Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WikiPrez (talk | contribs) at 21:32, 7 May 2006 (→Active Discussions: added talk:craig_grebeck to list). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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 6 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 59 15 74
TfD 0 1 21 41 63
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 3 2 5
RfD 0 0 13 5 18
AfD 0 0 10 37 47

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]


2006-05-07

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 page blanked, but kept. Xoloz 23:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Craig_Grebeck

Pointless creation of talk page, for no legitimate purpose. See page and page history for more. WikiPrez 21:29, 7 May 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.


2006-05-06

Wikipedia:Quadrillion pool (and all larger number pools)

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 (after discounting many, many anons and sockpuppets). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the User:Science3456 sockpuppet! (Vote in small font) —Ruud 23:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This pool is outright absurd. How are these numbers talked about outside the world of science and astronomy?? Georgia guy 14:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could have included a bit more information in your nomination? At the very least, you could have omitted that ugly bold "vote" thing. Are you nominating or voting? 61.68.93.85 20:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it's not late enough to have so many pools with huge numbers when Wikipedia now has just over a million articles. I think having just a 5M pool and a 10M pool is enough for right now. Georgia guy 20:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. After Wikipedia reaches 1M articles, the 2M pool is closed and a 10M pool is open.
  2. After Wikipedia reaches 2.5M articles, the 5M pool is closed and a 20M pool is open.
  3. After Wikipedia reaches 5M aritcles, the 10M pool is closed and a 50M pool is open.
  4. After Wikipedia reaches 10M articles, the 20M pool is closed and a 100M pool is open.

And so on. However, the many pools some Wikipedians have been creating is much more absurd thing. Georgia guy 20:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Following debate merged from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:1,234,567,890 pool)

User:Shoxer has a thing for "pandigital numbers". It seems that even Wikipedians in a silly enough mood to visit the pools don't share his enthusiasm. Some of these are even so close to the million, billion, or ten-billion pools that, given exponential growth, they'd probably happen in the same week. But mostly if we open a pool for every number someone likes, we'll have a whole bunch of pools with one person participating. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:35, 10 May 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. — xaosflux Talk 22:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of Wikimedia Projects and Wikias

Was nominated on AFD, moving here. Nominator's comments below. Stifle (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's some crazy way of uniting Wikimedia and Wikia projects, but you have to dance through a hoop first. It's completely ridiculous. Why don't we throw Yahoo Groups and Myspace accounts into the mix, a unite the whole darn web. We have meta to communicate within Wikimedia, Wikia is seperate, and it's fine that way. -- Zanimum 15:04, 4 May 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.

2006-05-03

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 ambiguous.

The majority opinion is against the use of this page. Serious concerns were raised during the discussion that this could be perceived as a precedent for a non-standard method of citations. Several users further argued that the facts which are being cited are common knowledge and, as such, do not technically require citation either according to our policy or according to the traditional standards of citation for encyclopediae. Reviewing the current contents of the page, I have to concur with that assessment though I admit the possiblity that less self-evident facts might someday be included on the page.

So, returning to the deletion discussion... After reviewing the discussion several times, I do not find the necessary consensus to delete the page. I do, however, find a rough consensus to deprecate the page in favor of more traditional uses of the article's regular Talk page and/or of the regular citation process. Accordingly, I am going to redirect this page back to Talk:United States. Anyone wishing to merge some of the contents of this page to another destination may do so by pulling the content from the page history. I explicitly decline to "merge and delete" because it unnecessarily complicates the problem of maintaining attribution history - a requirement of GFDL.

Please note that redirect decisions are not considered "binding" in the sense that normal deletion decision are. If there is a discussion by the participants of the Talk:United States page which concludes that this will be a useful and sanctioned tool for the improvement of the main article, the redirect can be reversed at that time. If there is such a discussion, I would strongly recommend that the page remain in the Talk-namespace. Sub-pages in the main article-space are strongly discouraged. Rossami (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States/References

