Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

Shortcut: WP:MFD

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.

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.

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Module:, Topic:, and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes (regardless of 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[edit]

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

Deleting pages in your own userspace	If you want to have your own personal userpage deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}}. If you wish your user talk page (or user talk page archives) to be deleted, this is the correct location to request that.
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.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – whose guidelines on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

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

Administrator instructions[edit]

Administrator instructions for closing discussions can be found here.

Current discussions[edit]

Pages currently being considered are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

Purge server cache

January 10, 2015[edit]

User:AbdulBasitQ/sandbox[edit]

Not an obvious G11, but this seems to be promotional. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Engtarek2002/sandbox[edit]

Not sure , but this seems to be more like Wikibooks instrcutional material. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Laserman[edit]

This looks like promotional content, but it's not an obvious G11. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User:DyipDyipDyip[edit]

Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT Magioladitis (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

January 9, 2015[edit]

User:Jmaurer2/Cage the Elephant[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT. Userfied way back when. Since then, Cage the Elephant has been created. There is nothing in this draft that isn't already covered by the now extensive main space article. Whpq (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Danbaloach/sandbox[edit]

Looks like a personal resume... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete as advertising. It comes complete with contact information. -- Whpq (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete as resume. Resumes are out of project scope. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 22:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Surya Deo Giri/sandbox[edit]

Declined AFC, Blank. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:EIHA/sandbox[edit]

Sandbox for blocked user? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment The user is blocked for username only (softerblock), and the former content of this sandbox is now an article. I see no reason why the sandbox should be affected by this block. Peridon (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-moment.js[edit]

Twinkle is the only library that uses this local copy of moment.js, but now that the proper changes have been made to the Gadget definition to use the sitewide version, this copy of moment.js serves no purpose. —mc10 (t/c) 19:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Mathewgarba/Mathew Garba[edit]

Declined AFC, Blank submission. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Jacksonroy/Jackson shah[edit]

Declined AFC, blank submission. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:JosefinaJosepha/Denzil Benjamin Whiteman, MD[edit]

Declined AFC, blank submission Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Irish Innocence Project[edit]

This appears to be an article for an organisation uploaded by an account whose name would suggest it has a close connection. It's not an obvious G11 though, hence MfD rather than speedy. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

HI There, I work at Griffith College, and am not a member of the Irish Innocence project, I have uploaded the content that I have researched as I believe they are a great organisation and people need to know of their work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irish Innocence Project (talk • contribs) 18:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep My current read of the article is that arguably too promotional for the article space. So it's probably better that it's in the userspace for now, where it can be cleaned up. I think is some content in there that is very much usable, though. It does seem like there is considerable coverage of the organizations as well:

On that basis, the topic seems like it has potential, so it's just a matter of making it sound less like a pitch for the organization. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have also blocked the editor in question here as we do not allow usernames that appear to represent organizations (even if the editor has said they are not affiliated with the Project), so this page will probably redirect to whatever the editor chooses. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Imaginatorium/Cardarelli[edit]

This is an attack page, contrary to WP:ATTACK, in that its purpose is to find fault with a particular author and his works. The author and publisher are both quite respectable and much of the criticism seems to be OR. This has been the subject of discussion elsewhere. I am especially unhappy that some of my commentary has been cut/paste here without attribution from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aum (unit). I do not wish to be associated with this page as it seems too derogatory and so there are WP:BLP considerations. Independent reviewers such as respectable senior scientists seem to be generally content with the author and his work and it's not our place to engage in OR to prove otherwise. Andrew D. (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep: This is a page in my user space. I am using it to assemble evidence suggesting that the Cardarelli book is not a factually reliable source with regard particularly to historical units. There is very ample evidence of this in the tables of "old Japanese units" alone, which are a joke. No doubt many "senior scientists" and the like are content with Cardarelli's work in general, and I see no reason to doubt that the bulk of the book, concerned with the scientific units of the title is accurate. I cast no aspersions whatsoever on Cardarelli's good intentions, but I suggest that it is clear that he has copied unthinkingly chunks of anecdotal material of extremely dubious validity.

Davidson seems upset that I copied the references he gave to satisfactory reviews. Well, I grovel in abject apology. I was under the impression that all material contributed to Wikipedia was done so on the condition that it could be used, at least on WP. I will remove all of the bytes that I can trace to Davidson's fingers immediately. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Imaginatorium didn't just copy the links - he copied several lines verbatim, including my own commentary. Cut and paste copying without attribution is generally not acceptable on Wikipedia. Imaginatorium may well not be familiar with this and I'm not especially upset with him as such technicalities are rife and difficult to avoid. But I wasn't happy with the general tone of the page anyway and so the copying was the trigger for this nomination. The background for this is the proposal to delete a stack of other pages and so another deletion discussion seems fair per WP:SAUCE. Andrew D. (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I copied (almost all of) the references you gave to reviews of this book. I am unaccustomed to dealing with lawyers, and I imagined that if you were happy to make these comments, which you presumably believe to be fair comments, in one place you would be equally happy to make them somewhere else. I bow to your vastly superior understanding of WP:ALPHABETSOUP. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I have patrolled AFD for many years and it is a hard school for such stuff. See WP:EIEIO... Andrew D. (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep There is nothing in the page that attacks anyone or anything. The issue is that a new editor created over 90 articles almost all of which are stubs on non-notable topics, and all of which are based almost entirely on a single source. Information about the articles is most easily seen here. The page at MfD is a very reasonable attempt to gather what is known about the source. I added "no index" to the page. Copy/pasted text can be handled with procedures other than page deletion—I think the text has now been removed? Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Yes, this page is a little problematic. It starts It might become a WP page if thought notable, but for now its purpose is to demonstrate that this is not a reliable source for citation. So it is advocacy, but striving to be objective. It's hard to imagine such a page developing into a WP article that wouldn't be bizarre at best, and probably ripe for a snowy AfD. If this were in my userspace, I'd immediately zap the first clause of that first sentence. But it isn't, so I've let it be (though not without comment). ¶ Yes, the page gives a first impression of disdain for the book. But it conspicuously says at the top any positive information is also extremely welcome. It would not be surprising, for example, to discover that the description of old French units is both comprehensive, accurate and useful. True, this is a recent addition; but as the main author, Imaginatorium seems to have followed this policy even before articulating it. With one minor exception, this bunch of edits to the page are mine; for the most part I give more detail on archaic Japanese units of mass/weight [these would have been used by people unaware of the distinction between the two concepts], but at one point I alter Not standard romanisation to Not standard romanisation (though a common and easily understandable way to avoid the risk of having the word mispronounced to rhyme with "plume"). ¶ Let's look at WP:USER. Its nutshellized version reads: User pages are for communication and collaboration. While considerable leeway is allowed in personalizing and managing your user pages, they are community project pages, not a personal website, blog, or social networking medium. They should be used to better participate in the community, and not used to excess for unrelated purposes nor to bring the project into disrepute. This page has been used for collaboration: by me, and (trivially) by NebY. I don't want to boast, but I think I may say that the collaboration has been constructive: Imaginatorium's presentation of the material on archaic units of mass/weight impelled me to buy a copy of Koizumi's historical dictionary and do some reading there; the Cardarelli-irrelevant fruits of my labors may of course be incorporated within the article "Japanese units of measurement", which they would, I think, improve. I cannot see how the page is described within "What may I not have in my user pages". ¶ Now the matter of WP:ATTACK, which, rightly, is a policy page. This says: An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material which is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to speedy deletion. There may be a trivial amount of biographical material; this is not negative. Nobody is threatened; nothing is threatened. Does the page primarily exist to disparage its subject? Imaginatorium did indeed emit some bluster suggesting this. Here's the incriminating nugget: I make no secret of the fact that I would like to demolish the apparently unwarranted reputation of the book. But note that the very same comment continues, and that it ends: Of course what I am working towards is simply a fair assessment of the quality of the book. I believe that the page is an incomplete draft at the latter, and that it has been used for constructive collaboration; and I value attempts to evaluate the reliability of putatively reliable sources that (for better or worse) are widely used in WP. (I note that the nomination says that the publisher is "quite reliable". Certainly Springer is justly renowned for entire series of books. However, it has been inconsistent. More bluntly, it has put out some turkeys. Consider Advanced in Computer Science and Its Applications.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Canvassing The comments of Johnuniq and Hoary were solicited by Imaginatorium, contrary to WP:CANVASS. Imaginatorium says "I know nothing of the procedures etc here and would be grateful for advice." I advise him that, when he is in a hole, he should stop digging. The quote provided by Hoary above is quite damning, "I make no secret of the fact that I would like to demolish the apparently unwarranted reputation of the book". You should realise that all of this is very public. Johnuniq says above that he has tagged the page as NOINDEX but it's too late. When I Google on such simple keywords as Cardarelli + unit then this attack page appears as the fourth hit, with a higher rank than Cardarelli's own personal website. People routinely search the internet to see what's being said about them and so we have quite strict policies such as WP:BLP, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." I'm not trying to harass Imaginatorium — I'm trying to protect him (and myself) from any such unpleasantness. Andrew D. (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, really, this is getting silly. ¶ You say The comments of Johnuniq and Hoary were solicited by Imaginatorium. Click on that incriminating (not!) one link, and you'll see that he mentioned it in a single, obscure talk page in userspace. No mention of it on my talk page (and you're most welcome to check the history of this talk page to make sure that I haven't sneakily removed any such notice). (Actually I didn't need to see this, as the Cardarelli page was on my watchlist.) ¶ You say The quote provided by Hoary above is quite damning; perhaps you were so flabbergasted by it that you failed to read the second quote that I put in the same sentence. I apologize for the length of my previous comment, but do please read it. ¶ I'm not so happy that the page, in its current state, is so visible via Google: it won't stay so visible very long, because, well before this particular complaint of yours, User:Johnuniq added "__NOINDEX__" to it. ¶ You point out that WP:BLP says that Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, but you fail to add that there is virtually no information about Cardarelli in the page, and that very little about WP:BLP seems to be relevant to treatment of the creative works of living people. (If you have a particular WP:BLP concern, do feel free to bring it up.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment I insist on talking about the basic issue, which is that Cardarelli's book includes significant amounts of nonsense. Readers might also notice that in the very first draft of this page (from the history) I said, of the bulk of the book on SI units and suchlike, "...it seems reasonable to assume that except for possible typos and awkwardnesses of English from a non-native speaker, since this material can be transferred from any number of currently available sources, there should be no gross errors." Thus I have no difficulty in believing that "senior scientists" and the like are satisfied with this book, since I imagine they are only interested in these scientific units (of the title). Doubtless they regard it as idle entertainment for crossword puzzle setters to know that a "karus hiri-ichi-da" is 18/16 of a "kiyak-kin", and typically have as much knowledge of Japanese as Cardarelli (or his editor) obviously has, which is to say none. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep – The page seems to have resulted in productive collaboration and is still evolving. I don't think it's necessary to get too excited about the indexing on Google. Now that it's NOINDEXed that will be cycled out soon enough. If it does become an article I will read it. I'm curious, having seen the book in AfD discussions. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Ipunk chulz[edit]

