• 21 Aug, 2019

• By, Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany For Deletion

Pages currently being considered for deletion 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.

Template:User BYU old (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

No transclusions. There is no reason to keep old versions of templates; they can be seen in the page history. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. If history merge is needed then it should be done, but we don't need to keep multiple sets of "old" templates. Gonnym (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Applied Research Laboratory for Intelligence and Security

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: Speedy Delete as a copyright violation. Whpq (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Draft:Applied Research Laboratory for Intelligence and Security Draft:Applied Research Laboratory for Intelligence and Security (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Seems to be pure advertising TheWikipede (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Blanking as copyvio. I have no opinion on the merits, but this entire article is copied from arlis.umd.edu/about/who-we-are. BusterD (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Ooops! Someone beat me to it. BusterD (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Draft:PC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Virtually blank draft, consisting of a Wikipedia maintenance template but no actual content, with no obvious reason to exist. This appears to have been created in an attempt to institute a "PC" --> Pony Canyon redirect as a bypass of the fact that PC already exists in mainspace as a disambiguation page listing a lot of things (including, but not limited to, the obvious one that would have a much stronger claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for it than Pony Canyon ever would), and has been filed in Category:Pony Canyon a couple of times in defiance of WP:DRAFTNOCAT, even though filing it there wouldn't even serve any useful purpose anyway: even where shortcut redirects are in place, they don't need to be filed in their target's eponymous category as an alternative way of getting from the category to its own head article that's already in the same category.
So there's just no need for this, if its only purpose is to try to bypass Wikipedia's standard processes. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This appears to be a mistake by a new account, perhaps even an alt account of someone already involved. Glad to see it brought here so the community can see it. BusterD (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - If it is a mistake by a new account, the user can tag it with G7 for deletion. Otherwise it is the sort of junk that can be left in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:DontWatchMePls/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Likely WP:HOAX. Other than small changes being made to the introduction and infobox to present the subject as "A(u)gustus Huckleberry" (a name that doesn't verify on the Google as having any connection to Carnegie Mellon University at all under either spelling), this is otherwise a mixture of text copied and pasted from Farnam Jahanian without being significantly changed, and boilerplate placeholder text of the lorem ipsum variety. Also, the photo in the infobox is clearly not of a man in his 60s. Bearcat (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This may have had the involvement of one of the minions of Genseric. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Pokémon test