N.B. this is now Talk:United States/References. — xaosflux Talk 13:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is well intentioned, but some of it is rather comical ('"situated primarily in central North America". Infered from the physical layout of the country.'). Any references which are required should be in the article itself, as for every other referenced article I have ever seen. Delete Sumahoy 01:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and Delete per aeropagitica. Could even be speedied per CSD:A3 (No content whatsoever: . Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title.) -- ReyBrujo 17:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and delete per aeropagitica. TheProject 19:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this is not an article, and has such been moved to Miscellany for deletion.--Sean Black (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you basing that on? It is in the main namespace, so it is posing as an article and it remains an article unless it can be demonstated to belong to some other established class of page. Scranchuse 00:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not an article. It is not part of the encyclopedia, in the same way that Talk pages are not part of the encyclopedia. It is part of a method to make sure the content in the encyclopedia is accurate. By going through the sources listed in the article, and writing down the exact bits of them that back up the specific facts stated in the article, we can make sure that the article follows Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is on a seperate page from the article for the same reasons that the Talk page is on a seperate page - it would take up too much space in the article; it is a behind-the-scenes method for improving our content, not directly a part of the content, etc. Merging it into the United States page is not a meaningful suggestion - it would be like suggesting that a Talk page be "merged" into it's article. Thanks for your attention. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments: aren't the purpose of the new reference style to prevent this kind of "offline" linking where you need to remember a section of the text to search into another page? Also, this page is hidden from the casual user, this way it serves no purpose. Newbie questions, sorry. -- ReyBrujo 23:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your questions. In order: The purpose of the new reference style (by which I assume you mean m:Cite.php) is to allow footnotes to be included inline in the text, so they don't have to be edited in two places. This is good and useful, but is unrelated to the purpose of the Talk:United States/References page, which, as I said above, is a tool for editors to colaborate in making sure that the sources given in the article actually do support each and every one of the statements in the article. As for it being hidden, the page was linked from United States(although someone removed it) and is now linked from the top of Talk:United States, so it should be findable by those who wish to locate it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers, they are pretty useful. -- ReyBrujo 04:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and it should have stayed on articles for deletion. Saying that it is not an article when it is in the article namespace is totally wrong and seems to lend false credence to the idea that this is a legitimate way to reference. If someone wants to do this sort of thing, it should be in the User space. Scranchuse 23:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a "legitimate way to reference; and, now, it is not in the article namespace. Please explain what leads you to think it was not a "legitimate way to reference"? What do you mean by "legitimate"? I look forward to your explanation. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The necessary referencing should be done in the usual way. Anything else should be deleted. The project should also be deleted unless the people behind it can get a separate namespace created. Golfcam 00:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't delete project pages, we, assuming there is consensus for it(which is not shown by one XfD, btw) put {{rejected}} tags on them. And as for trying to reject a useful way to make sure that our articles are actually well-sourced, by colaborating on checking the statements in an article against the sources provided, good luck - I don't think Wikipedia is going to throw out WP:V anytime soon. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
      • MfD does delete project pages if they are ill-conceived or mal-formatted; see April MfD debate for "History of the US Timeline". Xoloz 13:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are correct. Is this page "ill-conceived or mal-formatted"? If so, please explain further what is wrong with it. I look forward to your response. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deprecate, possibly delete Now that this page is in talk-space, I'm not completely opposed to it; however, it should not be viewed as an alternative to the typical (in-text or footnote) methods of citation in WP. Additionally, as written, the page provides sources for items of information at or near the level of common knowledge. (The US is in North America; there are 50 states...) These simple facts are not those which most urgently need citation. The final item on the list is an example of an different class of assertion, that demands citation before inclusion. Xoloz 13:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly agree that this type of detailed verification is not, and should not be viewed as a replacement or alterative form of in-article citation for controversial or disputed points - thanks for suggesting this, I'll add it to the description. As for the page providing sources for "common knowledge", I also mostly agree with this - the introductory section of the article (which is the only section verified by Talk:United States/References) does consist mostly of "common knowledge", as it should. I also agree that such more-or-less obvious, uncontroversial facts are less urgently in need of citation than other, controversial facts.
    • However, I strongly reject the idea that the detailed verification of such uncontroversial facts is in any way harmful to the encyclopedia, or that such work is worthless, or that the results of that work (such as Talk:United States/References) should be thrown out, as various commenters on this page seem to propose. Being able to provide clear, written-down specific sources for as many of the statements in our encyclopedia as we can is a Good Thing, and assists us in maintaining the accuracy of our material. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The reason I am somewhat in support of the deletion of this page, and the reason I believe it may qualify as "ill-conceived" (per the above) is that it sets an example I am not sure I'd wish newer, unsophiscated editors to follow. The best investment of their time, if they wish to research, is to provide citations for details outside of common knowledge or for controversial facts. Additionally, they should always provide citations first within the article -- this page is a duplication. It isn't that I wish to "throw out hard work": I don't hate the page, I just worry about the example it sets, especially since I'd imagine "United States" is an article attractive to new editors. Xoloz 16:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have added a clarifing and warning section to the page, to hopefully address your concerns. It is not, in fact, a duplication - the facts that are cited in that page are precisely the citations which would be removed from the main article as "unnecessarily confusing the reader", which is why they are seperated out to this page so they don't "confuse the reader". While I am sure you are acting with the best of intentions, I don't think that deleting detailed citations is a useful way to set an example to new editors that researching and referencing is valued. It certainly is making me feel much less inclined to put in my time and effort only to see it disparaged as "comical" and "an amateurish hack". If you are truly concerned with creating a culture of sourcing and referencing at Wikipedia, deleting the work of people who are doing that is not a good way to get there. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Don't delete. — Instantnood 19:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a perfectly reasonable way to compile specific citations that do not need to be included in the main article. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:38, 8 May 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 article'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.