WP:UP#COPIES of Bombardier Dash 8 Whpq (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Randa amayiri73/sandbox[edit]

Wikipedia is not a web host for resumes Whpq (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Out of project scope. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 22:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Department of Fun/Word Association/Hardcore Ultra[edit]

Out of all the Word Association variants, this one crashed and burned like a white hot Blue Falcon falling off the track and into a building. The rest of the new variants are successful, so those should be kept. Although, Adamantine association may also need to be clipped if it doesn't go to Round 2 in a month or so. James1011R (talk, contribs) 10:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Question. What would be the benefit to the project in deleting this page? Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Answer. To cull a variant that failed to catch on, so Word Associators can play more successful ones. James1011R (talk, contribs) 10:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  - Is there any evidence that the existence of this page is preventing them doing that? Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    - Actually, no. But this WA's idea was flawed. James1011R (talk, contribs) 11:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
      - So basically you just don't like it? Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment If it failed, why not just remove it from the template and mark inactive? SnowFire (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan. James1011R (talk, contribs) 21:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  - Looking at the editing history of all the games, this one doesn't seem to be significantly out of step with the activity of the other grid games over the past ~18 months. Why do you say this particular one has failed? Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    - It has never hit game 2, unlike all the other grid games except Adamantine (EG and Flatline are going especially well). James1011R (talk, contribs) 02:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete - There are game sites for a reason, "Fun" or not I see no point in this even being here, ~~That said I even find "Wikipedia Adventures" to be utterly pointless.~~ –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

On second thoughts Wikipedia Adventure is helpful to those learning to edit here, On the other hand IMHO I don't think this is helpful at all. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Department of Fun/Word Association, for reasons people have given for keeping Word Association articles in general. Bosstopher (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep Page has shown partcipation since being nominated for deletion. Bosstopher (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

January 8, 2015[edit]

User:Bikram Bohara[edit]

Another self-promoting user page. Wikipedia is not a social-networking site. Similar material three times deleted as an article. Delete per WP:NOTFACEBOOK. JohnCD (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, what the nomination says. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Archerlevip[edit]

Dictionary Definition ? (Out of scope or Wiktionary material). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep I'm not convinced this meets any of the criteria at WP:UPNOT. If it were extensive discussion of this "bum yams" thing, or if it were in mainspace or draftspace, it would probably be deletable; but as a one-line user page, I see no reason not to let it stay. ekips 39 22:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Cavineh/sandbox[edit]

Appreciate this is a sandbox, but this looks like a term paper. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a web host for student papers. -- Whpq (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Move to Wikiversity? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Joshua Muhammad Obama/sandbox[edit]

Sandbox for indefed account. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete. No content at all. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 22:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Serpent's Choice/Sandbox[edit]

Stale draft. Apparently a (minimal) 2007–2008 effort to rewrite Traffic in Souls using FA The Cat and the Canary (1927 film) as a guide. Abandoned since 2008. Editor has not been active in the project since 2011. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Stevenjeffers1/sandbox[edit]

MLP fan content? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Kitty Empire[edit]

Not mentioned in the page that it redirects to, no content. Mountain^cirque 10:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

January 7, 2015[edit]

User:Colinbhimsen[edit]

WP:FAKEARTICLE. User pages are for user profiles. Whpq (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User content is authentic content Colin Bhimsen (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If your intent is to make an article, you shoud review Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest, and consider submission through Articles for Creation. A user page is not meant for direct article development. -- Whpq (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Rbpankajverma/Rb pankaj verma[edit]

This reads more like an op ed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Wifinitytech/sandbox[edit]

Sandbox for spamblock user account. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Rochelle.foles[edit]

This looks like a Dictionary definition, that would be better suited to Wikitionary. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Dkncus/sandbox[edit]

This appears to be fictional content, which is better suited to a site like Wikia.? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletions and editor retention[edit]

Misplaced user essay. See Admin noticeboard thread for some context, but this isn't part of an RFC, shouldn't be here. Suggest userfying. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 22:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Userfy per nom. Is speedy userfy a thing? It's possible the creator meant to create the essay and then request feedback on it, but it's misplaced here anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Userfy makes sense. ansh666 23:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Userfy please - as creator of this page, I must say: thanks John. Some of your policy decisions have the best interest of wikipedia in mind. 750editsstrong (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cultural guidelines[edit]

Old single author attempt at a policy page, way outdated, no evidence of usage, and only linked by 4 pages. Sadads (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Hemlock Martinis/PF[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT – S. Rich (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Note, there is an actual article on this person Patrick Fitzgerald. – S. Rich (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Portal:Formula One/Next Grand Prix/Round 21[edit]

This was created to cater a prospective calendar change which was ultimately not executed, making this element redundant. Tvx1 (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DH85868993 (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Mcjackiels/sandbox[edit]

This appears to be an unsourced Scriptual transcription, which is better suited to Wikisource? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Guru Ji Computer[edit]

This looks like a syllabus which is more suited to WikiBooks? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

January 6, 2015[edit]

User:Ephilei/List of genders[edit]

This user sub-page was created back in 2008 and the creator has not edited it since that year (and, in fact, has not edited at all since 2010). It's had quite a few edits since then by other editors, mostly IPs, with a fairly heavy round of editing starting in December 2014. It's completely unsourced and the chances of its being converted into a proper article after all this time seem remote. Squinge (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete Most of the identities on the list are not noted as genders in their own articles. Very unlikely to ever become a proper article.Bosstopher (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete fairly indiscriminate list of gender related (and some mostly unrelated) terms. Drawing outside editing activity is a good sign that it's beginning to substitute for a real article, one which we likely wouldn't keep at AfD. Gigs (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

January 5, 2015[edit]

User:Moaminsco[edit]

Self-promoting WP:FAKEARTICLE user page. A more or less identical one was deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mohammad Amin, and similar articles have also been deleted. Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:AishaBoue/Trademarkia[edit]

Very old user-space draft of an article whose main-space version has been 4 times deleted, including once at AFD. Three of the deletions (including the AFD) were after the last 2009 substantive edit to this user-space version. This page and its deleted article equivalent were created by an editor self-identifying as a former contractor to the subject company. TJRC (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Darryl Lesser watchmaker[edit]

Declined AFC, blank submission. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:PseudoSomething[edit]

Looking to WP:VANISH. I don't know all of WP's formatting, trying to fix the issue now. PseudoSomething (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:James S. McGill[edit]

WP:STAEDRAFT left over from developing Quantapoint article. Whpq (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Matthias.schlipf/Enter your new article name here[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT Whpq (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Ryanmancl/The Vue on Apache[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT for a non-notable building deleted at AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vue on Apache Whpq (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

January 4, 2015[edit]

Draft:Rice with jasmine water[edit]

How to material - Wikibooks ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Duplicate topic of Khao chae. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:How to grow marijuana now[edit]

Out of scope, Wikibooks: Cultivation of pharmaceutical plants? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a guide to how to grow marijuana, it's an article about a website which tells you how to grow marijuana. Admittedly the content in its current form isn't remotely suitable for mainspace but that isn't necessarily a reason to delete a draft. Hut 8.5 15:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Book:ISIS / ISIL / IS[edit]

A collection of ISIL and a bunch of distantly related stuff. No one maintaining it Legacypac (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete unless the editor responsible can explain what on earth he's doing. This users book creations are something I can make no sense of. While he's not maintaining that copy of the ISIL book, he's created 6 other versions in his userspace. User:David.c.welch/Books/Terrorism: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Book 1, User:David.c.welch/Books/Terrorism: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Book 2, Book:Terrorism: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, User:David.c.welch/Books/ISIL, User:David.c.welch/Books/ISIL1 and User:David.c.welch/Books/ISIS / ISIL / IS. I have nominated them all for deletion through WP:BOOKPROD as these seem to be test books.Bosstopher (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I found this after I removed the PROD on this book. It seems that the user has made several iterations of the same book trying different ways of doing it and this is the current one in the series. Collecting this information into a book is a useful way to give a broad overview of ISIL for non specialists/laymen. JBH (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

