a bio article, a lot of worthy article stubs would get tagged for sourcing and saved, and hopefully most would get improved soon. And in other cases we could more easily determine "that's all he's done?, okay, not notable enough for a bio, but merge a line or two into such-and-such topic." Article seems to meet policy and consensus; editor who requested this listing has made a lot of useful contributions (and never been blocked), but appears to be trying to get rid of essays that are "uncivil" such as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No one cares. Other than maybe the title, this policy-supporting essay doesn't fall into that category. Barno 20:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This explains the notability guidelines for new users well enough, it's an 'alternative' version of WP:NOTE.

It's an essay, but a very valid one. I am considering writing my own version on the same subject... --SunStar Nettalk 21:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete per WP:SNOW. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pitchka/Freemasonry Page

This is a similar page to User:Dwain/Freemasonry Page also up for deletion below. It is in violation of Wikipedia:User page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page? (Polemical statements, Other non-encyclopedic material) and Jimbo Wales' statement. It seems to be bordering on an attack on freemasons. James086Talk | Contribs 13:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (Radiant) 08:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jenhanc

Not an active editor's page: Only edits (6) were on April 4th, to this page to uploading the photo on the page, and adding self to Gervacio Santos. WP is not MySpace/a free webhost. Was tagged with PROD, but tag removed without comment by User:Luna Santin, so I guess we have to do this the hard way. Calton | Talk 13:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Calton. No contributions outside of this non-notable userfied article. We're not MySpace. A Train take the 15:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete. To be fair, I did delete all but I think two of the userpages you tagged. ;) Since I have no experience as to community consensus regarding this sort of deletion, I figured sending the few pages of editors who actually had an edit or two to MfD for a reality check couldn't hurt. If consensus tells me I should have deleted under prod, for editors with such scant and long-past contribs, I'll do so in the future. Luna Santin 23:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (Radiant) 08:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mimi luvs babies

Not an editor's page: Only 6 edits (all in August) and only 2 minor edits to Mainspace. WP is not MySpace/a free webhost. Was tagged with PROD, but tag removed without comment by User:Luna Santin, so I guess we have to do this the hard way. Calton | Talk 13:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (Radiant) 08:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dwain/Freemasonry Page

Violates the guideline for what is acceptable in userspace. Ref What can I not have on my user page?, in particular the statement from Jimbo Wales. Contained, until yesterday, a list of Wikipedians who identifies as Freemasons, which makes me think this is an "attack-page". WegianWarrior 10:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your story keeps getting better each time you tell it! Too bad it's not true. See here: User_talk:MSJapan#Your_userpage Dwain
I don't think so.ALR 12:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology (whether they want to or not) contains individuals who are both decidely in favor of Scientology and decidedly opposed to it. I have to assume Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry would have to do the same thing if someone joined for the explicit purpose of presenting the negative side of the story. For all I know, the various other projects dealing with religion and other controversial topics would have to do the same thing, and may have already done so. Maybe joining that group in an attempt to create a more neutral perspective might be the way to go here. Of course, it would have to be done in a spirit of fairness and neutrality, but that is what wikipedia is about anyway. Badbilltucker 16:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There already are members of the project who wish, and achieve at times, to represent the craft in as negative a light as the guidelines allow.ALR 18:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already merged. It goes without saying that it's more practical to discuss a proposal in one central spot, rather than in multiple separate talk pages. (Radiant) 14:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules

This page is a content fork of Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline, bordering on WP:POINT, related to an ongoing issue about what kinds of responses are appropriate at the WP:RD pages. Rick Block (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick, can you please point us to the policy that says content forks are prohibited ? StuRat 07:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat, it's WP:POVFORK. But of course, it addresses articles, and specifically exempts the page under discussion here, in the last couple of paragraphs. -THB 11:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That guideline does indeed say "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject" (my emphasis), so it is written exclusively for articles. And, even if this were a violation, as a guideline, it says "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". This is one such case, as this isn't a permanent fork, but only a temporary page used to develop a proposed Ref Desk guideline. StuRat 13:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin: If the decision is to delete this page, please notify me and give me a chance to copy the latest version into my personal namespace. StuRat 21:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You need to supply a valid reason to keep a copy of deleted content in user space. Also, it can alway be recovered after being deleted if there is a valid reason (nothing ever really gets deleted.) —Doug Bell talk 18:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I need a "valid reason" to keep a copy in my own namespace any more than you need a "valid reason" for the content on your talk page. Also, several people have suggested that I move it there, in any case. StuRat 18:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to know under what guidelines/rules/policy it is being proposed for deletion other than the proposer doesn't like it. It's not in the main namespace. It "borders" on this, it's a fork that. It's not an article. -THB 03:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment, though it's not breaking any policies, why not keep the consensus-building process centralized? --frothT C 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Content forking: POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article ... This is generally considered unacceptable. The applies to content in all namespaces not just articles and, as far as I can tell, is exactly the case here. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You filed this RFD saying it was a content fork. Now you are changing to say it's a POV fork. Which is it, in you opinion ? StuRat 13:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that it was not created instead of resolving a disagreement about content? It doesn't matter what it's called - creating copies instead of resolving disagreements is unacceptable. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you refusing to answer the question ? You filed this RFD saying it was a content fork. Now you are changing to say it's a POV fork. Which is it, in you opinion ? I can't possibly defend it if I don't know what you're charging is wrong with it. StuRat 13:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If StuRat wants to keep a private copy of a proposed guideline and set his own rules as to who can edit it, that's not particularly problematic—if it's in his user space. If he doesn't want to userfy, then delete; this is just a private fork. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request. Could anybody summarise what is actually going on with all these little RD satellite pages and this particular deletion proposal? Basically I go on the Maths and Science RDs and post answers to questions I feel I can help with. That's about the extent of it. I have no idea what is going on with all these extra pages on the side and the whole affair is inordinately confusing. Can anyone help? Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 02:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a good summary for today: [4]. -THB 03:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's complicated. The link THB provides above is a good summary of Hipocrite's position. There is a generally poisonous atmosphere at the reference desk surrounding this issue. As far as I can tell, StuRat says it's admins versus reference desk people although others dispute this. Ned Wilbury 03:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per my note to Pschemp below. Anchoress 06:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. First, there seemed to be a problem of different editors applying different Wikipedia rules to the Ref Desk. One person would answer a question with their opinion, then somebody else would delete it and say opinion isn't allowed. One person would make a joke, then somebody would delete it and say jokes aren't allowed. One person would answer from their own personal experience, then somebody would delete it and say "no original research". So, we decided, by consensus, on the Ref Desk Talk Page to create some clarifications of which general Wikipedia rules do, and do not, apply to the Ref Desk. So far, so good. We started by building a list of possible items "under dispute", then went through them one at a time and voted on them, deciding on whichever way the supermajority voted. After we accrued a certain critical mass of rules clarifications, we put them on Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline and moved the conversation over to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guideline. Here's where the problem came in. We had a group of people (a minority), who did not accept this process, and decided to just edit the rules clarifications there however they saw fit, without even attempting to gather a consensus first. So, to avoid an endless edit war between the majority and this rogue minority, we moved the old consensus version to Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules and the associated talk page Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/rules. The idea is to finish developing the rules interpretations there, then work to combine the two sets of rules clarifications into one. This process, of course, will be disrupted by deleting the page at this point. And, I suppose I should add that those against the supermajority are almost all Admins. They are the ones who deleted the votes, then deleted the content, and now are trying to delete the page itself (User:Rick Block is an Admin). I try not to put this into a "we" versus "them" context, but these facts make this difficult. StuRat 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat, just because they are all administrators, doesn't mean there's a cabal. See: WP:TINC. -THB 03:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, you have to look at the evidence. And, to be reasonable, some Admins have been fair, like User:Zoe, User:HappyCamper and User:Durova. Unfortunately, none of them stay in the discussion long enough to moderate the behavior of the rest. StuRat 03:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, we cannot assume that because someone is an admin, they're good or evil. I'm sure they're a mixed bunch, like anyone else. We CAN hopefully assume that all admins are very familiar with Wikipedia policy, though. Ned Wilbury 03:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Ned, that's not always the case. That's been a major criticism of some administrators, even some of those who have been involved at the Ref. Desk lately. -THB 03:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't see why not. DirkvdM 07:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I'ts been a while since I answered questions at the reference desk, but I'm sad to see the opposition to opinions and humor. Reference desk should be much chattier than the articles, because it's a conversation, not an article. We don't need to have NPOV and NOR when we're only speaking for ourselves. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if one of those isn't used it can be tagged as historical. Especially if this is the original as the first commenter stated. Besides, there's no policy violation on forking content of this type to work on it while keeping the actual used table stable. - Mgm|(talk) 13:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move into User Space. Haven't involved myself in the detail of this, but I don't think creating a separate fork is the way to resolve this dispute. Put it in his user space if he feels so strongly about it and let him persuade others to incorporate any changes into the real page. --Calton | Talk 13:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - please don't wikilawyer over whether this is or is not a fork. If it looks like a fork, waddles like a fork, and quacks like a fork, it is a fork. A further two points: (1) StuRat, it is perfectly possible to have forks of Wikipedia namespace pages, and they are still bad, even if they are outside article namespace; (2) THB, WP:MfD is where pages like this (outside the main name space and not covered by other XfD processes) are discussed. If you want two separate pages, please make the relationship between them clear. At the moment all this is just confusing and driving away those who want to contribute to the reference desk, and no, that is not supporting one side or the other, it is just an appeal for both sides to start working together. Carcharoth 14:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - because Ref Desk is not an article and it is not the talk page of an article so it needs a different set of rules. It has been proposed that there be no humor, no opinion, and no citing of sources other than Wikipedia and blocking of editors who do not follow these edicts along with deletion of their responses. Having a set of consensus guidelines or rules which let the Reference Desk functions as the Reference Desk functions best will make life easier for harassed contributors and a more interesting and helpful place for readers. Edison 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The way to fix a difference of opinion is not to start a competing proposal at a different location. We only need one page, and the other one has a better title as Isotope notes. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't lump all the 'ref desk regulars' together. Anchoress 06:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never considered you remotely in the same category as some others dear. No reason to take offense. pschemp | talk 09:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Based on Stu's comment below, I may have misunderstood him. If he's not planning on taking the contents of "Rules" back to "Guidelines" and working out a consensus, then delete - all parties should be encouraged to reach consensus on a single page, and any Antipope pages are just impediments to consensus. TheronJ 02:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I would be more inclined to delete your page. You and the other reference editors should reach consensus on a single page. If you don't like the changes the other editors have made to "guidelines," then take it up on the talk page, and revert them if you must, subject to edit warring limitations. The fact that the "text" is older doesn't mean that your page is the "true" rules for the ref desk. If you want to preserve the text or work on the page somewhere, fine, but if you're really claiming that your page is some kind of antipope equivalent to the guideline page, then I say delete it so you can all get together on one page and work it out. TheronJ 02:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indifferent Deleting the page will not solve the problem. Solving the problem will delete the page in due course. Consensus does not work by voting and ramroding old decisions as already decided. Until both sides are willing to treat the other side as human as opposed to "iron-fisted diciplinarian" and "chatter," it's apparent that there will be a great deal of heat, but very little light. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We cannot have 2 sets of rules, if you disagree with the rules argue on the talk page of the existing guidelines, but this is a POV fork. Mabye I don't understand the situation. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that I engaged in WP:BRD on the guidelines page. My initial edit was a replace, but when this was reverted, I did not re-replace, instead added my non-voting guideline suggestions (which have since been substantially edited by parties on all sides) on the same page as what I'll call the "voting" guidelines. Stu split his voting guidelines from my non-voting guidelines while both were on the guidelines page. Stu's input on the guidelines page is still welcome - his voting, however, is not, per WP:DDV. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you well know, the /guideline page predates /rules, but not the content. As for the text "evolving over time", the text which was there was just completely deleted, without consensus [5]. This is hardly "evolving". Rather than engage in an edit war over this, I thought it better to move the text which had actually evolved over time to another page. StuRat 13:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Even after the very nice summary by StuRat above, I'm still having a hard enough time getting my head wrapped around the issues, and following all the threads of the discussion, that having two separate policy-related pages will only badly compound the difficulty. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This page was created shortly after a flurry of changes and reverts at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline (roughly starting here) for the expressed intent (here) "to stop an edit war". I believe the actual situation is that the fork was created due to an ownership issue, see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, and a resultant unwillingness to address issues on the page's talk page. I've nominated this page for deletion in an attempt to encourage the users involved to resolve this dispute on the talk page. If I were not directly involved in this, I would seriously consider protecting both pages until such time as the users involved were willing to talk. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. The discussion was occurring at Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline, which you set up for the purpose of this discussion. This page is a newer page, created in response to an editing conflict. That's not how things work here. If you don't like the edits to a page, you don't make a new copy - you discuss the changes, on the talk page. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we had discussed it, but the minority group then just deleted the content, without agreement from the majority group. This caused a revert war. Rather than continue with the revert war, I thought it better to keep the pages separate for a while. Do you think continuing the revert war would have been preferable ? StuRat 04:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] Stu, I think that point's been adequately made now, and people basically understand it. The thing is, the answer you're going to get to your last question is that, no, a revert war would not have been preferable, but a POV fork (which is what people are going to keep assuming the creation of Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules was) was not preferable, either. Everyone's going to say that you should have worked calmly with Radiant! and Hipocrite to build consensus.
Now, of course, Radiant! and Hipocrite were apparently not being terribly easy to work with, and it could even be said that they suckered you into making these mistakes that you're being held accountable for, that are making you seem like the perpetrator of a bad situation. And unfair as that is, it's a situation you can't win; I've seen far, far too many people on WP get badly hurt when they got embroiled in one of these horribly tangled, everybody's-made-mistakes, nobody-wins situations. So even though Radiant! and Hipocrite did some slimy things which you shouldn't have to bear the consequences of, the thing to do now is take a deep breath, go back to Wikipedia:Reference desk/guideline, and keep trying to hammer out a consensus. It's frustrating and not always easy, I know, but Wikipedia is like that sometimes. (And the results, when the "process" works, are worth it.) —Steve Summit (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing the reverting would have been preferable. A revert war is unacceptable. Forking is unacceptable. This leaves discussing. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We had tried that, and the result of that discussion was that the minority group deleted everything the majority had done. So now what should the majority group have done next ? StuRat 05:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reverting started at 12:05, December 12, 2006 (UTC). You created this fork at 14:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC). You should have continued the discussion. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had tried to discuss things with the person who deleted the content, User:Radiant!, before, by leaving notes on his talk page. Instead of responding, he simply deleted the notes. This is where he deleted votes to establish a supermajority: [6], [7], [8], here's where he deleted requests on his talk page to stop doing that: [9], [10], and here's where he deleted the supermajority rules for deletion proposal, without discussion: [11]. I saw no possibility of him discussing things civilly based on his recent behavior. StuRat 17:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat - those of us who were there know how Radiant and Hipocrite hijacked the page. And we can see how this MfD and the RfC are being used to provoke you. The consensus text and the discussion behind it can be kept elsewhere. When all is said and done, they can't MfD the Truth ! Gandalf61 09:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There have been several questions about what policy addresses this deletion request. Clearly, everyone has been dying to hear my thoughts on this issue, but was too shy to ask.
  1. As far as I can tell, the official deletion policy only applies to pages in the "Main" namespace. (Update: Whoops, Carcharoth is obviously right below: "Wholly inappropriate" pages may be deleted through MFD). TheronJ 15:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. That doesn't mean that deletion of Wikipedia and talk pages is some kind of Hobbesian anarchy, however. (If it did, StuRat would lose, because the admins would be free simply to delete his page). I would say that we are being guided by WP:CONSENSUS and the Wikipedia policies generally, particularly the Five Pillars.
  3. Guided by those principles, I think the page should be deleted, because drafting a competing set of principles for the same project instead of working together to edit the original set is contrary to consensus - you should all work together to agree on a single page, not develop two competing pages. If you do want a temporary space to develop an alternative for discussion, call it a sandbox, not the "real" guidelines to your project. If you have a problem with the way others have edited the original guidelines, use dispute resolution. TheronJ 15:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all points, but wouldn't you say that the correct course of action is therefore merge, not delete? —Steve Summit (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that all of the text of "Rules" is already in the history of the "Guidelines" page, so no merge is necessary. Merging would be fine, though. TheronJ 15:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the official deletion policy is not silent on this. Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_be_needed has this: "Wholly inappropriate pages in the project (Wikipedia:), Help:, MediaWiki:, Portal:, and various talk namespaces, where discussion, renaming, merging, or simple editing cannot resolve the problem." - and says "List on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (WP:MfD)." and "See WP:MfD for instructions and tags." A strict interpretation of this would suggest that this MfD is inappropriate as discussion and merging are obviously possibilities that should have been tried first. The other side would argue that forking is wholly inappropriate. But, hey, I'm a discuss and merge sort of guy anyway. Carcharoth 15:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that was just created as a backup, I'd prefer not to have to move everything and fix all the links that will be broken in the process. I was just worried that an Admin would delete it and delete the history, so I would have nothing left. I should ask, would the associated talk page also be deleted if this "not a vote" goes against me ? If so, I'd better make a backup of that page, too. Or will I be given notice and allowed to move the pages myself to preserve the history ? StuRat 20:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

2006-12-14

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete RfA page for non-existent user. Kimchi.sg 04:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Glacious

The nominee is not a user of the English Wikipedia. Why bother letting this page even exist in the first place? Scobell302 03:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2006-12-13

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=94710954"