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: keep. There is a clearly a strong consensus to keep this in some form, and even the nominator has indicated they would be ok with some of the other options put forth. Discussion of those options can continue on the talk page of the essay. Just Step Sideways 23:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Pokémon test Wikipedia:Pokémon test (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ This essay has become unhelpful. Just recently it was cited in an AfD as a reason to delete a Pokemon article. While I personally agreed that the article was non-notable, I do think that this page could potentially spread misinformation that Pokemon are just not notable in general for some reason, when a number of them do have perfectly notable articles because they are prominent characters for some reason. Pokemon articles are no different than every other fictional article. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is sufficient to explain this instead, which this essay just restates in a more specific way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep The question of whether or not Pokemon are notable enough for standalone articles is something that is basically part of wiki-lore at this point, and I don't see a good reason to delete this article that recounts this history. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] The intent of this page should not be to assert that Pokemon are less notable than other articles, but to explain why comparing things to Pokemon is bad. While I initially defended your statements, this is certainly feeling very "I don't like Pokemon". I don't think removing this page is a question of thinking Pokemon are generally notable or not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Make it not an essay per Alach E.'s proposal below. I actually agree with everything Zx said: over time the essay has become more harmful in discussions about an article's viability, acting as a quick go-to hammer and an argument that "consensus said this wasn't notable", despite its age and the fact subjects can, over time, demonstrate notability. I feel this outweighs any historical aspect one could argue for the essay, and Wikipedia has long improved past the need for it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Of course the guy who's entire raison d'etre on Wikipedia is to write articles about video game characters doesn't like an essay which is critical of the notability of video game characters. It's an essay, not policy, you are free to disagree with it, but I don't see that as a good enough reason to delete it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] The fact that you're saying it's "critical of notability" is precisely why it should be deleted. Its entire point is saying that notability comparisons are wrong and should not be used. Clearly it's not doing its job properly and more importantly, is implying Pokemon are in some even more non-notable class. Even the article itself admits the Pokemon test is no longer used. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Where is your evidence that the broader Wikipedia community thinks Pokemon are generally notable? Even if it was a minority view, per WP:ESSAY Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. This essay is a historical document (and marked as such) that has existed for nearly 20 years. Why delete it now? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Because it's obviously causing confusion, and historical documents do not have to be actively in Wikipedia-space. Pokemon should all be judged individually and in a vacuum. Grouping them as one unit as this page implies is unhelpful. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Ignoring your very obvious bad faith (I've merged just as many if not more articles than I've written and even Zx and I have disagreed on those grounds plenty of times), you're arguing that itportrays a consensus despite the statement regarding such being over fifteen years old. You behavior and approach is solidifying why the essay has become a problem: you've yet to provide an argument that isn't "It does no harm" and an attack towards my intentions for voting Redirect, which isn't valid for AfD.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Hemiauchenia: WP:ASPERSIONS - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] If you also didn't just write articles about video game characters I might take you more seriously. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] It's honestly shocking a veteran editor with a number of barnstars would discriminate based on what content an editor works on. By saying that, you open yourself to precisely the same attack. I don't think you'd be very enthused if someone nominated one of your articles for deletion, saying "so and so is totally unimportant". Suggesting there is a "good" kind of content to work on is antithetical to editing on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious reference work, essentially covering the same sorts of topics as old book encyclopaedias, though without the limitations of being physical paper works. The topics I write about are all of serious scholarly interest. One cannot say the same about the vast majority of video game characters. Also your habit of replying to every comment on this discussion is bordering on bludgeoning. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Au contraire, there are actually numerous scholars writing about VG characters. I think that it can safely be said that VG characters are "of scholarly interest". And in fact, Pokemon is the highest-grossing media franchise to ever exist in any medium. I guess one or two sentences is bludgeoning now? I'm not seeking to force anyone into submission, just clarify what I think are errors in logic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Video games themselves are subject to serious analysis and scholarship, I agree. That doesn't necessarily make video game characters articles-notable. Making comments arguing with every opposing voter (as you have done with Rhododendrites just now) is undoubtedly WP:BLUDGEONING and you really should stop. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I will stop, but because I think I've said my piece. I disagree there is bludgeoning occurring here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Many video game characters are just as much the subject of scholarly and serious analysis, even many individual Pokemon species. They are no different than any other fictional character in that regard be it based on design or backstory. Scholarly study is also not a prerequisite for a subject to have an article, nor is it a requirement of the notability guideline.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] If you didn't struggle with understanding basic Wikipedia conduct policy, I might take you more seriously. As an addition to my glib comment, it's kind of wild that you write "Also your habit of replying to every comment on this discussion is bordering on bludgeoning" in a reply thread where you made an unprovoked personal attack against another user. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]  Administrator note: WP:NPA WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS all seem to apply to what is transpiring in this discussion, which is supposed to be about whether the project will retain this essay and nothing else. Just Step Sideways 19:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep, it's an important historical document, although you'd have to trust me on that. Archivists and historians in the future will enjoy picking the teeth out of it. Also. It's an essay. We're not yet in the habit of deleting essays we don't agree with are we? I'd hope Wikipedia hasn't fallen that far. Note to the closer, Userfy to my user space if necessary and still current practise please rather than delete. I don't see the value of a redirect. If people don't agree with the sentiment of the essay, edit it. I'll help. It's a wiki essay. It's what they are created for. Hiding T 00:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] *:Wikipedia is not a web host. If something has gone past the point it is totally obsolete and is actively causing issues even just being on Wikipedia, it should be removed. Archive.org will still have a copy for historical reference purposes, so you can rest easy on that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I think it's fairly clear that sentiment is going towards keeping the page for historical reasons, so I'd be amenable to userfication as an alternative such that it can remain somewhere less "authoritative". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep - The argument, and this page, are part of the history of Wikipedia and its culture. The test was both an argument and a meme, which is why it persisted after the problem was solved. If someone cites this at AfD today, just pretend that they cited a totally outdated version of the equally non-policy WP:FANCRUFT. — Rhododendrites \\ 01:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] FANCRUFT is not a policy, but still relevant. The term is still used, when talking about WP:ALLPLOT, or WP:INDISCRIMINATE articles. Pokemon Test can only be misinterpreted, on the other hand. Being historical is not justification to keep unnecessary content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep, a major part of Wikipedia history; it is already tagged as historical. Graham87 (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep since it is historically important, although I would like to mention that some of Hemiauchenia's comments here are blatant personal attacks, and that current community consensus is against the notion that video game characters must meet a stricter notability standard than other topics. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep. This is gonna sound wild given I'm literally someone who predominantly works in the Pokémon topic area, but I do feel this should be kept. Is this essay harmful? Definitely. Before I even joined this community, I saw people citing this essay in regard to species articles that were made in the modern day, and even now that I'm on this website, I see people citing it all the time in all sorts of discussions like it's an actual policy. This is inherently problematic. Even despite its historical labelling, people are still getting confused, and this has potential to be of detriment to this topic area. I understand perfectly where Zx and KFM are coming from here, and I agree wholeheartedly. However, it cannot be denied that this essay is very important for historical purposes. Just the amount of times it's being cited alone demonstrates the impact it's had, and deletion of this essay would make it so those attempting to understand not only the great 2000s species purge would be confused, but also so that anyone attempting to understand it in any of the contexts it's cited in will be confused. Its importance is to a point where even official Wikimedia posts reference it, and we'd be losing an important piece of Wikipedia history with losing this essay. Despite the fact I feel it should be kept, I feel we need to do more to emphasize how defunct the essay is. Given that User:Hiding, the original writer, is still active, and has responded to this discussion, I'm sure we can likely work out some manner of communicating that the test should not be applied to modern articles, whether that be via a disclaimer, or something else entirely. I feel the cons of removing this outweigh the benefits, and I feel alternative action should be taken in regards to solving both the problem of the confusion it causes, and the issue of making sure its important site-related history is retained. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Pokelego999: I agree that it does not have to be deleted wholesale if people believe it is important to keep on the encyclopedia. Per WP:ESSAY: Wikipedia policy says, "Essays... that overtly contradict consensus, belong in the user namespace". Userfication to User:Hiding's userspace may be the answer here due to its current contradiction of consensus. If you support such a move then let me know. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I'm not against the move should it be deemed the optimal move. I'm not sure if Oinkers's suggestion below is standard, but that also might be an alternative. It being retained somewhere is my main concern, so if it is preserved somewhere I wouldn't be opposed to whatever move is chosen. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Make it not an Essay = This is not an essay, as it is not really conveying a point. This is more of a page discussing Wikipedia's history. Move it onto Category:Wikipedia history, where there are other pages like it. (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] "Make it not an essay", i.e.: Move to Wikipedia:Historical archive/Policy/Notability/Pokémon test List in Wikipedia:Historical archive/Policy/Notability Do not retarget WP:POKETEST, WP:PTEST, WP:KIT, and WP:KAREN to Wikipedia:Historical archive/Policy/Notability/Pokémon test; instead: Soft redirect Wikipedia:Pokémon test to Wikipedia:Historical archive/Policy/Notability/Pokémon test, and let the shortcut pages continue to target this then-soft redirect And a notification at the soft redirect that there had been content at this name which had been cited as an essay but it was in fact never an essay and should not be cited as an argument in discussions—similar in form to Wikipedia:PORNBIO, Wikipedia:Don't be a dick ... I agree with (Oinkers42) that this is not an essay, it's a summary of historical discussions, arguments and other activities during a specific period. I agree with the nominator that if seen as an essay, this page is quite unhelpful.—Alalch E. 13:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep - all of the objections alone make it pretty clear that it's still used and needed. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep, mark historical it was used heavily during the formalative years of notability, and removing it outright would make some if those past discussions hard to follow. The test doesn't apply today, so whatever steps to be clear it's an historic page should be done, but deletion doesn't make sense Masem (t) 19:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep, important history. It’s already marked historical. It’s already edited to make it clear that it is about the early years of Wikipedia and notability. SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep - It's marked historical, and anybody using it currently should be advised to provide an actual current argument. -- Whpq (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep. It's WP:SNOWing. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:F75E:7E1F:B405:9BFF (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Historical importance. Folly Mox (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Archive. I understand the perspective, but I think that people using it as an argument is a pretty niche concern. That said, the essay itself is of such little relevance that keeping it as an essay makes no sense. The best Pokémon species article at the time of that essay's creation is almost certainly than the worst Pokémon species article today, so it has zero relevance to today. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:User Oppose VHP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unused userbox that appears to violate WP:UBDIVISIVE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - We have usually kept controversial political userboxes, as long as they did not advocate violence. This userbox does not advocate violence, but opposes an organization that is said to advocate violence. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Oppose Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unused userbox that appears to violate WP:UBDIVISIVE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just as there are userboxes that support various political ideologies, having a userbox that expresses opposition to a specific ideology contributes to a balanced representation. It’s crucial that Wikipedia reflects a spectrum of viewpoints, especially on contentious topics. Secondly the existence of such userboxes is constructive, they allow individuals to express their views and engage with differing opinions, which aligns with Wikipedia’s goal of providing a platform for diverse perspectives. There are several instances where userboxes representing differing ideologies exist without being flagged for divisiveness. This suggests that our community values the representation of diverse viewpoints. If the support template exists for a organization like RSS which is often regarded as terrorist organization or far right extremist, and often blamed for assassination Mahatma Gandhi, there is a need of the template which is in opposition to the ideology of RSS and PFI. ZDX _{(User) | (Contact)} 14:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - We have usually kept controversial political userboxes, as long as they did not advocate violence. This userbox does not advocate violence, but opposes an ideology that is said to advocate violence. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Oppose PFI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unused userbox that appears to violate WP:UBDIVISIVE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just as there are userboxes that support various political ideologies, having a userbox that expresses opposition to a specific ideology contributes to a balanced representation. It allow individuals to express their views and engage with differing opinions. There are several instances where userboxes representing differing ideologies exist without being flagged for divisiveness. ZDX _{(User) | (Contact)} 15:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - We have usually kept controversial political userboxes, as long as they did not advocate violence. This userbox does not advocate violence, but opposes an organization that is said to advocate violence. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Ban PFI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unused userbox that appears to violate WP:UBDIVISIVE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - We have usually kept controversial political userboxes, as long as they did not advocate violence. This userbox does not advocate violence, but opposes an organization that is said to advocate violence. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?/Merge less well referenced articles to Afghan training camp... or to a new article... (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I originally just redirected this but it was contested. Contextless Guantanamo related page, part of a project to make a lot of pages on a lot of Guantanamo prisoner BLPs (many of which are being slowly deleted as given our current rules they are non-notable) by an indef banned user that never went anywhere masquerading as a WikiProject page. Also, WP Terrorism is no longer a wikiproject so these are attached to a project that no longer exists. Marking it as historical is negative for that reason. I see no harm in letting it exist as a redirect so the page history is accessible but I do see issues with letting it remain attached to nothing.