So why does it start with swearing? How would a person find this anyway or use it? Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed that header from the book before removing the PROD. I assumed it was vandalism because of the subject but did not check the diffs JBH (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I got the following email from the user that created these books: hi i am sorry about the is isis isil pages i would like to not delete them until i have had a chance to go over them what i would like is to save them where they are draft or something like that so not to loose them. if you would be so kind as to point me in that direction and i will do what it takes to do it the correct way next time. i am just a bit lost on the process and would like direction if that is possible David c welch. I know zero about books on wikipedia. Anyone want to help him out? Legacypac (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I got the same email. I made a post on his talk page trying to explain what's going on, but I dont really know that much about Wikipedia books so there was only so much I could say. Bosstopher (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Candleabracadabra/Johnson-Smith House[edit]

Created, and mosr of the editing done by, an aparent sock of User:ChildofMidnight (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight/Archive#14 April 2014). I'm not sure tat no other users have edited this enough to prevent it from being a G5 case, but it should be deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Move to mainspace. It seems a perfectly acceptable article. If ayou want me to edit it and therefore adopt it, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment The circumstances behind this one are a bit strange. ChildofMidnight's site ban expired before the article was created, and he was never topic-banned from creating articles in mainspace, so I'm not sure if it's actually a G5 case. It was originally in mainspace, but User:Nyttend moved it into userspace after Candleabracadabra was blocked, with the comment "Not even close to being ready for mainspace" (which seems to be debatable). I'm not impressed with the quality of the article, but it's a valid topic, and I can't really see a reason not to put it back in mainspace if it's not a G5 case. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete, unless someone wants to convert it into a proper article before the MFD finishes. The things keeping it from a G5 deletion are TheCatalyst's addition of an infobox and Pietro's addition of an image. CoM had already violated his ban extensively by this time (note that he was even banned from notes on people's talk pages, and he'd done that numerous times), and he would have been reblocked indefinitely had we known that this account was his sock. This article was created simply to produce a bluelink, regardless of the gibberish text: It is a late 19th century two-story Folk Victorian architecture residence (c. 1892). appearance is junk. If you want to have a decent article, or even an informative stub, you'll have to trash everything that's here and start all over, so there's no reason to retain what's here. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:JethroDethro[edit]

Just a resume. User has not edited for years and made any contributions outside own user space. meshach (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

January 3, 2015[edit]

Draft:Eze Ejike[edit]

Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Is it even allowed to nominate a draft under these conditions? --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Guye: - Why wait 6 months for it to be deleted by G13, when it can go sooner... Eze Ejike is not notable, and probably never will be... JMHamo (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Guye is a minor, please keep this in mind when discussing here. JMHamo (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo:: Your argument reads like WP:NEGLECT to me. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep - this is a draft created two days ago, it could well be a work in progress - far too soon to be deleting. Giant Snowman 10:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Move to User:Mr. Guye's userspace. The subject is not currently notable, but I don't see why Mr. Guye can't work on the article in his own userspace until such time that Ejike is notable. – Pee Jay 14:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: I'm not the creator...ScarTissue101 is. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. In that case, I suggest the page be moved to User:ScarTissue101's userspace. – Pee Jay 21:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Move to User:ScarTissue101 user space (first choice), or Keep (second choice). There may be more information we can't see yet. Besides, it's still in draft form. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 17:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep and absolutely do not move it. It is in draft space, where drafts belong, so what is the problem here? jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 22:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Surely the Draft space is only for articles that can prove notability but aren't ready for publication yet? There's literally no evidence that this subject is notable. – PeeJay 12:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  - My Keep is partly procedural; we simply don't have to evaluate notability after few days a new draft is created, and in dealing with new users such haste is usually counterproductive and WP:BITE. I agree with user GiantSnowMan here. We can wait for the regular G13 cleanup here. Also, if the subject is not notable, then why are you advocating moving the draft into a different location in first place? Userspace is not a free webhost for posting materials that are not valid drafts or otherwise useful for building the encyclopedia. If it is not a valid draft, then it has no business existing anywhere in Wikipedia. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 13:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Satpreet mander[edit]

Autobiographical/blog style user page by user with no other contributions but the same content as an article. Delete per WP:NOTFACEBOOK. JohnCD (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Mfoltz29/Terrie O'Connor Realtors[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT Whpq (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Susanaknabe/Sibcy Cline Realtors[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT Whpq (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Sugar Jack Johnson[edit]

Appears to be a copy of a Special:RecentChanges page. Corrupt and extraneous. Serves no purpose. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:SA Times[edit]

WP:FAKEARTICLE Whpq (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:G11. User is listed at WP:UAA for violation of WP:CORPNAME. --Drm310 (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2, 2015[edit]

User:Ifuufi/Moriel Matalon[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT. This was userfied after AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moriel Matalon), but there has been zero work on it since it was userfied. Whpq (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete. 2009!? Wow that IS a stale draft. Totally Agree. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Dianalinden[edit]

Wikipedia is not LinkedIn Whpq (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Angosi[edit]

Wikipedia is not LinkedIn Whpq (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete. WP:STALEDRAFT. Wikipedia is not a free web host. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Ahmed M Osman[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT. I assume it is similar to the material deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed M Osman. Whpq (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Shill81[edit]

WP:FAKEARTICLE Whpq (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Joejohn0505[edit]

WP:FAKEARTICLE. One version of this page has been deleted already, and this one stands as little chance of becoming an article. Peridon (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

Everything from here on down is old business; the 7-day review period that began 14:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC) ended today on 10 January 2015. Open discussions below this marker should be either closed or relisted above. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

January 2, 2015[edit]

Draft:History of WHL viaducts[edit]

Refused CSD [personal attack redacted] Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete - all resolved. RandomPerson137 (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Speedy was requested because of "Erronous move, Template namespace version seemingly restored already", but since the page had never been moved, and since it had multiple differences from a related template, I declined it saying basically "this isn't clear, so please re-tag with further explanation". Per the further explanation, the tagger meant something else, including that the differences aren't substantial enough. I would have speedy-deleted it if I'd seen this explanation before the MFD was created. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You could (and should) have speedy deleted this if you'd bothered to look before acting. But no, one admin moves the stuff around in the first place because they couldn't be bothered to look at what the little people have been up to. Then, when trying to sort the mess out, you're [redacted] to believe that anyone else might actually have correctly tagged something, so you have to start throwing your substantial admin weight around to edit-war off a valid and uncontested CSD. Pathetic. But of course, admins are always the only arbiters of content matters. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:CSD. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. I wasn't clear what was going on, and I prefer to obey our policies and wait until I understand what's going on. As I already explained, I did investigate. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

When two independent editors add a CSD tag, even after you've removed it, that's pretty obvious. But you'd rather threaten to block them instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Book:The Brown's Disney Cruise Line Mediterranean Cruise - 2014[edit]

This is a duplicate of User:Mdbrown1427/Books/1 - The Brown's Disney Cruise Line Mediterranean Cruise - 2014. This collection of Wikipedia articles has no long-term encyclopedic use, so, I think, does not belong in the "Book" namespace. John of Reading (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant[edit]

Nominating remaining not-yet-deleted entries created by indefinitely-blocked editor, as are listed here, in accordance with consensus not to lend legitimacy to ISIS. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete a useless puff piece that is currently very broken. Legacypac (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You broke it (by removing the </div> tags and by removing the {{Portal:box-footer|}} template), I fixed it. Feon {^t/_c} 15:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

What you fixed was all that was left after I took out the pro-ISIL ra-ra we are a state and this is our caliph junk. Hard to take your judgement seriously as you are the editor that added ISIL as a State with Limited Recognition to every military in Asia article. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added Military of ISIL to the "States with limited recognition" column of the Template:Military of Asia because I saw this template at the bottom of the article and I thought that the article is missing in the template because it is about a military that is headquartered somewhere in Asia. Since ISIL is not a sovereign state or dependency, I thought that it is most closely described as a "state with limited recognition". I guess I was wrong.

Also, WP:NPA states "comment on content, not on the contributor". If you think that an argument is bad, searching edit history of the provider of the argument to discredit him/her/hir just because you don't like the argument, won't accomplish much. Providing a good counter-argument is a better way to go.