2006-05-07

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 Deleted by SlimVirgin. — xaosflux Talk 13:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rangerdude/sandbox1/Evidence of willmcws wiki-stalking

Yet another userpage accusing a Wikipedian of stalking other Wikipedians. It should be deleted. Jet Engines 02:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Jet, I think this can be speedied, because it's an attack page and the user isn't even editing anymore. If anyone objects, they can always undelete. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:34, 7 May 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 Speedy Deleted by User:Cyde (db-author). — xaosflux Talk 01:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RTFE

The WP: space is primary reserved for shortcuts to the Wikipedia: space, additionaly this page doesn't seem to have a purpose as a Project Page even if it were in Wikipedia: namespace — xaosflux Talk 00:57, 7 May 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.

2006-05-06

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 Deleted by Doc glasgow. — xaosflux Talk 13:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thodin/claims

Mainly here to attack other Wikipedians. It should be deleted. Jet Engines 15:32, 6 May 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 Speedy Deleted by User:Doc glasgow. — xaosflux Talk 14:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thodin

Contains attacks in it's history. I think this userpage needs to be deleted. Jet Engines 15:29, 6 May 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 speedy deleted per G5 (posted by banned user), we've had these before. What's currently there is just {{indefblockeduser}}. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bridged landing

Legal threats against Wikipedia. While I strongly support userpage freedom, a userpage which contains threats won't do. So this userpage should probably be deleted. Jet Engines 15:07, 6 May 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.

2006-05-04

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 as author request. Xoloz 00:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jasker/monobook.js

Not used jasker 10:00, 15 January 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.

2006-05-03

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 Deleted by Doc glasgow. — xaosflux Talk 13:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lordfridginton

This page was created by a sock puppet and is about me. It uses my image without permission. It is non-sense. Andre Masella 02:15, 3 May 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.

2006-05-01

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. — xaosflux Talk 14:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Djrobb/Pi Kappa Alpha - Gamma Chapter at the College of William & Mary

Okay, this is a long story. This is an article on a non-notable fraternity chapter, which was userfied (by my request) to the primary author's userspace per AFD. That was on 29 March. The author has had a month to save it elsewhere (he said he'd do it by 8 April), and I've asked on his talk page whether he'd done so. He hasn't replied (but also hasn't edited in a month). So, delete for good in accordance with the AfD, speedy if it's applicable. stillnotelf is invisible 18:00, 1 May 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.

2006-04-29

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 by Doc glasgow — xaosflux Talk 13:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kmweber/Threats to Wikipedia

Consists entirely of attacks on other contributors.--Sean Black (talk) 21:57, 30 April 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. — xaosflux Talk 14:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre/Elizabethan theatre project

This page was used for the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elizabethan theatre which has since been created. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 06:55, 29 April 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.

2006-04-26

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 unanimously. Xoloz 12:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Porting Vectorsite articles

This page originally coordinated addition of content from Vectorsite.net, whose owner gave his blessing to users who wished to do so. However, the user has since decided that he would prefer not to be associated directly with Wikipedia, although he states that "if they want to leverage off anything I've written, great!". The page no longer has any reason to exist without said collaboration; it provides no useful information or ideas to future editors (as inactive policies or proposals do).

The owner of the website attempted to blank the page himself in good faith, but was reverted. He has since emailed the Foundation information email address requesting its deletion, and I see no reason not to grant his request. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:05, 26 April 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.

2006-04-25

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. — xaosflux Talk 03:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for award

Project Page created by Digimark007_V.2 (talk • contribs) to possilby prevent an AFD disscussion from taking place on KMC - Comic Forums J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  14:13, 25 April 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.

2006-04-24

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 — xaosflux Talk 03:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Six Pillars

Incorrect nomination, moving here to correct. Page was originally placed up for PROD, which, as I understand, does not apply to pages outside of article space. Information from original PROD as follows: user experiment. confusing. no collaboration/consensus. redundant. Original PROD nominator:Quiddity. My personal vote: Delete. み使い Mitsukai 12:32, 24 April 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 as historical. — xaosflux Talk 02:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Book Club

Hasn't been touched in over a year, and Wikipedia is not a book club. Cyde Weys 01:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figure it would be pretty tough for someone to confuse us with the Oprah book club, that's probably why it isn't a section of WP:NOT. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was being sarcastic about Oprah. Seriously, though, the project was more than a book club. It was a collaborative project to imrove Wikipedia articles about books. That's why I think we should consider keeping it. --TantalumTelluride 03:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 04:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being kept and tagged as historical sounds okay to me too. We shouldn't necessarily be deleting all of our history :-) So long as it's clear that it's inactive and that Wikipedia is not a bookclub. --Cyde Weys 19:04, 3 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=52037854"