Also nominating:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo

PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - I would like to know whether I understand. It appears that there was a WikiProject until 19 October 2024, and then it was moved to become a task force of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo was a subpage of the project, and it had its own subpages. So the issue is what to do with the subpages of something that no longer exists. Is that correct? My own thinking is that marking them historical is exactly what should be done, to record the historical link to the renamed project. Is my reading of the history correct? If so, why shouldn't we record the strange history? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert McClenon What's the point of keeping project pages that have no project? I find they tend, even if marked defunct or historical, to attract random edits, vandalism, and people for asking for help on the wrong pages to get no response. Redirecting it stops that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Percussion/Core (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unnecessary when Category:Top-importance Percussion articles exists. Has not been edited since the first day of its creation nearly twenty years ago. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark Historical - No need to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it even historical? It has been edited by only one editor on one day over a decade ago. It does not represent the larger WikiProject at all. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark as historical or redirect to main WikiProject page: was once useful and there's no reason its content should be inaccessible to non-admins, which is all that deletion achieves. Per the links to the page, it was mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Percussion/Archive 1 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Percussion/To do/Archive 1. Also, it was created in February 2008, which is more like 16-and-a-half years ago than 20 (fairly important because Wikipedia changed a lot between November 2004 and February 2008). Graham87 (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would prefer a move to the original author's user page per WP:PRJDEL. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Percussion/Collaboration of the Month (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Not been used since its creation in 2008. Wikipedia:WikiProject Percussion/In progress seems to be an attempt at re-creating it, thus this is unnecessary. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark Historical - No need to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It has never been used. The only edits are its creation and tagging of inactive. It is not historical. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark as historical or redirect to main WikiProject page: was once useful and there's no reason its content should be inaccessible to non-admins, which is all that deletion achieves. As it says on the page, the only collabroation of the month was [[List of percussion instruments, so it was used for something. Graham87 (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hurricane Kristy(2024) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This was nominated by Insendieum (talk · contribs) at AfD, which does not handle deletion of drafts. Their rationale follows:

Wrongly formatted references + theres already been a discussion regarding this needing an article (which was a no.)
— User:Insendieum 23:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Procedurally, closing a misplaced AfD appears to require moving the nomination to the correct process; I'm not entirely sure the extent to which an MfD is warranted here. The draft itself does appear to be an ill-advised attempt to re-split out 2024 Pacific hurricane season#Hurricane Kristy. Beyond that, I have no opinion or comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It isn't clear why this draft is being nominated for deletion, but there isn't a reason to delete it. It doesn't have Wrongly formatted references because it doesn't have references. That would be a reason to delete an article, and is a reason to decline a draft. We may have three errors here: original nomination for deletion in the wrong forum; an incorrect reason for that nomination; no reason to delete a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is clearly just copy and pasted from its own section in 2024 Pacific hurricane season we have done a discussion on this storm needing an article, and the outcome was a big no. This also started a discussion whether or not every C5 Pacific hurricane needed its own article, and the storm itself hasn’t been notable in pretty much every way, there hasn’t been much coverage on the storm either, besides routine advisories. Insendieum ✉️ 20:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The draft is nominated here as required by WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE. -- Whpq (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay. The nomination here is then a sort of side effect. The guideline does require opening a deletion discussion here. However, the nominator may have been mistaken in thinking that the page was in article space. The lack of references really is a reason to nominate an article for deletion. It isn't a reason to nominate a draft for deletion. So here we are, and can ignore this nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay. Thanks Insendieum ✉️ 23:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NDRAFT. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:98BB:D88E:3869:CB8B (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Consciousness for Unifying Causation, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

• Draft:Consciousness for Unifying Causation, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
• Draft:Conscious Model of Particle Physics: The Grand Theory Unifying Local and Non-Local Realities
• Draft:Conscious discipline
• Draft:Consciousness as the Unified Field

All but the last were rejected at least 1× for being OR, and all are related to each other in that they use a purported "quantum consciousness" to combine consciousness – a psychological and medical term – and quantum physics. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ignore, per WP:NDRAFT, and as busywork. The author is months inactive. User:Alfa-ketosav The nominator appears to be confusing the terms “rejected” and “declined”. These pages have been successfully handled by standard AfC processes, and mfd is misused by bringing the worst drafts to it. Leave these pages for WP:G13, unless there is an actual active problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• One draft is rejected, with no further activity. Two are declined, which means the reviewer thinks there is possibility. One is not even submitted. AfC has the processes to deal with these, and they should not come to MfD. The drafts belong to the topic of Quantum quackery, so they are plausible drafts, maybe hopeless but plausible, and it is the purpose of draftspace to host them their and keep it out of mainspace. They belong in draftspace and should not be deleted from draftspace, except by WP:G13. - SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The third draft is not about quantum mysticism. It is about an educational technique, and was declined for reasons of point of view, not for content. The conclusion that they should not be deleted from draft space is correct. Maybe neither the nominator nor SmokeyJoe read the third draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I skimmed it. Ok, no quantum mechanics allusions. I note it is declined, and it has references, and I cannot see a reason to delete it from draftspace. Having skimmed it again, I do not feel the need to have read every word. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This nomination is a train wreck, or would be a train wreck, except that Drafts are not reviewed for sanity. This nomination is of drafts by three authors, about two entirely different topics. The first two drafts, by one author, and the fourth draft, by another author, are about the fringe topic of quantum mysticism, the concept of an association between quantum physics and consciousness. The third draft is about an educational methodology, and was declined more for reasons of tone than topic matter. If we were considering these drafts for deletion for reasons of subject matter, it would be necessary to split this nomination, sending the trains onto two or three tracks. But drafts don't stop at this train station. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep All or Procedural Close - This is a bundle of drafts by three authors on two topics, but MFD is not AFC, and drafts are not deleted for sanity or quality. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I concur this nomination was ragpicking, but at the same time none of these drafts are going to become article so keeping them here is just a vector for false hope. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Aramea

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:WikiProject Aramea Wikipedia:WikiProject Aramea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ WikiProject Aramea was created in 2015, and through viewing the edit history, has rarely seen any edits or discussion on creation or editing of articles since that time. Additionally, many of its formerly active members were sockpuppet accounts of users that have since been blocked indefinitely. The WikiProject itself is almost an exact carbon copy of WikiProject Assyria, with the same sections, graphics, and layout. I am proposing that the WikiProject be deleted as it essentially acts as a content fork, which is one of Wikipedia's criteria for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surayeproject3 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Would normally suggest keeping archive as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Dealing with inactive WikiProjects..... However reviewing the Page's history it seems that this is all shock puppetry.... so deletion is fine nothing to save here. Moxy🍁 18:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Comment: I don't think it being a "content fork" is a good justification for deletion given that only really applies to articles, and all it is is made from the same template. The real reason for deletion would be that it is inactive and hasn't done much, plus the sockpuppets, I think: the relevant policy is: "If an inactive project never seems to have grown beyond its founding, you may consider moving it to the founder's userspace or nominating it for deletion at MfD. In general, medium or larger projects are marked as defunct rather than deleted to preserve the project's history. For more, see Wikipedia:Project namespace#Deletion of project pages." Looking myself there has been 1 non-bot comment on the talk page, 8 years ago, by someone who was not a member of the wikiproject. There are no members and because there is no category for WikiProject aramea articles, it is unclear how many articles are associated with it. Support deletion given if someone actually wants to make this wikiproject they can make another one, and it does seem to meet the criterion of not having grown much since its founding. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Delete - A WikiProject that has never had a post from a member on its project talk page in nine years and has a history of sockpuppetry is a project that is not worth keeping as a defunct project. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Delete. For future similar interests, engage with Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 10:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC) ended today on 5 November 2024. 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.