Finaly, since you have complained that the portal is "currently very broken", I simply said (and provided supporting diffs) that you accidentally broke it by mistakenly removing too much and that I have fixed it, so it is no longer broken. I don't see how is this purely technical issue related to some "pro-ISIL ra-ra we are a state and this is our caliph junk". It's hard to take such a comment seriously. Feon {^t/_c} 20:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

~~Comment~~ Delete (per conversation below) Keep (Feon has stepped up to maintain the Portal) Unlike the articles that have been deleted, I don't see how this Portal lends ISIS legitimacy in its current state. It seems pretty harmless. Although I'm not sure whether ISIS is a topic that really needs its own portal.Bosstopher (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep per reasons for withdrawal of the first nomination stated by the withdrawing nominator and per Bosstopher's comment above. Feon {^t/_c} 16:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Then you should be supporting deletion because the previous nominator only withdrew on a technicality, but clearly wants the portal deleted. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is that Wikipedia will not lend ISIS legitimacy. A fancy-looking "in gang colors" portal page lends legitimacy. They're just a temporarily-successful band of butchering raiders, like Boko Haram, not a government.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not see how this is the case. The 9/11 attacks have a portal, but the existence of such a portal can hardly be seen as an endorsement of the attacks. Scientology has its own featured portal, but this doesn't mean that Wikipedia is giving legitimacy to Scientology. As long as the articles featured in the portal arent advertisements for ISIL, but instead properly written NPOV articles (which is what they're meant to be if they're featured in a portal), I dont see how this gives ISIL legitimacy. BUT that said I'm not sure if ISIL is a big enough topic to warrant having its own portal. But then again even Shakira has a portal, so who knows... Bosstopher (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

~~Comment~~ ~~Delete (see below)~~ I see some promotional bias in the introduction, but the portal itself is not inherently promotional like the wilayat articles that we have been deleting en masse. We have portals on many groups of horrible people, but this in and of itself does not make the portals promotional. However, I agree with Legacypac that this portal is rather useless. The portal only contains the promotional introduction, al-Baghdadi’s biography and a few links to some related categories, projects and portals. The introduction and initial info boxes in the ISIL article are a far better entry point for ISIL research than this portal. Looking through its two and a half month history, this portal really hasn’t been updated beyond the addition and removal of promotional language. I honestly have zero reason to believe that this will ever be a fully constructed portal. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Reluctant Keep per Feon's assumption of responsibility for this portal. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

As a significant contributor to ISIL articles I have no issue with properly written and titled content. I don't think the idea off the portal is promotional but the content of this portal has mainly been POV and I just can't see how it is useful or easy to properly provide context the short sections of a portal. I also object to the colors of ISIL themed (can that be changed if it is kept?). Legacypac (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

After a further review of portal policy and guidelines, I believe a delete is justified. Wikipedia:Portal guidelines#In general (the closest thing to notability requirements for portals I was able to find) has several requirements for portals. These include a broad enough subject to sustain a portal, a complete portal layout or ongoing efforts to make it complete, continued maintenance, and serving a useful purpose. While I do not believe that this portal is inherently promotional, it runs afoul of more than enough portal guideline recommendations to justify a deletion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep - with one caveats. I do not like the layout of the page. It has the ISIL colour theme running through it which needs to be changed. In fact could I request that someone change it immediately as readers are able to view it. An editor has previously mentioned the 9/11 portal. I just had a look and it seems to be a useful contents page on the issue for the reader to glance over. In that spirit I think we should keep the portal, though it is abysmal at the moment with the colour scheme, to group the ISIL related articles together. Spirit of eagle, this subjects is broad enough for a portal. There is something like a 60 member coalition counteracting this groups efforts. They are also involved in head chopping, sexual slavery and are the only group in the world to be implementing 7th century shariah law as practised at that time. Add to this the widespread, and near unanimous condemnation and critcism. I could go on but my point is there is plenty to cover and the scope of the portal will hopefully be broad. I understand your points on continued maintenance and if that can not be achieved then there is no point in keeping it. Mbcap (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

If someone or some groups wants to build and maintain this portal, as well as clean out the promotional lead and introduction, then I would have no problem keeping it. However, if it is just going to be abandoned by everyone except pro-ISIL SPAs, then I see no reason not to delete the portal. For the purposes of this MfD, I'll change my vote if anyone volunteers to fix the numerous issues plaguing this portal. Otherwise, I'm sticking with my delete vote. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the colour scheme for the time being in case the portal is kept. I'm voting to delete for the time being because it seems as if nobody's interested in constructing and maintaining the portal. Bosstopher (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I volunteer maintain it for the time being, at least until more editors show interest, see my comment bellow. Feon {^t/_c} 12:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Most portals are not a particularly good way to communicate information to users, as can be seen from the low level of readership traffic they receive compared to the topics they correspond to. This particular portal deserves deletion because it communicates much less information than the Wikipedia article about ISIL, even when considering the links from the portal. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment FWIW, I've updated the portal and made it somewhat easier to maintain by moving the content from the boxes to the sub-pages and enabling "edit" links on top-right of the boxes, so each box can now be edited individually without messing with the rest of the code. It should be more functional now. Feon {^t/_c} 12:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Fbv65edel/Second Wizarding War[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT / WP:FAKEARTICLE / WP:NOTWIKIA -- Seven years later, there's really no prospect of this ever going to mainspace. No hard feelings to the user; it could potentially go to a Harry Potter wiki or something. BDD (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, wow, it's been a while. I'm pretty much a ghost on Wikipedia these days, thanks for the heads up on this. Would be great to see it go somewhere -- can it be readily transferred to the HP wiki? I haven't looked at this page in forever but browsing through it now it looks like it's got some substance. *pats teenage self on back* Fbv65e del — t — c // 05:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the best way to transfer it would have been just copying and pasting your article into the HP wiki. But it seems they already have an article on the Second Wizarding War. Maybe try and fit parts of your article in places where information is missing? Bosstopher (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

January 1, 2015[edit]

User:Mcolm[edit]

WP:FAKEARTICLE. EDitor has published the material in main space at Colm McLoughlin Whpq (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

User:ZFrost/A-Prime Handling, Inc.[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT Whpq (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Althoswiki/Althos Publishing[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT. Whpq (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Akshay kaledy[edit]

Part of walled garden related to Dhansheel Kumar DMacks (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:MTV's Are You The One?[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT. Article already exists at Are You the One?. Whpq (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Mikhailov Kusserow/book[edit]

Page is an old copy of List of Watch Tower Society publications. Jeffro77 (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

December 29, 2014[edit]

User:Endomite[edit]

Article in userspace? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Lorenc Zhuka[edit]

Article in Userspace? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Elie Haouchan[edit]

Article in userspace. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Seedorfiano[edit]

Article in userspace. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Sauravshr[edit]

Article draft in userspace? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Azutami[edit]

Not english, Promotional? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Suniltiwarisgnr[edit]

Article in userspace. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Mon is Dope[edit]

Article in userspace, resume? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Tech and Law Center[edit]

Article in userspace. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:L and F[edit]

Promotional tone concern. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Greta sta/sandbox[edit]

Not english... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment Per WP:PNT mainspace articles arent meant to be deleted just because they're in a foreign language. I have no idea how this applies to Sandbox articles in user space though.Bosstopher (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Academia1975[edit]

Promotional tone concern? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Pablomurphy/sandbox[edit]

Resume in userspace, promotional tone concern... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Marbalogne[edit]

Tone concerns... Seems like essay material... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Incredible lenard[edit]

Article in usernamespace? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Litkar77/sandbox[edit]

Possible spam or promotion... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Juliet89/sandbox[edit]

Article draft in userspace? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Protechwood[edit]

Article draft in userspace, promotional in tone? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Sisterofdork[edit]

Seemingly a user page, but I have concerns about the tone. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Scuba diver but better[edit]

Fan spew. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Manak notesgen[edit]

Promotional or spam like item in userspace. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Hamka firmansyah[edit]

Article draft in userspace? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Afroz gig[edit]

Article draft in userspace. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Hug1997[edit]

Article draft in user space? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Executive Director Gregory[edit]

Article in user space? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Happyman678/sandbox[edit]

Sandbox for blocked sockuppet? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ajhamid[edit]

Resume or promotional text in userspace. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Deraxy/sandbox/When Silence Becomes Too Loud[edit]

Promotional? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Devinhanna/sandbox[edit]

Sandbox content, but it looks like a copypaste from an official release whose copyright status isn't indicated. (Out of scope?) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:StuartIITEMS[edit]

Spam like content in userspace. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Chaudhary Arsalan[edit]

Promotional tone user page, as opposed to faculty data or personal profile. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ismild[edit]

Article draft in userspace which does not seemingly assert notability of subject? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:TrueHipHopTimes[edit]

Page content suggests corprate account, as opposed to user account. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:MErglurglur[edit]

Users are supposed to have single accounts per user, this looks like a user acting in good faith though. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:DougM21/sandbox[edit]

Rejected draft, If this can be sourced to a known print edition than transwiki to Wikisource? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Adham yasser/قوانين مساحة الطرق وشرحها[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT: Has not been edited since May 2013. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Abstractblack/Abstrackt black[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT: Has not been edited since August 2012. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Abichal/Antibes 6 Day[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT: Has not been edited since March 2012. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Abichal/'''stage race'''[edit]

User:Abichal/stage race (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT: Has not been edited since March 2012. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:AboveAces/Arbiter 617[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT: Has not been edited since June 2012. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:ACE Riff/ACE Riff[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT: Has not been edited since July 2011. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:ABANDA ZOFOA/BABUNGO TRIANGLE[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT: Has not been edited since November 2011. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:189994cphwest/Martin Fraenkel Jensen[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT: Has not been edited since April 2012. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:4321rewq/Sabu[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT: Has not been edited since April 2012. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:42itus1/PbC[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT: Has not been edited since August 2013. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:64lorence/Meruelo Group[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT: Has not been edited since August 2011. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User:8"Jobby[edit]

User inactive for over six years, after only about two or three months of activity in 2008. User page was kept at previous MfD, but given the extended inactivity, I think we can delete this now. Safiel (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep replace content with {{Not here}}, should they ever return no reason to thing they would not be welcome back. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

December 31, 2014[edit]

User:Gabbieuebe95/sandbox[edit]

Declined AFC for dupe article draft. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

User:OliviaStartup/sandbox/Cardinal Security[edit]

Directory entry, or promotional content. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Bezah/sandbox[edit]

Wikipedia is not monster.com. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Audedanielle[edit]

Article in userspace. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Nasir Mateen Ahmad[edit]

Wikipedia is not a Singles site or match.com Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Dhibindinesh/BharatVastralaya[edit]

Directory entry or promotional content. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Beansprout107/sandbox[edit]

This looks like promotional content. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Anna Haslam[edit]

Duplicate article draft, suggest merge and then delete? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Eric McLeod[edit]

Declined AFC, notability concern. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Aayesha Patel[edit]

Draft BLP for potentially non-notable subject. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Origins of Sisco[edit]

Declined AFC, blank submission. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Bentley Private Fund[edit]

Declined AFC, Notability concern. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Harut Hajin[edit]

Old draft, unreferenced, declined AFC. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Suraksha - My first step to help the underprivileged children![edit]

Submission appears blank. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:DylsStuff[edit]

Non-notable? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Fsaninee[edit]

User page and talk page are being used to keep track of some kind of beauty pageant. User has made no other edits except to these pages. ... discospinster _talk 02:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:SKY LEGAL EU[edit]

Declined AFC, promotional? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Dork Bomb[edit]

Neologisim, Wiktionary at best, if not delete. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Leafania[edit]

Joke article, unsourced ;) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Homeless shelters in Atlanta Georgia[edit]

Wikipedia not a directory. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:How to scale the damage of an egg[edit]

This looks like stuff for WikiBooks-Cookbook? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

December 30, 2014[edit]

User:Bobhorsnell[edit]

Article in userspace. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Lasvegaspublicradio/sandbox[edit]

Sandbox article by blocked user? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Coolcatgogo[edit]

Research material is better suited to Wikiversity? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Book:Carmarthen and Its Football and Rugby Union Clubs[edit]

This book is both extremely niche and also extremely broad in its scope. If Carmarthen were a city or even a larger town with more sports clubs to choose from, this might be a worthwhile pursuit, but with one minor football club and two relatively obscure rugby clubs, this subject is hardly worth covering, much less by a Wikipedia Book. – Pee Jay 18:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 18:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom, not merited. Giant Snowman 18:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
This book started out simply as someone's test book and only had the article Carmarthen and the disambiguation page Oakwood. I wanted to salvage the book instead of deleting it, so I read the entire Carmarthen article to search for a good book topic based on something to do with the place. I thought their sports teams would be as good a topic as any, so I added their articles and I took out the Oakwood page. Yes, it does seem a topic that would be interesting mainly to the residents of Carmarthen and few others, but as Help:Books says in its tips for creating great books, "There are almost no limits when creating books from Wikipedia content. A good book focuses on a certain topic and covers it as well as possible. A meaningful title helps other users to have the correct expectation regarding the content of a book." I think this is what I have done with this book. But if more people insist this is not a big or important enough topic for a community book to cover, then I ask that the book be moved to User:Pgadd/Books/Carmarthen and Its Football and Rugby Union Clubs, User:Pgadd being the one who started the book. Daveman16 (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Userfy - Admittedly niche, but not entirely sure what guidelines are being used to support deletion here. Fenix down (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Sp8776/QUADCOPTER CONTROL USING LEAPMOTION[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE. It appears to be a report from a science project and is the user's only edit except a link at the user page. Sjö (talk) 09:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

December 28, 2014[edit]

User:Madmarsian/Enter your new article name here[edit]

created by the two sole surviving edits of User:Madmarsian, early draft of Aleksandra Socha on 7 Sept 2011. Edit may therefore be connected to User:Rafal.szelagowski whose first edit created the actual article later on the same day and has not edited English wikipedia since that month. – Fayenatic London 23:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Sonny.salazar58[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT. We already have an article on fabric structures, and the material in this draft reads like an advertisement or press release. Whpq (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Pgopalan/Wishabi[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT Whpq (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

File talk:The Mystery Machine.jpg[edit]

Orphan talk, for image replaced by Commons? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:3PLFTW/Nexus Distribution[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT: Has not been edited since July 2011. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:13suy/Yuxuan Su[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT: Has not been edited since April 2012. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:71.105.91.127/Detect Sense and Avoid[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT: Has not been edited since December 2011. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Sharath780[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT: Has not been edited since December 2011. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:70sgal/Michael africk[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT: Has not been edited since September 2012. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:009o9/Chloe Temtchine[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT: Has not been edited since November 2013. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep Yes, I still want the article and the subject is notable. I've added noindex|visible=yes template to the draft if search engine exposure is a concern. This nomination is quite a stretch of the Wikipedia:User pages guideline (which addresses the user's personal promotion on user pages) and the WP:STALEDRAFT guideline does not recommend deletion.

Finally, various Wikipedia policies and guidelines (AfC to my recollection) state that there is no timetable/timelimit for article creation, why wouldn't this also apply to an active User account?009o9 (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:009o9/Billy Block[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT: Has not been edited since January 2013. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep Yes, I still want the article and the subject is notable. I've added noindex|visible=yes template to the draft if search engine exposure is a concern. This nomination is quite a stretch of the Wikipedia:User pages guideline (which addresses the user's personal promotion on user pages) and the WP:STALEDRAFT guideline does not recommend deletion.

Finally, various Wikipedia policies and guidelines (AfC to my recollection) state that there is no timetable/timelimit for article creation, why wouldn't this also apply to an active User account?009o9 (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Micro Fibers/Paddy ireland[edit]

Clearly a fake article, but we don't have BJAODN anymore. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Seconds(2014) Malayalam Movie[edit]

Orphan talk? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DIVINE CABS SERVICES LIMITED[edit]

Promotional article. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

December 27, 2014[edit]

User:Blagopay[edit]

I find this userpage to fall within WP:UPNO. Bunch of unrelated things, mixed with email addresses, random text, etc. MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: I think User:Cyberbul may be linked (or the same person is behind - sockpuppetry) to User:Blagopay. Note the similar edit pattern (and both editting on the same user page). --MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Rossfod123[edit]

Non-notable BLP draft. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Sleep Deprivation[edit]

Draft on topic that already exists, suggest deletion after content merge. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Concept of rural devolepment[edit]

Older draft, on subject that already existed as noted, deletion suggested after content merge? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Umang rehabilitation center.[edit]

Older draft, Notability concern? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Jadyn Wong[edit]

Draft for article that already exists, suggest deletion of draft after content merge. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge - I have moved the material I added to the draft to the mainspace article, as I had said on the talk page last week that I would do. I left a message on Dec. 18 requesting that the original editor move the content he/she created, but there has been no response. There is only a small amount of different content to be merged. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft talk:Organizational learning-talk[edit]

Orphan talk for draft that was merged into article-space content. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Joseph J Sherman[edit]

Suspected copyvio. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Everything I write has a citation with a quote of the exact text to support the article text. Regarding the business schools, KEDGE became Euromed, which was originally Ecole de Management de Marseille Adamreinman (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: A look at the "copied" page shows that it is clearly a wikimirror. Not sure if it's worth an article but it shouldn't have been MFD'd for copyvio. Wizardman 01:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft talk:Induscraft[edit]

These appears to be non-netural testimonals , not sourced to a reliable journal. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Welshleprechaun/Sandbox5[edit]

WP:NOTWEBHOST

Also listing User:Welshleprechaun/Sandbox8, User:Welshleprechaun/Sandbox6, User:Welshleprechaun/Sandbox4, User:Welshleprechaun/Sandbox7, User:Welshleprechaun/Sandbox3/Baycar, User:Welshleprechaun/Sandbox3/Capital City Red, User:Welshleprechaun/Sandbox3/Capital City Green, User:Welshleprechaun/Sandbox2, User:Welshleprechaun/Sandbox3/Cardiff Bus route 52/52A

Most of these are now in article space anyway - Had the user been on I wouldn't of bothered nominating these but he's not so not much point keeping these, Cheers –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 06:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep I don't think any of Davey's claims can be taken as read here given he's been trying to delete of a lot of bus company and bus route related articles from Wikipedia recently, and these pages seem to me to be drafts of bus related articles. For example, I looked at User:Welshleprechaun/Sandbox4, and what's in there doesn't remotely seem to be already in Wikipedia. I found precisely two lines about park and ride bus services in the Bus transport in Cardiff article. If the author is indeed now absent, I suspect Davey is not so much concerned about the fact there's no point in keeping them now, rather than the fact someone else might find them and put them into Wikipedia themselves. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment - This !vote should be ignored as the user simply has some sort of grudge against me and followers me to every MFD / AFD simply to !vote Keep and then proceed to moan about me. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 16:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick note - NFLOE's been indef'd for harassment/NOTHERE, Cheers, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 20:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Enrique Fisman[edit]

From talk page: "This article was created by a blocked/paid editor from a massive sockfarm. Logical Cowboy (talk)" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed the timestamp from the comment you quoted, as it was interfering with the MfD listing. For those interested, it was 04:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC). --BDD (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Web kai2000/London Buses route layout 2[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 05:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Also listing User:Web kai2000/London Buses route layout, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 05:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep These look to me to be templates, not drafts. Specifically, they look to be templates for creating new articles on Wikipedia about London bus routes. Since Davey doesn't want such articles to be on Wikipedia, I suspect that's the reason why he chose to portray these as drafts, rather than give any reason why such a template wouldn't be needed. Since it's not unusual for major notable London bus routes to be created anew even now (in this past decade, most notably it's been to create routes suitable for the new articulated buses, or by splitting to shorten busy existing central London routes in order to better cope with traffic congestion), I think it would be unwise to delete such a template. I can't even begin to know how you use it, but I'm sure others do. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment - This !vote should be ignored as the user simply has some sort of grudge against me and followers me to every MFD / AFD simply to !vote Keep and then proceed to moan about me. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 16:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick note - NFLOE's been indef'd for harassment/NOTHERE, Cheers, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 20:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Doublex120/List of Helsinki bus routes[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 05:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Also listing User:Doublex120/Tallinn tram/Route 1, User:Doublex120/Test, User:Doublex120/1PR, User:Doublex120/Liinid. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 05:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