User:Marine 69-71/Autographs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:NOTWEBHOST violation GrayStorm 04:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. What, specifically, is the basis for the proposed deletion? In what way does it improve the project to delete this page? This user is an administrator with eighty thousand edits over the course of twenty years. If there's anything here that is actually disruptive to the functioning of the project, it is people who have a bizarre obsession with prowling other people's userspace to find "incorrect" things and delete them. Since this has literally zero bearing on the functioning of Wikipedia, my only possible conclusion is that there is some kind of jouissance derived from the act of destroying a thing that someone else cares about. Who gives a damn?

jp×g🗯️ 06:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep also not sure how we benefit from deleting this. We aren't this strict about enforcing NOTWEBHOST against long-time editors and we have nothing to gain from becoming stricter. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete specifically a clear breach of policy: WP:NOTWEBHOST, to quote: "user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia" and "Please upload only files that are used (or could be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else (e.g., personal photos) will be deleted." The content has no encyclopaedic value and there is no benefit in its retention. Mztourist (talk) 07:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am asking, again, a very simple direct question: in what way does it improve the project to delete this page? If you are unwilling to explain this, in clear simple language, your proposed action should not be done. jp×g🗯️ 07:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It improves the project by making it entirely clear that those who enforce the rules are also subject to them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is disruptive and pointless to WP:RAGPICK people regardless of whether they are administrators. I would be saying the same thing here even if he were a disgraced former sysop. Is there an actual, concrete reason why this page endangers the project? It is not libelous, defamatory, or infringing of any law. jp×g🗯️ 08:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ensuring that the same rules apply to everyone isn't 'disruptive'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I completely agree with AndyTheGrump. User:JPxG I'm astounded that you are an admin if you don't believe that policies should be enforced. Mztourist (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm astounded if you have never read WP:5P. jp×g🗯️ 09:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mztourist please add me to your list of admins who astound you. I'm here to help build an encyclopedia, and the only reason I'm an admin is so I can help other people do that too. Sometimes that means enforcing the rules. Sometimes it means looking the other way. RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The same rules do apply to everyone. I am trying to apply the actual rules, not wikilawyer them to antagonize other editors.

  I am aware that you believe the policy says the page should be deleted. I am asking if you have any actual reason why you think the policy says that, or why you think it should be interpreted this way. jp×g🗯️ 09:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia's deletion policy says: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following ... Any other use of the ... user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace. The established separate PAG for that namespace is Wikipedia:User pages; it is however a guideline, not a policy. In that guideline, Wikipedia:User pages § Excessive unrelated content says: In general, if you have material that you do not wish others to edit, ... it should be placed on a personal web site, and has the following: WP:UP#GOALS (Unrelated content includes, but is not limited to: A weblog recording your non-Wikipedia activities. ...) and WP:USERBIO (Unrelated content includes, but is not limited to: ... excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia). WP:DELETEOTHER says Use of a user page as a personal web page unconnected with Wikipedia's mission may be a speedy deletion criterion and other pages [not requiring speedy deletion] likely to require deletion (or where remedial action is not taken) may be submitted to deletion discussion. The policy provision WP:NOTWEBHOST says Personal web pages are often speedily deleted under criterion U5. When the guideline on user pages speaks about deleting excessive unrelated content in the form of personal web pages, it elaborates on NOTWEBHOST, and is fully supported by the policy. The policy and the guideline are in union, and form a functional whole. This means that there exists a reason to delete this page as it is a use of user namespace contrary to the established policy and the established guideline for the user namespace.

  This does not mean that we are obligated to delete the page. We can just say that we would like to tolerate this specific page.—Alalch E. 10:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is, more or less, what I mean to say. Neither the policy nor the guideline give an explicit requirement that any specific page be deleted: only pages that are deemed by consensus to be "excessive", "large", et cetera. It's obviously not forbidden to delete the page, but in order to do so, an argument has to be made for why. jp×g🗯️ 18:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's more policy stuff, which I've quoted below, and I'll quote it again here for coherence, so forgive me: The content would have been related (getting to know something about a fellow editor is not unrelated) and not-excessive (to the extent that the content helps other editors understand who the person editing alongside them is, the content is not excessive) only if it had been: Limited autobiographical content (WP:UPYES) and a limited amount of personal information (perhaps a short biography) and a freely licensed tasteful personal photograph or two [which] are usually allowed if the page reasonably complies with other requirements. This is the same as notability. WP:N is a guideline. For a given non-notable article it can also be said that it is not forbidden to delete the page, it is not forbidden not to delete the page, and to delete the page, an argument has to be for why the topic is non-notable, and consensus has to form for the communal decision-making process to result in a deletion. This content is not limited autobiographical content, it is clearly expansive autobiographical content, and the amount of information is not limited, is not akin to a short biography, and many personal photographs have been added, in fact a rather expansive gallery. Clearly, there is strong policy-based grounds for deletion. Then again, I am not saying something will fall on our heads if we don't form a consensus to delete. But when you say if you have any actual reason why you think the policy says that, well, yes, there very clearly an actual reason to think the policy says that.—Alalch E. 23:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This sort of discussion is certainly in-bounds, IMHO. On the merits, this is none of our business. And you guys stop throwing spitballs at each other. This is a serious thing we're considering, policing userspace for things to delete. This sort of thing has been going on for a while and it's often a reprehensible failure of good faith. We normally let experienced editors decorate their userspace within reason. We most certainly let folks have their say in formal discussion without being astounded others have variances with others' rigid views on policy. BusterD (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "within reason". The user already has a lengthy userpage, together with his own page: Tony Santiago. This page is a repository for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. Mztourist (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Testing those two words are exactly what we're discussing now. It may even turn out that consensus agrees wth your position. In the meantime, there's no reason to badger good faith contributors to the discussion. BusterD (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You clearly feel free to add comments to good faith contributors to the discussion, so I don't see why I shouldn't also. Mztourist (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Supermario applies. Not just U5 but U5 rendered as wide as the canyon. SerialNumber54129 10:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  U5 doesn't apply in and of itself because it is reserved to non-contributors. But when the same pages are found among contributors' user pages, it does not mean that what is "unrelated" and "excessive" necessarily becomes "related" and "within reasonable bounds". The content would have been related and not-excessive only if it had been: Limited autobiographical content (WP:UPYES) and a limited amount of personal information (perhaps a short biography) and a freely licensed tasteful personal photograph or two [which] are usually allowed if the page reasonably complies with other requirements (WP:DELETEOTHER). —Alalch E. 10:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No. In case you were not aware, "In and of itself" is synonymous with exclusivity in a discrete case, and I at no point indicated that was my thinking. Indeed, Supermario implies something beyond, or after, U5, as in meta-U5. I'm afraid you need a basic grasp of Latin in this game. And as for uncollapsing JPxG's near personal attacks: BusterD's comment vis a vis spitballs is far more useful, even if he and I disagree over the merits of the specific case. SerialNumber54129 13:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No offence, btw. SerialNumber54129 14:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Struck in this edit SerialNumber54129 14:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  U5 is only for non-contributors. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT. Other editors above state that this is none of anyone's business. That is a faulty argument which does not address policy. TarnishedPath 15:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What WP:NOTWEBHOST actually says is this:

  Wikipedians have individual user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. Limited autobiographical information is allowed, but user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia.