December 24, 2014[edit]

User:Phoenix B 1of3/Republic of Texas – Russian Empire relations[edit]

Stale userspace draft. I can't find the original deletion discussion but it looks like the edit history is actually intact in case someone wants to do something with it for some reason. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment There's a large morass of these things but I'm waiting to see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

December 23, 2014[edit]

Draft:Partnership HealthPlan of California[edit]

Duplicate? "A copy made to Draft:Partnership HealthPlan of California, please review that version. This is a copy. Rlm3md (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)" Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is a duplicate; I put that on my sandbox copy thinking it was different from the draft:Partnership HealthPlan of California page, but now I realize that the sandbox version linked to the draft:Partnership HealthPlan of California version. Please comment on the page itself. Thanks!Rlm3md (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep Sfan00 IMG, it looks like this nomination was based on a misunderstanding. There's definitely no article at Partnership HealthPlan of California. Did you find another article that it duplicates? --BDD (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is no other article then Withdraw Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

December 22, 2014[edit]

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/List of people who died on their birthdays[edit]

Another userspace copy in line with Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page62 and Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Buddy431/List_of_people_who_died_on_their_birthdays. All of these are copies of a twice deleted article. Suggest deletion due to WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE concerns. Ca2james (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

delete being twice deleted means there is no reason to host this on WP. LibStar (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep - This is clearly preparatory to a future mainspace article assuming sourcing emerges. It is cost-free to hold this userfied piece until that eventuality. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep As a place holder for a potential future article, this is exactly what userspace should be used for. Alansohn (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Ca2 makes an excellent point below, as per WP:STALEDRAFT,Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content LibStar (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep Just as consensus can change to delete, consensus can change to restore ... but only if people can see what needs to be restored. Once deleted it is not seen by 99.999% of readers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment None of the three copies of this article in userspace had been edited since 2011. It's difficult to believe that any of these copies are for a future article when they hadn't been touched in well over three years - it's more likely that it's a WP:STALEDRAFT. Even if this was a future article, there's certainly no need to have three untouched copies of it in userspace. Ca2james (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Consensus can change but there's no evidence of a change in consensus. In fact, List of people who died on their birthdays was deleted again in 2012, after this article was last edited so it seems consensus remains deletion. There's an attribution failure here as well. The contents from this are precisely or substantially the same as what was deleted in 2012 at List of people who died on their birthdays without the proper attribution. G4 requires that content moved to user space must be "for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)" which seems to be the case here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I have seen multiple AFDs that went into ten or more consecutive !votes for keep, only to be deleted on the 11th. There was "no evidence of a change in consensus" for them either, until consensus did in fact change. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. Aren't we discussing an article that was actually voted on before it was deleted? Twice in fact? How does that compare to something that does get deleted on the 11th vote? Aren't you proving my point, that there is no evidence on any change in consensus? The fact that you kept a version doesn't prove anything about a change, just that you kept a version of it. Look, what if all these versions were deleted and the contents (with all the edits) were restored into a single draft article at the Drafts space? Work on it together and list it at deletion review within the typical six months AFC kind of window (heck, list it immediately, it has been four years since the last discussion) and we all let the chips fall where they lie. I think Kitia had the best suggestion last time, make it a category not a list. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Death on Birthday seems related (well, it's the same). Can it be added here or are we going to wait and see how this one goes? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Reasonable leeway for a contributor. Original research is allowed in userspace. Reject the two example MfDs as precedent-forming. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Buddy431/List of people who died on their birthdays[edit]

This appears to be a WP:FAKEARTICLE or wP:NOTWEBHOST. This article has been deleted and then deleted again. Ca2james (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep - It is cost-free to keep this userfied draft for eventual return as a mainspace article should sourcing eventually emerge. Moreover, consensus can change, after all. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment None of the three copies of this article in userspace had been edited since 2011. It's difficult to believe that any of these copies are for a future article when they hadn't been touched in well over three years - it's more likely that it's a WP:STALEDRAFT. Even if this was a future article, there's certainly no need to have three untouched copies of it in userspace. Ca2james (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually this has been revised extensively over the years, but curiously enough never by the editor who's space it is in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

For some reason I thought none had been edited since 2011 but I see that I was wrong - thank you for correcting me. I've stricken that part of my previous comment.

Since this page has been edited by numerous people over a period of years just as if it were a mainspace page, I'm concerned that the editors don't have a clear understanding of WP:USERPAGE policies. Ca2james (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Consensus can change but there's no evidence of a change in consensus. List of people who died on their birthdays was deleted again in 2012 and no one has attempted to discuss restoration. There's an attribution failure here as well. The contents from this are precisely or substantially the same as what was deleted at List of people who died on their birthdays without the proper attribution. G4 requires that content moved to user space must be "for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)" which seems to be the case here. Also, isn't anyone curious why User:TexasAndroid chose to create a copy in someone else's userspace? The actual editor who's space this is in has never edited the page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I found the explanation but that doesn't help with the attribution issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox[edit]

Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) was deleted back at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) in 2007. Admins can review but it looks like User:CBDunkerson saved his version from this page (which seems older) to there but it was still deleted. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Why? What possible reason could there be to delete a sandbox page in someone's user space? --CBD 21:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:WEBHOST. Wikipedia isn't for hosting articles, especially articles that were deleted years ago. If you were actively working on this for possible re-inclusion to the encyclopedia with a potential request at WP:Deletion review, then it looks like you're actively working on the page. - Ricky81682 (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Article was deleted and no effort has been made to improve it. Appears to be an attempt to get around the deletion process. CommanderLinx (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ca2james (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep And trout those posting here who fail to AGF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
CBDunkerson, it's been over seven years. Can you clarify your intent? Are you actually trying to improve this page with an eye to moving it to mainspace? --BDD (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

IPA for X[edit]

This is a multiple-page nomination (sorry if the title is incorrect). The pages under scrutiny are:

Help: IPA for Berber

Help: IPA for Colognian

Help: IPA for Gujarati

Help: IPA for Judaeo-Spanish

Help: IPA for Klingon

Help: IPA for Laz

Help: IPA for Kashmiri

Help:IPA for Luxembourgish

Help: IPA for Marshallese

Help: IPA for Mingrelian

~~Help: IPA for Nguni~~ (nomination withdrawn)

~~Help: IPA for Punjabi~~ (nomination withdrawn)

~~Help: IPA for Quechua~~ (nomination withdrawn)

Help: IPA for Svan

Help: IPA for Walloon

The IPA for X pages are designed to provide utility to readers and editors in understanding and transcribing language-specific transcriptions at Wikipedia. They are not to be a resource for language learners or simplified coverage of a language’s phonology compared to the phonology section of a language's Wikipedia entry. When an IPA for X page is created, it should be there to cover an unmet need. I believe that the above pages do not qualify for this unmet need. Most of them are not linked to at all and the rest are only used a handful of times. In certain cases, the pages have only been recently created, but the need for the page should exist before it is created. Here is the breakdown for each:

Help: IPA for Berber – created July 2010. 7 articles link here, 4 of these are language-related articles that explain transcription within article space.

Help: IPA for Colognian – created November 2010. 3, articles link here, 2 of which are language-related.

Help: IPA for Gujarati – created November 2014. ~~No pages link here.~~ 5 pages link here.

Help: IPA for Judaeo-Spanish – created October 2014. No pages link here.

Help: IPA for Klingon –created December 2014. No pages link here.

Help: IPA for Laz – created October 2014. No pages link here.

Help: IPA for Kashmiri – created October 2014. No pages link here.

Help:IPA for Luxembourgish - created May 2014. 6 pages link here.

Help: IPA for Marshallese – created April 2011. No pages link here.

Help: IPA for Mingrelian – created April 2014. No pages link here.

Help: IPA for Nguni – created December 2012. No pages link here. But 13 use {{IPA-xh}} and 14 use {{IPA-zu}}

Help: IPA for Punjabi – created December 2012. ~~No pages link here.~~ 38 link here.

Help: IPA for Quechua – created December 2013. ~~No pages link here.~~ 9 pages link here.

Help: IPA for Svan – created October 2014. No pages link here.

Help: IPA for Walloon – created March 2014. 2 pages link here. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 00:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment Help: IPA for Berber, Help: IPA for Svan and Help: IPA for Walloon are mentioned in one or both of the above lists but are not currently tagged for deletion; while Help:IPA for Luxembourgish has been tagged for deletion but is not mentioned in the above lists. -- John of Reading (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I believe I've fixed it now. I wasn't as sure about Luxembourgish, but since I've tagged it we can discuss it. So it's in both lists now. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 03:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment It is absolute unintelligible for me what this request is all about. These pages do not hurt, and when they are correct, there is no evidence that they harm anyone while they might be useful in the future, if not already. So why take them away from potential users? -- Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Btw., going through Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion thoroughly, I cannot identify a cause for deletion there. Do you? -- Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Good question. The deletion policy does not explicitly reference a policy for pages in the help namespace, but we can infer from items 10, 12, and 13, that help pages that are redundant, useless, unused, obsolete, or in violation of the established policy for help namespace are candidates for deletion.

As Help:help and WP:Help namespace explain, help pages are designed to help editors and/or users use Wikipedia. Since these pages are unused for their stated purpose (helping understand language-specific transcriptions at Wikipedia), we can't keep them in help space.

But, you might say, these could someday be used. Someone may put a few Mingrelian or Kashmiri transcriptions, making their relevant help pages appropriate. But there are two important issues in regard to this question:

First, this puts the cart before the horse. The need for a specific language transcription help guide should be established before it is created. This is done by first creating a language-specific template that redirects to Help:IPA. When there are a sufficient number of pages that use this template, then the redirect can be modified to instead be used as a template that links to the page as, for example, {{IPA-es}} does for Spanish and {{IPA-ja}} does for Japanese. Many of these pages do not even have an associated language template (incidentally, when doing the research for this, I found that a few of these pages did start out this way but nobody bothered to alter the template from a redirect. As such, I have withdrawn my nomination for IPA for Nguni, IPA for Punjabi, and IPA for Quechua).

Second, there must be a point at which we decide, either beforehand or after a period of time, that a language transcription guide is not needed. For example, IPA for Judaeo-Spanish was just created in October. Perhaps users simply need more time to start using it. On the other hand, IPA for Marshallese has been around since 2011, which is a strong indicator that it is not actually useful. It would also be nice to have a good idea of how many links warrant one of these pages. I would think at least more than 5, but others might argue for just one. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 00:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, IPA for Marshallese has been around since 2011, which is a strong indicator that it is not actually useful. It's not used. It's not used because there's no IPA template for Marshallese. It's an indication nobody can (be bothered to) transcribe Marshallese, or knows about these templates. 213.7.227.83 (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Question @Aeusoes1:: What will happen at, say, Andy Schleck, if these help pages are deleted? Will the symbols in the lead section turn into a red link, or will the templates magically switch to a different help page? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

{{IPA-lb}}, the template used to link Luxembourgish transcriptions to IPA for Luxembourgish, would have to become a redirect to {{IPA-all}}, which links to Help:IPA. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep Deleting these as a group could cause some harm. If there's incorrect information or the scope is getting too broad (e.g., "resource for language learners"), that can and should be dealt with in regular editing. Perhaps those pages not linked from anywhere could, be discussed on their own, as they seem to touch on an issue of their own. But even there, I think deletion would cause harm, cf. WP:NODEADLINE. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

December 21, 2014[edit]

User:NickOrnstein[edit]

Another page in the same line as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Verne2000 or Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Luathos. WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE concerns Ca2james (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Per nomination. Userpage contains information already available in Oldest people and List of supercentenarians from the United States. Possibly WP:NOTHERE as user doesn't appear to be doing much editing outside of their userpage. CommanderLinx (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

ABSOULETLY, totally Keep - This is my page; I don't understand why that after SIX YEARS that all of a sudden a random nobody wants to shut my page down. I have had lists on my page for years. Aren't there more important issues to tackle, in regards to vandalizers to pages, besides my page that is absolutely no burden. This is NOT an article; no harm is being done to anybody except yourselves. TONS of other users from WikiProject: Oldest People have lists of the oldest people in the world on their page. I don't care about how high you rank (whether general or private) on Wikipedia; worry about yourself, pal. It is a website with information about older people, not a Hit List. Leave us fantastic contributors to the Oldest people articles alone. Thank you. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This was one of many other pages in userspace that contain content that violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. We aren't allowed to keep whatever we want; there are guidelines about what's acceptable on userpages over at WP:USERPAGE. Ca2james (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Strong Keep It's quite clear from the giant notice at the top of the user page that it is not a real article, so WP:FAKEARTICLE does not apply. It's also clear that the users proposing these changes have a vendetta against the several users who are interested in developing articles on human longevity. WP:POINT states that people should use common sense and not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point - and this is exactly what is being done by the desructive attitude against people's userpages. WP:USER states that they can be used for "organizing and aiding the work users do on Wikipedia", which is precisely what this page does. Secondly, the nominator has not used correct procedure since they have not been advised first on the talk page as stated by WP:USER. This appears to be a personal vendetta to me and I would refer the above users to WP:EQ to learn more about the principles of Wikipedia etiquette. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment User:NickOrnstein has twice removed the mfd tag. I have replaced it both times with an edit summary asking them to not delete the tag until this discussion has finished. Ca2james (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete and direct the user to work at the project page (Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians) or elsewhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete As per nom. If this was taken to mainspace it would violate WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:MOSFLAG and, IMHO, WP:TRIVIA. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment I pity all of you wanting to be like a bunch of Chiefs over this great website. I will pray for all of you. God Bless all of you and please spend some Christmas Time with your family and more time away from the computer. Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep It's one thing to delete articles, but user pages aren't meant to be articles, they're meant to be what the user is interested in. Interests are very much about the user. It's like SimeseTurtle said: "It's quite clear from the giant notice at the top of the user page that it is not a real article, so WP:FAKEARTICLE does not apply. It's also clear that the users proposing these changes have a vendetta against the several users who are interested in developing articles on human longevity." I truly believe some people's goal is to delete the pages of people interested in human longevity, which I don't understand, so they'll have an easier time deleting articles on human longevity, namely supercentenarians. I know they're trying to delete Craho's (talk) page because he dare make a list that interests him, therefore telling us about him and helping make biography's about future titleholders and supercentenarians. Longevitydude (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Still violates WP:NOTWEBHOST and the user is clearly WP:NOTHERE as little (if any) edits are made outside their userpage. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I've looked through his list of contributions and quite a few of his edits are to articles. Yes a lot of his edits are to his user page, but that's his right. Longevitydude (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment Longevitydude has also removed the mfd notice with the edit summary "(Undid revision 639420549 by Ca2james (talk) I mean no disrespect, but please, stop harassing my friends. Our user pages are our business and we do use them to improve the encyclopedia" and I have replaced it again. Userpages are not the personal property of editors per WP:USERPAGE and Wikipedia is also WP:NOTWEBHOST. Ca2james (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- You do remember the three edit revert rule, don't you? I had to give my friend the same kindness he gave ryoung122 a few years ago. Longevitydude (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

That argument is not valid. You're not supposed to be removing the MFD tag in the first place. I note that Longevitydude has once again, removed the MFD tag. I've reinserted it and have left a message on his talk page telling him to not remove the tag. CommanderLinx (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Selectively blank The lists of oldest people should be removed and, as Ricky81682 noted, Nick can still help maintain similar lists elsewhere. The userboxen are fine, and deleting them seems overly drastic. --BDD (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

December 20, 2014[edit]

User:Kushal one/Gakhars[edit]

A fork of Gakhars which this user has been maintaining for seven years clearly with no intention of incorporating it into mainspace. A clear case of using Wikipedia as a free host. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

December 18, 2014[edit]

User:Kotahirauaerima[edit]

In line with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deaths in 2013/My OR stuff and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bensonfood, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE concerns. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete There's an existing article about New Zealand supercentenarians. Any salvageable information should go there and not stay on a userpage. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

As I pointed out on the List of New Zealand supercentenarians talk page, that article is almost entirely OR and the remainder can easily be found elsewhere. If someone else doesn't get around to it, I'll be nominating it for deletion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a webhosting service. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST Ca2james (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep Reliably sourced draft article, which are explicitly allowed in Wikipedia subpages. It appears to me that CommanderLinx, Ricky81682, and Ca2james may be acting as WP:MEAT. It's the same users every time nominating these userspace pages for deletion and simply agreeing with each other in a circular manner. Without any outside input, these discussion sections just seem pointless. I've added a tag at the top of the page to denote that it is not an article, as suggested by WP:SUB. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If the article is a draft then it should be in a sandbox, not as a user page. Your accusation that the three of us who have focused on these userspace pages are meatpuppets is hilarious to me. I've no idea who Ricky81682 or CommanderLinx are; I started looking at these pages because I saw the ANI discussion and did a little searching to see whether there were any more of these userspace pages. I am doing what I think is right based on my own understanding of policies and guidelines. Besides, other editors (like AndyTheGrump, above) have weighed in on these discussions. Or are he and the others part of this meatpuppet theory? Ca2james (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Then discuss it with the user on their talk page, as is the protocol set out on this very page. Or move it to Sandbox rather than violating WP:POINT. WP:NOTWEBHOST does not apply since the page does not infringe on any of the policies set out on that page. It is not a personal web page; nor is it being used to host files; nor is it a dating service; and nor is it a memorial page. It seems that across all these articles you have suggested for deletion, you're deeming that any table built within userspace automatically becomes a personal website, but I cannot find any policy which states that. As suggested by WP:USER I have added a tag to the page to denote that it is not an article to avoid any confusion. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

See User:Wtwilson3's comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Bensonfood. He explains it much better than I can. WP:FAKEARTICLE is still on point. It looks like List of New Zealand supercentenarians (or at least should be). It's not short-term, it's been a year, it's not likely to be an article as the article already exists. It's simply a preferred version of the content. The recommended solution is to delete the article. Discussion only gives a delay. If the user wants to follow policy, they can request that the content be deleted and work within the encyclopedia. What else can be done? The user has never edited anywhere in the encyclopedia, just this userpage. The editor is either here to constructively and in a cooperative manner work within the community or not and this is not the first topic where dozens of userpages have to be deleted because users are only interested in posting their own content for themselves (typically it's movie stars, bands, but literally any topic) and when the userpages are deleted, they leave yes in a huff because they aren't here to work with other users and it's no different than the community members who get blocked or banned regardless of the content they provide just because of their attitude. If literally your first edit is to copy the contents of a page onto your user page and then only to work on that version, that person would generally have their stuff deleted and be blocked under WP:NOTHERE. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Kotahirauaerima has essentially blanked the page. I think there's consensus to delete here, but unless any of the old content is brought back, I don't think there's any harm in keeping the page in its current state. --BDD (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