  The subjectivity of the language is deliberate -- the intention is for editors to assess whether any given user page is "primarily" relevant to the project, whether any given information is "limited", whether there is a "large amount" or a "small amount".

  The policy does not tell us a universal, black-and-white declaration that all pages above length N or about subjects XYZ are forbidden: it tells us to discuss it. Referencing the policy itself is begging the question: "does taking this action actually improve the project?" jp×g🗯️ 18:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @JPxG, I have no idea how you could imply that page is "[l]imited autobiographical information". TarnishedPath 15:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Respectfully, a list of people that have given this user their autograph is as blatant as it gets. We typically give experienced editors some leniency, but this is well over the line. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as using wikipedia for web hosting. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If this material was actually part of the user page, instead of a subpage of the user page, would we have a problem with it? Of course not. Not sure what this action accomplishes. Carrite (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - (edit conflict) We allow long-time users with a demonstrated commitment to being WP:HERE some space to talk about themselves in their own userspace (and to, e.g. gather lists of wikilinks about subjects with which one has a COI, or a list of articles you might like to work on, or a list of articles you enjoy, etc.). This is buried deep in userspace, on a subpage where nobody would even come across it unless they were digging around other people's userspaces looking for makework. Now, in addition to hosting this userspace page, we also host a meta discussion about this userspace page. — Rhododendrites \\ 17:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For reference, the userpage itself is 34,452 bytes, this MfD is currently 14,164 bytes, and the AN/I thread is 30,984. jp×g🗯️ 18:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's an ANI thread? Of course there is. I'll bet we're at bolded assertions by now. BusterD (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hopefully we'll come to a keep outcome and this meta discussion will demonstrate to history we can reasonably disagree about keeping non-contentious, non-promotional autobiographical material about our contributors. I know there's a policy, folks. I have read it. Every single contributor to this discussion has a stake in the outcome, because all of us are going to cease our wikipedia-ing eventually. How will readers in the future know anything about the human beings involved? Because we left clues. All those who want humanity to suffer for the deletion of this page, do what you must. BusterD (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "non-promotional"? seriously? This page is an egocentric personal blog. The creator already has a lengthy Userpage and a WP page: Tony Santiago. How does this page advance the project? Mztourist (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this page has been in a similar state since 2006. I thought it was plausible for keeping based on its age and high engagement of the creator before I saw that he has a Wikipedia article, but since he does that turns it into a solid keep. Some (not all but we don't require perfection) of this page is potentially relevant to a Wikipedia article. And we can decide to keep a page like this without setting too much precedent as there aren't many long time editors who created similar pages 18 years ago and have Wikipedia articles. Skynxnex (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it relevant to a Wikipedia article? Mztourist (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it's essential for a keep but, for example, Tony Santiago includes a photo, commons:File:Tony_with_Representatives2.jpg, from an event that is also on the Autographs page, which includes an alternative photo, commons:File:Tony_and_McClintock.jpg (arguably the one that is only on the autograph would be a better fit for the article). But this page does have a collecting photo and notes about the subject of an existing (or potential) Wikipedia article, some of which could serve as a basis for expansion. Skynxnex (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is clearly a WP:NOT#WEBHOST case, as this material is purely of personal interest, and has no practical relation to working on the encyclopedia, either as a content per se or as inter-editor communication. No the first time this editor has been reminded to not use WP as a cloud drive for WP-unrelated material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, basically per Rhododendrites. I'll add that this is someone with over 60% of their (many thousands of) edits to mainspace. They're not anywhere near misusing wikipedia as a web host. The photos, specifically, may well count, though. Please upload only files that are used (or could be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else (e.g., personal photos) will be deleted. is much more explicit. -- asilvering (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a webhost violation. Also while the claims made about living persons are fairly innocuous, we really should be encouraging editors to make so many claims about living persons without a good reason to do so. Nil Einne (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd add that I don't know why editors keep bringing up disk space. Perhaps in 2022 or something editors thought we should avoid using Wikipedia as a webhost due to hosting costs. But frankly since I joined in 2005 or so it was a non issue at least when it came to text. I've never thought that NOTWEBHOST had anything to do with disk space and I haven't see anyone who supports deletion say disk space has anything to do with it. Frankly although I supported but didn't take part much in the campaign against editors using Commons (maybe Wikipedia slightly) to post self created nudes and other such adult content, even in that case where we were sometimes talking about videos, disk space seemed to be at best a very very minor concern. The problem with ensuring webhost violations comply with WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO etc is however a big factor; including editors unnecessarily needing to review such pages when they don't serve a good purpose. Nil Einne (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fostering an appearance that volunteer editors are in fact rewarded with a privilege of hosting voluminous personal pages on this extremely popular website, using the website's infrastructure and conveniences, makes the entire project look like its participants are not quite as serious about the project's values as they try to make it seem, seen from the outside. It's not the right look. While, within the community, most editors probably don't feel like any given colleague does not deserve this privilege in return for their time and energy spent on the project, this is not what Wikipedia communicates outward and is incompatible with the simple concept of a Wikipedia volunteer. There has to be a standard and the standard exists: WP:UPNOT. This page is too much.—Alalch E. 01:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a good argument. As a long time contributor, I have a harder time seeing things this way. I appreciate your presenting this viewpoint. BusterD (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks BusterD. While I can't back off entirely from my comments made in this discussion and want to stress that I dislike the argument that there's no policy or guideline about this situation or that any such policy or guideline only applies to non-contributors, I did some more "soul searching" specifically regarding this page, after talking to someone off-wiki about it (a one-participant survey of sorts). That person's thinking didn't really match up with my assumptions in the above comment.—Alalch E. 20:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As always, your kind words come from a place where you and I have become comfortable disagreeing with each other in a collegial way. Hard to do in a format where we can't see each other's facial expression or hear the tone of your voice. BusterD (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW, this is a the sort of relationship I felt I had with Tony the Marine, who was accomplishing all this on Wikipedia while I was newbie. Tony was a wikipedian I could count on. Still is, which is why when I see editors who aren't trusted enough to polish Tony's boots opining at ArbCom about p&g, it tells me something about today's community. BusterD (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Within reasonable leeway for a long-standing contributor. Pageviews are near zero and contradict notions of WEBHOSTing. The attempted policing, aggressively, of things like this is far more damaging to the community than any good that can come of it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep matters related to the user, explaining the user's interests, in user space - why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Policy is pretty clear on it, WP:WEBHOST does not make an exception for tenure or status. Those arguments to keep are baseless WP:ILIKEIT. When one side is based on policy and one side feelings, the decision is clear. PackMecEng (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:WEBHOST does state Limited autobiographical information is allowed. The policy is, however, unclear on how this is defined; but the associated guideline WP:UPNOT clearly states The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. With no clear definition in policy, and a statement of tolerance in the associated guideline for regular users, I agree with Rhododendrites. ResonantDis_tortion 13:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue with that interpretation is no regular editor would fall under than then. Its also hard to say that such an extensive page falls under limited or non-promotional. PackMecEng (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Those quoting WP:WEBHOST re. autobiographical information being permitted must, if they expect that argument to hold, also explain why the page is used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. As PME explains, otherwise they are non-policy based assertions. SerialNumber54129 15:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, as has been pointed out like ten times, the policy is written explicitly to permit discretion, so it is entirely up to us to argue why one outcome is actually better the other. That is the policy-based argument.

  The argument for keeping pages like this is that it's profoundly uncomfortable and alienating to be actively prevented from having my fellow editors communicate with me about what they consider important about themselves (and vice versa). It creates a hostile, unpleasant environment. This actively drives away volunteer editors. This destroys the encyclopedia.

  The argument for deleting it is... what? Deliberately going out of our way to interpret policy in the most hostile way possible just seems like a deeply unserious approach to running a sustainable collaborative project. jp×g🗯️ 02:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting perspective, personally all I need to know about another editor is do they edit fairly and competently? Their sex, age, ethnicity, likes and dislikes etc. are completely irrelevant. There's no support for your claims that deleting excessive and wholly irrelevant personal information "creates a hostile, unpleasant environment" that "actively drives away volunteer editors" and "destroys the encyclopedia." Mztourist (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ha! Those voting delete are actively destroying the encyclopedia. Wow that is quite the hyperbolic and needlessly inflammatory comment. Then ignoring all the explanations for why the policy applies and just going with the bad faith assumptions that everyone is deliberately going out of their way to interpret policy in the most hostile way. Lame. PackMecEng (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Perhaps the nominator can explain why they are using their userpage to tell us they are Roman Catholic, white and nerdy, that they drink green tea, that they signed someone's guest book, and have a supposed painting of themselves (which, obviously, isn't)? If the nominator believes Marine 69-71 is misusing Wikipedia as a webhost, perhaps they will be so kind as to remove the webhost stuff off of their userpage? I fail to see the point of this MfD. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Does the nominator expect us to believe they are a whale or a whaler? It's unclear from the portrait on the userpage. Am I ragpicking too much? How would I even know? BusterD (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd just like to point out to all those referring to a longstanding editor who is WP:HERE, his contribution stats: [1] show 61.1% on the mainspace, 19.9% on his userspace and 10.2% on usertalk. Mztourist (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems to be pretty obviously HERE to me, especially as many of their userspace edits are drafting articles that they later published. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's possible of course, his userpage is 4th most edited after his 3 "workshop"/sandboxes. Also worth noting he has a 5.5% page deletion rate. Mztourist (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Is this in compliance wihth WP:NOTWEBHOST? Probably not. But demanding that it be deleted is just being spiteful. It's not hurting anything, and yes, people who have been editing productively for 20 years have earned the right to host harmless things in their userspace. My user page is a political statement. Are you going to want to delete that next? Perhaps User:Bishonen/Bishzilla RFA needs to be purged? What about User:Jimbo Wales/WikiProject Shave the Wales, or for that matter Wikipedia:Best of BJAODN? Get a life, people. RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Satire about the project is different from a user's autograph collection, which you have acknowledged is "probably not" in compliance with WP:NOTWEBHOST. Mztourist (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. I'm not seeing how this benefits or improves the project, does it benefit Marine 69-71, of course it does, he's got a free WEBHOST here. If you want to make a personal webpage, please use one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet service provider, and then post a link on your userpage to that webpage, like other long-standing contributors and notable admins have. David Gerard and GorillaWarfare spring to mind. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• What are we doing here? This page is fine; I believe it to pass NOTWEBHOST. SWinxy (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gerda Arendt. I stumbled upon this one. My rule of thumb is that if it's under a user subpage, is does not matter what's on it. I am well aware of everything on Wikipedia:User pages. It goes against my opinion. But seriously, who cares? You're going to strip this from a United States Marine veteran who has long been a net positive to the encyclopedia? "But the rules!" The rules we made? To stop only the people who are WP:NOTHERE? That's the only reason why these rules exist.