User:AMK152/107[edit]

In line with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deaths in 2013/My OR stuff and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bensonfood, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE concerns. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep because first of all, WP:NOTWEBHOST is not relevant. It is not a personal web page or anything else listed under WP:NOTWEBHOST. Additionally, WP:FAKEARTICLE is not relevant. I would be in favor of bringing it over to a project page, but there was a discussion stating that it was not favorable, so I put it on my user page. It is not a fake article, it is not intended to look like an article, nor is it a draft. To say what the page really is, is basically, a sandbox. It is a place to store information in preparation for the List of living supercentenarians article and for those involved in the project to seek out sources for such individuals, so as to keep List of living supercentenarians article up to date more easily. It is not hurting anyone at all, but rather, it is helping WikiProject World's Oldest People, so I don't understand the problem nir the rationale. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 02:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Webhost doesn't mean it's a personal page, it means using Wikipedia to host content. Second, one of the biggest problems I see if that all the people doing this are hindered from actually learning to work and collaborate with others: it becomes a "I disagree with you, I'm copying this into my own page and you can't change it" routine. There's no other reason why there would be so many different versions. If there was a single page and people were actually working to build consensuses and create the articles based on what seems like the most reasonable neutral way to do it, fine, I'd leave you all alone but instead we're getting nothing but "I want my article written my way and no one should stop me." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That's just it. This is a page for people to work together. It's not "my way" it's for everyone to contribute to. It is a single page. If there is another page like it where other people are working together, please let me know and we can collaborate — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 01:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't everyone working at the WikiProject one? Isn't that the point of creating the project, to centralize discussion? Why are there so many people who create their own userpage lists? This is precisely why I'm asking for that one to be deleted: it seems like people here are just looking to make lists for themselves. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not really sure about why there is a misunderstanding, but if the Wikiproject page is "A" and this user page is "B," A and B are not overlapping; B is a continuation of A. It's all different information. I would not be opposed to merging the two pages. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 14:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST. If being this old is notable enough for an article then lists like this go in articlespace/mainspace, not userspace. Ca2james (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, such an article exisits: List of living supercentenarians. This subpage is used to help keep that article up to date by making it easier to find information when it comes time for the person to be included in the article articlespace. It's not its own entity. It's a project page that supports the main article for reasons I have already given. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 01:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Then the information must be merged into the article or deleted; this type of project page is not an appropriate or allowed use of user pages. Ca2james (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The people in this list are not yet supercentenarians. This subpage isn't meant to be an article. It's meant to be a placeholder for content when the right time comes and the right sources are available. I do not yet see how this fails WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 01:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

In that case, the information must be kept off-wiki. Per WP:NOTWEBHOST, it isn't appropriate for project space or user space. Ca2james (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

A review of policies again, according to WP:UPYES, this type of subpage is allowed, in particular, what is in bold: "Drafts being written in your own user space because the target page itself is protected, and notes and working material for articles (Some content may not be kept indefinitely)." - that is what it is: "working material." And the content is not kept indefinitely. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 03:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

But again why this subpage and not Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians? What is it so difficult to have a single centralized place to work? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@AMK152: You said above "I would be in favor of bringing it over to a project page, but there was a discussion stating that it was not favorable." Why was it deemed not favorable and can you point to that discussion? – JBarta (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked back, and I don't believe there was a discussion, or at least I cannot find it. It was back in 2010, when this user subpage was created, I moved the content for those born in 1902 and 1903 to my userpage. See history link here. NickOrnstein removed a large chunk of the list. There appears not to be a discussion, or that I can find, so I must have moved the information to preserve it as many people have since retained the list. Eventually, it evolved into the "107" list and the Wikiproject page Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians evolved into 108+. We just never put the two back together, but I wouldn't be opposed to that, it might make it easier as well. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 03:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of all this? This is a page of people who were born in 1907 (or very late 1906) based (in part, some have nothing) on articles that just state "someone was 107 years old" to me. That's still two years until they become a supercentenarian from today, assuming they live then. By definition, any name on this list will be stagnant for at least two years. That seems entirely unnecessary. Same with 108 and one year. Are any of these considered notable centenarians and added to those articles? If the goal is truly to have supercentenarians, why would you even need lists of people who won't be there for one to two years? Is it really that critical to be on the lookout for some secret hidden 110 year old? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I have already explained the reason for this page. It serves the same purpose as this project page: Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians, to help project members keep the supercentenarian list up to date by having quick access to data so that when a person reaches supercentenarian status, the news articles/sources in which they were mentioned can be sought out for updated information. Like I said, I would not be oppose to putting this in the project space or mergining it with the "Future supercentenarians" project page. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 02:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Similar age related lists also in userspace that may copy/overlap existing articles or other lists deleted/pending deletion:

– JBarta (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by the way, this is a continuation of Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians, so we also have the option of merging the two. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 03:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Merge to Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians (assuming it survives MfD). This list looks to me to serve the same function as that, only that list stops at 108 and this is all 107's, so a merge would be easy. I'm not seeing the case for FAKEARTICLE or NOTWEBHOST, since this is a list maintained by a wikiproject member for use on that project, with non-repeated content from that project, which is in userspace for some reason. It does not purport to be an article, or a personal blog or similar WEBHOST stuff. The only reason I can see for it being where it is, is that at some point someone on the wikiproject determined that 107's did not belong on their pending list. Yes this information (and the other page as well) will stagnate some, but by definition never more than a year: either a 107 reaches 108 and moves sections, or they... well... get removed altogether. To me, a perfect use of wikiproject space. Crow^Caw 22:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Mathmo/October man sequence[edit]

Editor using his userspace to make PUA pseudoscience guides. Bosstopher (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

Centralized discussion

Proposals: policy	other	Discussions	Ideas
Should AfD nominations advocating for a redirect be permitted? (RfC) Proposal to grant highly trusted users with the ability to view deleted content through a consensus-driven process. Proposal to allow bot tagging of edits New FAC and FAR Coordinators proposed Non-administrators closing discussions as delete (RfC) Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive talk edit history watch

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Information on the process[edit]

Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

Administrator instructions[edit]

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

January 10, 2015[edit]

User:AbdulBasitQ/sandbox[edit]

User:Engtarek2002/sandbox[edit]

Wikipedia:Laserman[edit]

User:DyipDyipDyip[edit]

January 9, 2015[edit]

User:Jmaurer2/Cage the Elephant[edit]

User:Danbaloach/sandbox[edit]

User:Kimsoojastudio/sandbox[edit]

User:Surya Deo Giri/sandbox[edit]

User:EIHA/sandbox[edit]

MediaWiki:Gadget-moment.js[edit]

User:Mathewgarba/Mathew Garba[edit]

User:Jacksonroy/Jackson shah[edit]

User:JosefinaJosepha/Denzil Benjamin Whiteman, MD[edit]

User:Irish Innocence Project[edit]

User:Imaginatorium/Cardarelli[edit]

User:Ipunk chulz[edit]

User:Randa amayiri73/sandbox[edit]

Wikipedia:Department of Fun/Word Association/Hardcore Ultra[edit]

January 8, 2015[edit]

User:Bikram Bohara[edit]

User:Archerlevip[edit]

User:Cavineh/sandbox[edit]

User:Joshua Muhammad Obama/sandbox[edit]

User:Serpent's Choice/Sandbox[edit]

User:Stevenjeffers1/sandbox[edit]

Kitty Empire[edit]

January 7, 2015[edit]

User:Colinbhimsen[edit]

User:Rbpankajverma/Rb pankaj verma[edit]

User:Barack Muhammad Obama/sandbox[edit]

User:Wifinitytech/sandbox[edit]

User:Rochelle.foles[edit]

User:Dkncus/sandbox[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletions and editor retention[edit]

Wikipedia:Cultural guidelines[edit]

User:Hemlock Martinis/PF[edit]

Portal:Formula One/Next Grand Prix/Round 21[edit]

User:Mcjackiels/sandbox[edit]

User:Guru Ji Computer[edit]

January 6, 2015[edit]

Book:Stations Test[edit]

User:Ephilei/List of genders[edit]

January 5, 2015[edit]

User:Moaminsco[edit]

User:AishaBoue/Trademarkia[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Darryl Lesser watchmaker[edit]

User talk:PseudoSomething[edit]

User:James S. McGill[edit]

User:Matthias.schlipf/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:Ryanmancl/The Vue on Apache[edit]

January 4, 2015[edit]

Draft:Rice with jasmine water[edit]

Draft:How to grow marijuana now[edit]

Book:ISIS / ISIL / IS[edit]

User:Candleabracadabra/Johnson-Smith House[edit]

User:JethroDethro[edit]

January 3, 2015[edit]

Draft:Eze Ejike[edit]

User:Satpreet mander[edit]

User:Mfoltz29/Terrie O'Connor Realtors[edit]

User:Susanaknabe/Sibcy Cline Realtors[edit]

User:Sugar Jack Johnson[edit]

User:SA Times[edit]

January 2, 2015[edit]

User:Ifuufi/Moriel Matalon[edit]

User:Dianalinden[edit]

User:Angosi[edit]

User:Ahmed M Osman[edit]

User:Shill81[edit]

User:Joejohn0505[edit]