Guys, this page gets ~0 to 7 views a day. Respect your elders. This is a moral perspective. Point me to any rule under the sun and I will happily ignore it. Panini! • 🥪 17:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. PackMecEng (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware a soapbox isn't in typically in my wheelhouse. But this one broke my heart. Sorry. Panini! • 🥪 19:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this panini, the green herb ain't oregano... SerialNumber54129 15:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its marjoram :). Until they vote yes on amendment 3. Panini! • 🥪 02:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am invoking WP:IAR here. Keeping it is absolutely harmless, and it is perfectly fine to showcase one's achievements. Ca 15:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Yes, I am the creator of the nominated page. I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for many years now. I have written over 800 articles and have donated hundreds of photographs because I love this project. Thanks to my work in Wikipedia I have received recognitions from the government, pentagon and so on. I never sought any type of recognition because all I wanted to do is share my knowledge.

As a Wikipedian author, I always wanted to be transparent and that is why my user page is as it is. I wrote my subpage as a private source of inspiration for me. The nominated page has been there for many years now. If I broke a rule, don't you think I would have been warned years ago?

I have hundreds of articles in my watchlist. I am not a deletions person, I use my tools to correct any vandalism going because those are the people who are hurting our positive contributions. Therefore, I kindly ask that the nominated page, which isn't a public one, be kept. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:UP. All userpages and subpages are public. If you want a "private source of inspiration" keep it on your own computer. Mztourist (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that I have posted in my user page the accomplishments and recognitions which I received for my work in Wikipedia to encourage my fellow Wikipedian brother and sisters. I want them to know that their is important because if all of these positive things happened to me it can also happen to them.

Jimbo Wales founder of Wikipedia wrote the following: "The President of the Puerto Rican Senate, the Honorable Kenneth McClintock presented this resolution honoring my Puerto Rican related work in Wikipedia on behalf of the government. This may very well be the first time in history that a government recognizes someone for his work in Wikipedia".

"Wow that's really amazing and wonderful! Congrats!" Tony the Marine (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how exactly your autograph collection encourages other users? This is just all about your ego and sense of self-importance. Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mztourist, you were fine with this. But THIS? That's flat out a personal attack. Strike it, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Hammersoft said, this is a clear personal attack. It's strange that you insist on such rigid, inflexible adherence to one policy while completely disregarding another one. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a very useful thing to say. Didn't help the argument either. The diff from Mztourist ascribes bad faith. Should be struck. BusterD (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what faith this shows: [2]. Mztourist (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the bludgeoning in this MfD, as an experienced editor you should know the rules better and strike this one out. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mztourist: Since you've returned to editing, but haven't commented nor struck the personal attack, pinging you here in case you haven't seen this. Please respond. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a personal attack, its my observation on a user who writes "Famous People Who Have Had The Honor Of Meeting "The Marine"" on the subject page and refers to something Jimbo Wales once said as being somehow relevant to the discussion. Mztourist (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mztourist: I've seen this defense of personal attacks before claiming it's not a personal attack because it's your opinion. Quoting WP:NPA, "Comment on content, not the contributors". Saying "This is just all about your ego and sense of self-importance" is clearly commenting on Marine 69-71. It's unequivocally a personal attack. I ask you again to please strike it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well we don't agree on what comprises CANVASSING either: [3]. Also in this case, the content is about the contributor. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So? Your userpage has elements that are about you. Does that give me leeway to personally insult you? Again, please strike your personal insult. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we disagree on what constitutes Canvassing and Personal Attacks. My userpage doesn't really contain elements that are about me and it is not the subject of a deletion discussion. Mztourist (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering everyone here calling for striking the comment do not have clean hands themselves, perhaps everyone should drop it and move on to something else. It's not a good look all the badgering back and forth, nor is it helpful to the discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do tell? And what non-clean hands do you think Lepricavark, BusterD, Sir Kenneth Kho, and myself have? A personal attack is a personal attack. It doesn't somehow get less serious because you think the four people calling Mztourist out for it are somehow possessed of dirty hands. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pray tell, what made you think that casting aspersions would be a good look/helpful to the discussion? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was more of a glass houses kind of comment, neither side looks good. PackMecEng (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How so? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't care less if I look good, even if you could be bothered to explain why I'm supposedly in a glass house in the first place. Mztourist's comment was the kind of cheap shot that should not be allowed to stand, especially since it is tantamount to kicking an editor who is already down. I don't see how your empty whataboutisms are helpful. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly. PackMecEng (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! But in actuality, us keepers are just as much guilty at unnecessary badgering and snarkiness, myself included. This discussion could have carried well on with a simple establishment of "it's against the rules" and "some leeway should be considered", without the back-and-forths against each other regarding our opinions on the matter. Since either side finds the other absurd, both sides are equally going to be dismissive to each other, no matter how much convincing there is. It's why I've taken a step back from the discussion despite the feeling that I need to say something. Panini! • 🥪 02:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I deeply apologize on behalf of Mztourist for his conduct, and thank you for your service. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• keep all of the good reasons already taken so I'll just say per above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! To clarify, while no good reasons have been presented at all, there has been a lot of chest beating about meany-meany-big-blue-meanies. Cheers! SerialNumber54129 19:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MfD has always been a place where sometimes User:A will make an official snipe against User:B. They usually appear to come completely out of the blue, but on deep diving there’s often an old antagonistic glancing interaction. These are very hard to find with very long-term active Wikipedians. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really Serial_Number_54129? Your comment is distinctly more reflective on you than anyone else. It does nothing to add to the discussion and does seek to insult the people who are opposed to this deletion. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You focused on the nominator rather than their argument. Not a good look. SerialNumber54129 13:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point, which I apparently didn't effectively convey, was to juxtapose this page with the nominator's page to show there is no difference. Your point, correct me if I'm wrong, is to insult every person who indicated a desire to keep this page. Rather significant difference, wouldn't you say? Unless you can explain how your insult...isn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Carrite and Hammersoft. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even if he becomes a disgraced retired editor, this is still disruptive gravedancing, ragpicking, wikilawyering, and pointy behavior here. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates