Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
![]() |
Skip to current discussions · Skip to old business · |
|
![]() |
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. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.
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:, Education Program:, Module:, Topic:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
- Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
- Files in the File namespace that have a local description pages but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
- 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 |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
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:
Click to view instructions on listing pages for deletion | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted) Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.
|
Administrator instructions[edit]
Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.
Contents
- 1 Information on the process
- 2 Current discussions
- 2.1 January 10, 2017
- 2.2 January 9, 2017
- 2.3 January 8, 2017
- 2.3.1 User:82.148.97.69
- 2.3.2 User:Cgbalu/Books/wiki-book
- 2.3.3 User:Cgbalu/My wiki book
- 2.3.4 User:Cgbalu/Books/My wiki book
- 2.3.5 User:Cgbalu
- 2.3.6 User:Cgbalu/sandbox
- 2.3.7 User:Cgbalu/Books/yoga
- 2.3.8 User:Cedsib~enwiki
- 2.3.9 User:Carlosz
- 2.3.10 User:Catalyst454/sandbox
- 2.3.11 User:Canalboat
- 2.3.12 User:Bradleyc2
- 2.3.13 User:Braincircle
- 2.3.14 User:Bjmoods
- 2.3.15 User:Bigtony167/Sandbox
- 2.3.16 User:Besmart727/Rev. Dr. Steve Joel Moffett, Sr.
- 2.3.17 User:Besmart727
- 2.3.18 User:Carl2005
- 2.4 January 7, 2017
- 2.4.1 User:Ashleigh.colls/sandbox
- 2.4.2 User:Asif Quamar (mafia)
- 2.4.3 User:Attackgirl
- 2.4.4 User:Alexinnoro
- 2.4.5 User:Anndylian/sandbox
- 2.4.6 User:AjayChauhan
- 2.4.7 User talk:Susan.gardner566/CSUCI Writing Center
- 2.4.8 User:Susan.gardner566/CSUCI Writing Center
- 2.4.9 Draft:Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not
- 2.4.10 Draft:Vallakonda Shoba Rani
- 2.4.11 Draft:Upendra Rana - First Indian SEO Book Writer
- 2.4.12 User:Joey!
- 2.4.13 User:Manomarkovic
- 2.4.14 User:Falkor30
- 2.4.15 Draft:ITZ Origin
- 2.4.16 User:Raerah
- 2.4.17 User:Clarityprod
- 2.4.18 User:Clarityprod/box-header
- 2.4.19 User:Menselijke
- 2.4.20 User:Dmihalinec~enwiki
- 2.4.21 User:Cbcsil
- 2.4.22 User:Tammo2
- 2.4.23 User:Mercurious
- 2.4.24 User:Mouzamsolkar
- 2.4.25 User:Borgis32~enwiki
- 2.4.26 User:Spanish Fairy
- 2.4.27 File talk:Stevenson gravity summary.jpg
- 2.4.28 User:Duminda
- 2.4.29 User:GoroUnreal
- 2.4.30 User:Fizzwitz/sandbox
- 2.4.31 Draft:Ludwig Albert
- 2.5 January 6, 2017
- 2.5.1 User:DonAlfredoValcarcelZaragoza
- 2.5.2 User:Planetarysocietyindia/International mother earth day
- 2.5.3 User:Ime-tpoo
- 2.5.4 User:Fegovi
- 2.5.5 User:Mikho Mosulishvili
- 2.5.6 Draft:Rohit Chauhan
- 2.5.7 Draft:Amsterdam Metalfest
- 2.5.8 Book:KJIVA
- 2.5.9 Draft:Antano Solar John
- 2.5.10 Draft:LandlordInvest
- 2.6 January 5, 2017
- 2.7 January 4, 2017
- 2.8 January 3, 2017
- 2.9 January 2, 2017
- 3 Old business
- 4 Closed discussions
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.
January 10, 2017[edit]
User:Prashanth Ignatius/C Innasappa[edit]
Non-English. ~ Rob13Talk 01:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. "Not-English" is not a reason for deletion. This page was used to translate corresponding articles between here and kn.wikipedia.org. Translating and transwikiing between different language is a valid use of userpsace. To be encouraged, even. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
January 9, 2017[edit]
Draft:GovPilot[edit]
5 times and still not in a convincing state for our policies and is still too close as a business listing, something our policies are clear about. SwisterTwister talk 20:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Crosenmu[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Cosel[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Coddfishalicious/sandbox[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. This is an abandoned draft from 2015. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Cmccol3/sandbox[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. This is an abandoned draft from 2012. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Let the tiger show its stripes[edit]
This appears to have failed to be developed into what it was supposed to be and it seems doomed to stay that way. 95% of it is copied from WP:ROPE. It was created to create a more "safe space compliant" version of that essay, but then promptly abandonded by its creator (who was desysopped and indef blocked due to the discovery by checkusers that they were running an obnoxious trolling sockfarm so they won't be back to pick up the pieces anytime soon) The hope was that this essay would end up being cited instead of ROPE but a quick look at the incoming links shows that that has completely failed to happen. (Normally ROPE is used as shorthand in discussions between admins on the merits of unblocking a particular user. This does not appear to have been used in that manner a single time) So, this is basically a piece of unattended flotsam in project space, it isn't doing anything, let alone what it was supposedly intended to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope, which is substantially the same, so the few existing links aren't broken. Three pages (viz. Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers, Wikipedia:Don't lower the boom just yet, and Wikipedia:Essay directory) would need content related to this removed, and of course, WP:STRIPES would become a double redirect that would need updated. On a side note: At least one other attempt exists, Wikipedia:Last Chance Saloon, but it is substantially different. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
-
- I'd support a redirect too. I'm all for safe spaces (which is being misused in this instance) and for being sensitive toward folks, but this one isn't using traction and the effect seemed questionable to start with. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect. It was a half baked idea to avoid an idiom some people found objectionable, but it confused the idioms. The title doesn't match the essay copied. Give enough rope means to give a borderline untrusted person enough freedom to prove themselves. Tiger stripes, or the more common leopard spots, is an idiom asserting the people's nature can't be changed. Completely different. Normally I prefer to keep records of failed ideas, but this one was wrong, and is nothing more than a wrong title on forked content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Merge into WP:ROPE and/or WP:Last Chance Saloon. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Orion Health[edit]
Declined 3 times now and it was resubmitted for a 4th request before this MfD started, and none of it has actually significantly improved for our policies and the sources still consist of published and republished business announcements and mentions. SwisterTwister talk 01:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Band Ja Naimon![edit]
Declined 4 times and it was resubmitted a 4th request now, none of the sources have ever changed from being simple announcements, interviews and mentions, and thus there's nothing to even satisfy even the lenient-est standards, and that says enough. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Josh Bogert[edit]
Resubmitted over 10 times in the last few months and none of it has significantly changed because he only has 1 work so far. SwisterTwister talk 20:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak delete Someone could probably write an article on this guy. It might stick; it might get TOOSOONd. If this editor wants help doing so, there's plenty of people that will try to help them. But, if all they are going to do is log in once a week and resubmit, that's just a waste of everyone's time. TimothyJosephWood 19:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
User:GleneaglesKL/sandbox[edit]
Declined 3 times with listed concerns and I would've declined a 4th time if it wasn't that there's no signs of assuring improvements hence nothing to suggest acceptance in our policies for such businesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 05:02, January 9, 2017 (UTC)
January 8, 2017[edit]
User:82.148.97.69[edit]
IP appears to be no longer in use. Delete or mark as historical. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- God does this take me back. According to this page the situation with Qatar and its IPv4 addresses has improved since 2009, to the point that each allocated address represents maybe ~200 individual broadband subscribers, but I think we should try to verify this first, even though there have been no edits by this IP since 2008 (which does kinda make the issue moot either way. —Ipatrol (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep while updating it with accurate information, or applying a {{historical}} if it can be shown that the information there was at one time true. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Cgbalu/Books/wiki-book[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 09:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Cgbalu/My wiki book[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 09:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Cgbalu/Books/My wiki book[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 09:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Cgbalu[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 09:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Cgbalu/sandbox[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 09:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Cgbalu/Books/yoga[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 09:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Cedsib~enwiki[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 09:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Carlosz[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. User did blank the userpage before leaving the site. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 09:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Catalyst454/sandbox[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 09:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Canalboat[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Bradleyc2[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Braincircle[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. User did blank the userpage before leaving the site. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Bjmoods[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Bigtony167/Sandbox[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Another user did blank the userpage already. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Besmart727/Rev. Dr. Steve Joel Moffett, Sr.[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Besmart727[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Carl2005[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 09:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
January 7, 2017[edit]
User:Ashleigh.colls/sandbox[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. User did blank the userpage before leaving the site. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Asif Quamar (mafia)[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Possibly oversightable. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Attackgirl[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Alexinnoro[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. User did blank the userpage before leaving the site. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Anndylian/sandbox[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. User did blank the userpage before leaving the site. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User:AjayChauhan[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. User did blank the userpage before leaving the site. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User talk:Susan.gardner566/CSUCI Writing Center[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Susan.gardner566/CSUCI Writing Center[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Not forbidden. Educational use is considered within scope of the project, it is not NOTWEBHOST. But post a link to Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not[edit]
Abandoned single-sentence, unsourced draft by inactive editor about questionably notable subject. Let's not save draft forever and let a willing editor start from scratch if subject is truly notable --Another Believer (Talk) 19:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Plausibly notable 2011 book. Anything in draftspace that would be ok to recreate is ok o keep. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Vallakonda Shoba Rani[edit]
Abandoned draft, likely by single-purpose editor, about questionably notable subject. Let's not save draft forever and let a willing editor start from scratch if subject is truly notable --Another Believer (Talk) 19:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. A 2014 election campaigner. A WP:SPA promotion. Probably G11-able. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Upendra Rana - First Indian SEO Book Writer[edit]
Abandoned draft, likely by single-purpose editor, about questionably notable subject. Let's not save draft forever and let a willing editor start from scratch if subject is truly notable. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Joey![edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Manomarkovic[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Falkor30[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Nom is correct. And stale for over ten years. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Draft:ITZ Origin[edit]
Declined 3 times because there's no actual substance and the newest review today showed nothing close to it especially since there's still only 1 spurce: Their company website. SwisterTwister talk 18:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Raerah[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Not a NOTWEBHOST violation. User is a contributor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Clarityprod[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Unclear what this user had in mind. Userpage is now mangled. Are there deleted contributions to complete the picture? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Clarityprod/box-header[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Menselijke[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 15:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Dmihalinec~enwiki[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 15:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Croatian. "My name is Damir Mihalinec", "Thank you for visiting my page". This does not reach the NOTWEBHOST threshold. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Cbcsil[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 15:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:NOTADVOCACY. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Tammo2[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Mercurious[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Mouzamsolkar[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Borgis32~enwiki[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Appropriate userpage for the contributions, no NOTWEBHOST violation. File uploads, plausibly suitable and in good faith, count as edits, maybe even better than mainspace edit, especially noting he releases his photographs to public domain. The user has deleted contributions, can we review them please before completing the process of disappearing him. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Spanish Fairy[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. No NOTWEBHOST violation. Supportive messages to Wikipedians, such as [1], qualifies this user as a contributor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
File talk:Stevenson gravity summary.jpg[edit]
Filetalkpage post of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Duminda[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User:GoroUnreal[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Fizzwitz/sandbox[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Made up, fantasy location. Most of these were cleared out in 2015. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Ludwig Albert[edit]
Declined 4 times because of concerns that still exist now and it was resubmitted a 4th time now, so there's no convincing of an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 18:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
* delete I agree, editor just resubmitting with even less references each of the last times (now down to just one). Process appears to be going nowhere and feels more like an attempt to promote than to write an Encyclopedic article. KylieTastic (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- The user has come forward asking for help on my talk page, and they were apparently removing refs as they thought that matched the advise given. I am willing to give them another chance but I have said they need to add as many references they can find "that talk about the subject in detail" - so per Assume good faith as they have reached... worth another chance. KylieTastic (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - This draft has been resubmitted without addressing the concern about peacock language. The author should be strongly advised to request assistance in putting this draft into a neutral tone before resubmitting it, or it will be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
January 6, 2017[edit]
User:DonAlfredoValcarcelZaragoza[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I made a request to have the {{mfd}} template placed on the concerned page due to it being fully-protected.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Not a NOTWEBHOST violation. Just blank it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Planetarysocietyindia/International mother earth day[edit]
- User:Planetarysocietyindia/International mother earth day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Ime-tpoo[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Not a NOTWEBHOST violation, but an article draft. A verifiable and plausibly notable program. I don't give it much hope, but we don't deleted draft or userpages for notability concerns. Move to User:Ime-tpoo/Enterprise Storage Management System and replace with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Fegovi[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Not a NOTWEBHOST violation. He is offering to take photos. Someone could add him to the appropriate usercatergories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Mikho Mosulishvili[edit]
Userpage of user without edits in main namespace per WP:NOTWEBHOST. User did blank the userpage before leaving the site. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- It was a sizeable userpage before blanking, but bringing harmless blanked old userpage pages to MfD for deletion is absurd busywork at a minimum, and unwelcoming to the user when he returns at worst. This sort of request needs to be discouraged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Rohit Chauhan[edit]
Resubmitted for the 4th time and there haven't been any actual improvements for this autobiography which is merely sourced by his own websites. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Amsterdam Metalfest[edit]
4 reviews and while it has been sourced and informative, it's still not quite what we actually need for a genuinely convincing and accepted article. SwisterTwister talk 17:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Book:KJIVA[edit]
The articles in this book have been deleted as non-notable, and have been removed from lists in this book. The main article has been salted. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KJIVA. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Antano Solar John[edit]
3 reviews, and author listed it for a 4th review with no serious changes, and the article has not actually improved nor has it shown the convincing signs of what's needed in an accepted article, there's been sufficient time in over a year to make improvements and none have happened. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Draft:LandlordInvest[edit]
Reviewed 3 times with listed concerns and I specified what this needed and what was unacceptable but it was resubmitted for a 4th time now, of which I removed so it can be nominated here. None of it establishes actual convincing for an article and the only newest comments accompanied with the resubmittal have been "But they are significant publications and another company's article exists". SwisterTwister talk 01:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
January 5, 2017[edit]
Draft:Snooze[edit]
3 reviews within the last month, all of which stated the advertising concerns and not one part of this Draft changed thus there's perhaps nothing to actually improve. Listed sources are simply announcements, listings and mentions. SwisterTwister talk 18:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Move to mainspace. Large, longstanding company, lots of ghits. User:SwisterTwister, what proportion of your AfC approvals go to AfD, and are deleted? Virtually 0%. I suspect that AfC reviewers are a harder bar to pass than AfD, and that is not good. NEw contributors get better help and responses by creating new content directly into mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment – Regarding the statement within the deletion nomination herein, "... all of which stated the advertising concerns..." – actually, only the first two reviews stated concerns with promotionalism/advertising. The third and most recent review was based solely upon notability concerns (diff). I point this out because it's important to represent the activity of other users as accurately as possible, particularly in deletion discussions. North America1000 12:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Suiteness[edit]
6 reviews within a year and still nothing genuinely substantial and convincing for acceotance hence another review wouldn't help. My final comments here were clear quite clear why this was unacceptable but the Draft itself has stayed the same hence unimprovable. Our non-negotiable policies WP:NOT explicitly state we are both not a business listing and not a company webhist, and the fact this has nothing else actually convincing, that's far enough. SwisterTwister talk 17:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Is this a DEL14 nomination? Lack of notability isn't a valid reason for deleting drafts, yet that appears to be the primary concern expressed in your comments on the draft. Rebbing 14:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- The article in question is a draft and is still being worked on. The draft has been considerably improved per comments and suggestions left by reviewers (there are no more instances of promotional language as noted initially). Quick note on notability - the company has been extensively written about in top press like NY Times, LA Times, Tech Crunch and Wall Street Journal. Since the last review rejection, the company has grown, received new funding, and been covered in-depth by leading publications. Even if that is not already notable by Wikipedia standards, the company is surely on track to be notable as a travel website. I would request admin to re-consider the decision to delete the draft to allow users to continue to improve it. Dmulan123 (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Dmulan123
- Keep. Lack of notability—the only argument made—is not an acceptable reason for deleting a draft. See WT:N/Archive 58 § RfC: Does WP:N apply to drafts in userspace or draftspace?; WP:Drafts (help) ("Drafts may be nominated for deletion at [MfD] but not on a primary concern of notability." (internal citation omitted)). Rebbing 20:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Mash Direct[edit]
5 reviews and the Draft itself has not changed and our policies are clear about both unsuitable and unacceptable contents here and since the article simply contains announcements, mentions and similar triviality, none of it convinces. Available sourcing is simply press releases, announcements, listings and mentions and none of it is anything else but PR, including the awards which consist of PR trade publications. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Move to mainspace. Lots of ghits. Has won multiple awards, each with coverage. User:SwisterTwister, what proportion of your AfC approvals go to AfD, and are deleted? Virtually 0%. I suspect that AfC reviewers are a harder bar to pass than AfD, and that is not good. AfC reviewers demanding inline citations is way over the top of what is required of the first draft of a new article. New contributors get better help and responses by creating new content directly into mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Draft:DJ Cummerbund[edit]
This simply hasn't improved sufficiently in the nearly 2 years and 4 reviews it's been here and what's here is simply not convincingly enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION. Youtube remixers without notability evidence in independent reliable sources fail the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (music) and the policy WP:NOTPROMOTION. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Rocket.Chat[edit]
This hasn't convincingly changed in the 3 months and 3 reviews each time and there's still a too noticeable PR environment here. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails the guideline WP:CORP and the policy WP:NOTPROMOTION. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
January 4, 2017[edit]
Draft:Shailesh R. Singh[edit]
In 3 reviews, this hasn't substantially changed yet it was resubmitted without improvements so there's not only the concerns of acceptance but the fact there's apparently nothing else, the sources are simply announcements and listings. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, as promotion, with the references being announcements making only incidental mention of the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Uniworld Logistics[edit]
In 3 reviews, the stated concerns in my first review which laid the concerns here haven't been fixed and what's only here is clear PR, therefore nothing to suggest acceptance in our policies, regardless of whether the company itself wants this article accepted; with this said, it's quite clear the sources themselves are simply advertising and simply stating it as otherwise or at least saying "But it's sourcing" is not what our policies themselves accept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 00:38, January 3, 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Blatant promotion with Wikipedia:Reference bombardment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Dr Ayoade Olatunbosun Alakija[edit]
Article hasn't improved in 3 reviews and my stated concerns were not taken care of or at least noticeably acknowledged and what's here is simply not satisfying our standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 00:35, January 3, 2017 (UTC)
- Remove the twitter referencing and move to mainspace. https://tdaafrica.wordpress.com/dr-ayoade-olatunbosun-alakija-md-msc/ http://www.championnews.com.ng/tag/dr-ayoade-olatunbosun-alakija/ Notable person. AfC standards are too high, much higher than AfD, the authors will get better help in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
January 3, 2017[edit]
User:Daniel C. Boyer[edit]
Violates WP:PROMO and WP:FAKEARTICLE. The editor, who as far as I can tell is a non-notable artist[2] - has been using Wikipedia articles to insert unsourced references to his works. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Too early in WP:DR to delete the mildly promotional userpage. I think it is appropriate for the longstanding Wikipedia contributor he is. Inserting unsourced references to his works is a very serious allegation to which the response should be advice, warnings, and wp:blocking, not deletion of his WP:COI declaration of a userpage. WP:FAKEARTICLE is remedied by adding {{Userpage}}, which I did. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
-
- It's not an "allegation", I've removed more than a dozen uncited references to Boyer's work, many of them inserted via 172.xx IPs, and another editor removed one, all of them unsourced. (What appear to be sources in some of them are simply links to images of the pictures, not citations to reliable sources.) [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- This has been going on for 13 years? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Problem_users/Daniel_C._Boyer&oldid=2203617 Blanked with "forgive and forget"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Draft:INF1N1TE (Musician)[edit]
Whether intended or not, this simply hasn't improved at all and the only websites cited as sources are his own websites and the 3 declined reviews have themselves shown this simply isn't acceptable yet it was listed for review once again hours after the latest review today hence Delete. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Failing the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (music), the page fails the policy WP:NOTPROMOTION. Wikipedia:Alternative outlets applies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Aerial photography[edit]
- Wikipedia:Aerial photography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC) @Avicennasis: Completing the relisting by adding a fresh timestamp for the bot.
This is an odd page. It contains lots of quality, detailed guidance but it's unclear whether it belongs in WP space, or if it does what as. It's not categorised as guidance, an essay or help. Help seems closest but it seems too narrow to make a good help page. We don’t have any help on e.g. taking good outdoors photos, which this is part of (and which some of the advice applies to).
Besides it needs updating. Today if you want to take aerial photos you don't need to be a pilot with a plane (or know one). You just need to spend a few hundred dollars on a drone. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep the advice that is here is OK for what it is. WP space is the correct place for this, but perhaps it could also be on commons. I have uploaded quite a few aerial photos myself over the years, but I was never aware of this page. Update seems a much better idea than deletion. Perhaps I can add a section on removing haze. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- so how should it be categorised? – I mean both literally as in which category/categories and what it should call itself with a banner (though that usually also categorises it). I did think of Commons myself but spend almost no time on there so am completely unfamiliar with what sort of guidelines are available there.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I'm rather startled that anyone imagines the page not to be useful, and that it might be a part of outdoor photography. In an airliner or small plane, the constraints on getting a good photo are quite different from any other popular form of photography. The closest correlation would be photos from a vehicle moving on roads, but there are a great many differences due to plastic vs. glass windows, distance and haze. I don't understand the intricacies of wiki categorization (help, etc.) but do hope that this informative page is retained for the benefit of the many people who reference it.
Photography from a drone is radically different, although the shutter speed and haze issues do apply. Few drones have cameras with manual settings, and most are extreme wide angle which brings in very different problems. If there isn't a page on drone photography, creating one would be an excellent idea. I've done a few airline photos, many small plane photos, and some drone photos & video, and find the latter to be quite different and well worth a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jw4nvc (talk • contribs) 05:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: I've reverted the NAC closure of this MFD by an IP. DexDor (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete (or userfy, or move somewhere more appropriate). WP:NOTMANUAL. DexDor (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
-
- IMO, it would make sense for this page to be at a similar location to the page about how to take pictures - i.e. at Commons. No objection to a soft redirect being left here on the English-language Wikipedia. DexDor (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The Wikipedia namespace is the appropriate one for guides on creating and improving images. I think WP:NOTMANUAL applies to article namespace, not Wikipedia namespace. Indeed from policies to guidelines on down, the Wikipedia namespace is one big extended manual for editing the Wikipedia site. We have other pages with helpful images advice, such as Wikipedia:How to improve image quality, Wikipedia:Graphics tutorials, Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Resources/Creating shaded relief (GRASS, 3DEM) and Wikipedia:Photograph your hometown. This particular page seems a useful guide. It could be upddated with drone info--but do we really want more drones in our lives? --Mark viking (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Why split info like this between Wikipedia and Commons (e.g. Commons:How to take pictures for Wikimedia Commons)? DexDor (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete or userfy, per DexDor. Or maybe merge into a help page or a WikiProject page. Rehman 12:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Avicennasis @ 10:31, 5 Tevet 5777 / 10:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- @DexDor: @Graeme Bartlett: @Graham87: @JohnBlackburne: @Jw4nv: @Mark viking: @Rehman: Courtesy ping.
- @Avicennasis: I have no strong opinions on the fate of this page. However, your ping didn't work, because it wasn't accompanied by a signature. Let me redo it, excluding myself: @DexDor: @Graeme Bartlett: @JohnBlackburne: @Jw4nv: @Mark viking: @Rehman:. Graham87 16:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging the voters will probably bring more of the same arguments, but I will rebut the votes of DexDor and Rehman as NOTMANUAL applies to articles. However I do agree with DexDor that it may as well be on commons. Transwiki is possible. If commons doesn't want it then we can keeplocal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Sadbook/sandbox[edit]
- User:Sadbook/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC) @Avicennasis: Completing the relisting by adding a fresh timestamp for the bot.
Sandbox for blocked user. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: It seems this was never listed at MfD, possibly due to a Twinkle error. Listing now. 10:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Sfan00 IMG: Courtesy ping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Avicennasis @ 10:10, 5 Tevet 5777 / 10:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Being blocked is not a reason for deletion of userpages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
User:SilentmanX/Charles di Britannia[edit]
- User:SilentmanX/Charles di Britannia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC) @Avicennasis: Completing the relisting by adding a fresh timestamp for the bot.
Stale draft. Character does not establish notability outside of series. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: It seems this was never listed at MfD, possibly due to a Twinkle error. Listing now. 10:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- @DragonZero: Courtesy ping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Avicennasis @ 10:22, 5 Tevet 5777 / 10:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Neither "stale" nor notability are deletion reasons in UserSpace or DraftSpace. Editorially, you might redirect to List_of_Code_Geass_characters#Charles zi Britannia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
User:RepulseRenown[edit]
- User:RepulseRenown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC) @Avicennasis: Completing the relisting by adding a fresh timestamp for the bot.
It's empty 173.206.87.250 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: It seems this was never listed at MfD, possibly due to a Twinkle error. Listing now. 10:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Avicennasis @ 10:20, 5 Tevet 5777 / 10:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. In userspace, empty is not a reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Philchuck Maloney[edit]
- User:Philchuck Maloney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC) @Avicennasis: Completing the relisting by adding a fresh timestamp for the bot.
Abandoned userpage is too weird. Breaks MediaWiki interface elements. {{mfd}} template itself is malfunctioning on the page! Needless to say, user has zero contributions to Wikipedia. jni (delete)...just not interested 16:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: It seems this was never listed at MfD, possibly due to a Twinkle error. Listing now. 10:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Jni: Courtesy ping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Avicennasis @ 10:04, 5 Tevet 5777 / 10:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I removed some of the text residing there to unbreak the interface.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Blank only. Some kind of a test. In userspace, user's tests are not deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete – Arguably qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:U5, "...writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages". The user has only performed a total of four edits (User contributions), all to this user page, but the edits are not particularly related to Wikipedia's goals. North America1000 12:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Qwerty786/Police one noe[edit]
- User:Qwerty786/Police one noe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC) @Avicennasis: Completing the relisting by adding a fresh timestamp for the bot.
Stale userspace draft not edited for more than 20+ months. No content. PNGWantok (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: It seems this was never listed at MfD, possibly due to a Twinkle error. Listing now. 10:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Avicennasis @ 10:06, 5 Tevet 5777 / 10:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Blank only. Use {{Inactive userpage blanked}} which was created for this sort of thing. No reason for deletion, insufficent problem to waste time and space at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
January 2, 2017[edit]
Template:User en-6[edit]
Ungrammatical use of English in a template designed to be used to show a high understanding of the language. Template is currently unused but not eligible for CSD.
Use of level 6 Babel templates has been debated before with no consensus on their use but in general they are not used - see previous discussion on a prior incarnation of this template. Nthep (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: per nominator. This comes across as proficiency inflation. Chill-- (talk) (c) 16:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Not sensisble. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Nepotolemus/sandbox[edit]
Wikipedia is not a web host for fake music competitions. Based on the one reference that used throughout, this appears to be a fake version of the Eurovision song contest. Also nominating User:Nepotolemus/sandbox/ (note end slash) for the same reason. Not eligible for U5 as there are contributions from 2008 to 2010. Whpq (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Blatant webhost violation. I would agree to U5 even with the 21 contributions from 2008-10, because the webhosting violations far outweigh the contributions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Old business[edit]
Everything from here on down is old business; the 7-day review period that began 06:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC) ended today on 10 January 2017. 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 1, 2017[edit]
User talk:AgentHD123[edit]
User talkpage of a user with no edits outside of the usertalk page, per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- It may be best to just delete the users revisions in order to leave a proper log of the nominations. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just blank, user is long gone. Or do the rev deletions if you want. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Jkiberd[edit]
Userpage of a user with no edits outside of the userpage, per WP:NOTWEBHOST. It is possibly oversightable per email address. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Obviously an intending Wikipedian, and there are no time limits. MIT students are qualified to decide whether to release their email addresses, this is not a minor. Feel free to remove her broken link to a personal webpage, but there is not NOTPROMOTION violation here, and Wikipedia is not about rejecting intending editors. Write to her if you think she has forgotten. Don't mention oversight if there is any possibility of oversighting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)- @SmokeyJoe: If user had one edit outside of userspace I would agree with you. A Wikipedian with no edits isn't a Wikipedian. If user decides to edit at any point, we can undelete the page. Typically we oversight emails, phone numbers etc mentioned in this manner in articles. I have not sought an oversight request for this reason since this is a userpage. This user has not edited outside of userspace since 17 January 2006, Just about 11 years ago (in 15 days). -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- I misread the dates as 2016, almost one year. I would just blank the page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: Either option is fine but I do not see the point of keeping a blank userpage with personal info in its history. This isn't the purpose of userpages and we should discourage such use. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK to delete "now that we are here", but it could have similarly been blanked, there being no sensitive personal information. No date of birth. Except for her name, everything would be out-of-date. Many adult users introduce themselves with personally identifying information and contact information, and there is not problem with that. It is normally only deleted or oversighted on their request. Anyway, my apologies, I thought this was a second year student who registered in her first year, not someone from over ten years ago. I see at pt.wikipedia.org that her GSR Students made similar Wikipedia pages, with only one making at least one meaningful mainspace contribution. Her USP Student did a lot better though, almost two dozen mainspace edits, and the latest less than two years ago. These "tentative Wikipedians" are potential editors, and how we deal with them can have impact. Deleting their contribution history can be unwelcoming, and if there is no benefit to deletion, why do it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Right. And this account isn't what I would consider a "user". This is someone who has not edited outside of their userpage, ever, in over 10 years. I do not see the benefit of keeping such pages/page history. Something blankable can also be deleted. There isn't a more clear cut example of WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would call this a "user", they have registered and made edits, but would not call them a Wikipedian or a contributor. Slight terminology differences we have. The benefit is a complete solution to the problem without wasting time and space at MfD, along the lines of policy, WP:ATD. "There isn't a more clear cut example of WP:NOTWEBHOST"? Rubbish. It was the userpage of an intending Wikipedia, her similarly behaving friends did contribute. Look at User:Nepotolemus/sandbox for a much clearer cut example of NOTWEBHOST. Or browse WP:CSD#U5 tagged pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- They have made no edits in the main namespace hence as you agree this is not a Wikipedian or contributor. This disqualifies them of being a user as far as I care. For all practical purposes (despite the evident intentions of the registered account) there is no credible reason to keep this page nor any other page like this. My rationale and criteria is simple. If user has 0 survived edits in the main namespace in over a considerable amount of time, they do not get the privilage of a userpage. If you think this is a waste of MfD time perhaps you should avoid your senseless push back on a routine site cleanup. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't think we noticed I formally changed to "Delete". Bolding above, altering original bold !vote. I started off mistakenly thinking this was a 2016 registrant. I'm happy for you to define her as not a user, I was just explaining my habits, not important at all. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I did not notice that. I retain my belief that we should limit userpages to people who make at least one edit in main namespace. We have individuals who never bother and individuals who create an article that gets deleted (typically for being promotional or non-notable). A userpage exists to help with your on-wiki contribution after all. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't think we noticed I formally changed to "Delete". Bolding above, altering original bold !vote. I started off mistakenly thinking this was a 2016 registrant. I'm happy for you to define her as not a user, I was just explaining my habits, not important at all. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- They have made no edits in the main namespace hence as you agree this is not a Wikipedian or contributor. This disqualifies them of being a user as far as I care. For all practical purposes (despite the evident intentions of the registered account) there is no credible reason to keep this page nor any other page like this. My rationale and criteria is simple. If user has 0 survived edits in the main namespace in over a considerable amount of time, they do not get the privilage of a userpage. If you think this is a waste of MfD time perhaps you should avoid your senseless push back on a routine site cleanup. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would call this a "user", they have registered and made edits, but would not call them a Wikipedian or a contributor. Slight terminology differences we have. The benefit is a complete solution to the problem without wasting time and space at MfD, along the lines of policy, WP:ATD. "There isn't a more clear cut example of WP:NOTWEBHOST"? Rubbish. It was the userpage of an intending Wikipedia, her similarly behaving friends did contribute. Look at User:Nepotolemus/sandbox for a much clearer cut example of NOTWEBHOST. Or browse WP:CSD#U5 tagged pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Right. And this account isn't what I would consider a "user". This is someone who has not edited outside of their userpage, ever, in over 10 years. I do not see the benefit of keeping such pages/page history. Something blankable can also be deleted. There isn't a more clear cut example of WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK to delete "now that we are here", but it could have similarly been blanked, there being no sensitive personal information. No date of birth. Except for her name, everything would be out-of-date. Many adult users introduce themselves with personally identifying information and contact information, and there is not problem with that. It is normally only deleted or oversighted on their request. Anyway, my apologies, I thought this was a second year student who registered in her first year, not someone from over ten years ago. I see at pt.wikipedia.org that her GSR Students made similar Wikipedia pages, with only one making at least one meaningful mainspace contribution. Her USP Student did a lot better though, almost two dozen mainspace edits, and the latest less than two years ago. These "tentative Wikipedians" are potential editors, and how we deal with them can have impact. Deleting their contribution history can be unwelcoming, and if there is no benefit to deletion, why do it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: Either option is fine but I do not see the point of keeping a blank userpage with personal info in its history. This isn't the purpose of userpages and we should discourage such use. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- I misread the dates as 2016, almost one year. I would just blank the page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: If user had one edit outside of userspace I would agree with you. A Wikipedian with no edits isn't a Wikipedian. If user decides to edit at any point, we can undelete the page. Typically we oversight emails, phone numbers etc mentioned in this manner in articles. I have not sought an oversight request for this reason since this is a userpage. This user has not edited outside of userspace since 17 January 2006, Just about 11 years ago (in 15 days). -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Durai Hetsuga[edit]
Userpage of a user with no edits outside of the userpage, per WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:عبدالإله بن محمد الشمري |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Soft Delete. — xaosflux Talk 20:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC) User:عبدالإله بن محمد الشمري[edit]Userpage of a user with no edits outside of the userpage, per WP:NOTWEBHOST. It is possibly oversightable per phone number. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
|
Draft:Kirpa Singh Dutt[edit]
Unacceptable 3 times now and this current one is still unacceptable and there's simply nothing for the seriously needed improvements, at least even for the generally better formatting and information and there seem to enough questionability overall for suggestive deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 05:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- SwisterTwister You need to remember to sign and date these or they don't get correctly listed. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Historical and notable figure. Advise the author to WP:Register, so as to be taken more seriously, great a userpage to introduce yourself, introduce mentions of this person in existing articles, and only then, move it yourself to mainspace. WP:AfC and DraftSpace are not good places for finding collaboration. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
December 31, 2016[edit]
User:Dam Rean Cam[edit]
WP:FAKEARTICLE. This editor was already warned once about resume-like pages in the userspace. This newest rendition isn't quite a resume, but it's clearly not an appropriate use of a userpage. No edits outside userspace and user talk. ~ Rob13Talk 18:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete WP:CSD#U5, which we relaxed to cover WP:SPA resumes like this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Huh, did we? I was going off the Twinkle description to check for exceptions to the criteria. Musikanimal, mind making the change in Twinkle to remove the "resume" exception for U5 from its description? I'll let another admin close this out since I started the MfD, but I agree with the application of U5. ~ Rob13Talk 10:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- U5 came from this proposal: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_53#Propose:_G14._Blatant_WP:NOTWEBHOST_violations_by_accounts_with_no_mainspace_contributions. Here, Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_56#Remove_the_r.C3.A9sum.C3.A9_exclusion_from_U5, we removed the resume exclusion. I don't know how to get Twinkle text modified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Huh, did we? I was going off the Twinkle description to check for exceptions to the criteria. Musikanimal, mind making the change in Twinkle to remove the "resume" exception for U5 from its description? I'll let another admin close this out since I started the MfD, but I agree with the application of U5. ~ Rob13Talk 10:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete – Qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:U5, confirmed per a review of the user's contributions. North America1000 13:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lean Automation |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Delete. — xaosflux Talk 20:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Draft:Lean Automation[edit]Repeatedly resubmitted but with no actual improvements and there's no convincing signs of it since all attention made is only by PR announcements and mentions, especially since the company itself is only a few years old. SwisterTwister talk 18:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
|
December 30, 2016[edit]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner[edit]
Inappropriate use of cleanup metatemplate, projectspace, and wikiproject subpage. Reminds me of the Slavic-language Wikipedias with links to Facebook, Twitter, and Vkontacte in their sitenotices. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using:{{subst:spa|username}} or {{subst:canvassed|username}} |
- reopened, see wp:MfD talk (permalink). Given only less than a day passed I presume there is no need to relist. - Nabla (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. If it does or does not belong in articles is not a reason to delete it. It is a useful banner that is also used for projectspace. The talk page is the appropriate place to discuss if the banner can be used in certain articles. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
-
- This should only be used in projectspace and userspace. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- In the future it will be on every single page on Wikipedia. Apps are useful. QuackGuru (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- It will? Can you provide a link to where the community approved that? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
-
- The prior discuss was about putting in on a couple of medical articles. Maybe once we can add a banner to just medical articles we will look at doing that for a brief period of time (maybe world health day each year). But not WP wide. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Godsy, yes it will. The WMF does not require consensus. They can put it at the left side under "Tools" or wherever they like. QuackGuru (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
-
- It will? Can you provide a link to where the community approved that? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- In the future it will be on every single page on Wikipedia. Apps are useful. QuackGuru (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- This should only be used in projectspace and userspace. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. I basically agree with QuackGuru. I don't see any genuine harm that the banner does to anything, and I think that it provides useful information for projectspace and on user talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
-
- Following up after reading further comments, I do agree with other editors that the banner is problematic at the top of articles. I get it, that this isn't just any app, but rather a way to provide access to Wikipedia where other ways of access are unavailable, but it does indeed come across as spammy and contrary to WP:NOTADVERT and WP:ELNO when used in article space. Maybe there is a better way to display this kind of notification to readers of articles. But deleting the banner is not the solution. I strongly urge the editors who want to delete it to, instead, start an RfC in which the community could determine the proper (and improper) ways to make readers aware of the existence of the app. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- After reading comments by other editors, I also agree that we should Restrict from article space, at least in its present form. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep User:KATMAKROFAN is becoming disruptive. They have broken 3RR on nominating this template for deletion. It has already been closed twice.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- If this is a template, shouldn't it be discussed at TfD?
It does look to be a complicated blurring of NOTADVERTISING. If I make a better app, can I advertise it too? And the wording conflicts with he notion that Wikipedia should never be considered a reliable source. Has there ever been a discussion establishing a cosensus for this sort of advertising? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
-
-
- In the unlikely event that you do, and it abides by the general open licenses, non-commercial nature of Wikipedia, and has a strong support base — absolutely. However, you won't. This app is over 5 years in the making, and has several independent support teams from within Wikipedia, from Kiwix, and from the WMF. It is not something you could likely replicate. We could discuss hosting the package file on Wikimedia-servers and to avoid Google in that way, but so far that discussion hasn't even been raised.Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yup the app was developed by the Wikimedia community. If you wanted to make a better version would love to work with you User:SmokeyJoe. We are looking for more volunteer programmers. Not sure what language it is written in but happy to connect you with the others who are working on further improvements. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- It does appear that the app is: (1) Free; (2) non profit; (3) WMF sponsored; (4) WMF branded. These things are good. Not good is that it is not clear that: (5) everything is open source; (6) information is easily found here, on Wikipedia, or Meta; (7) the banner app takes the reader offsite immediately; (8) there is no opt-out of seeing it; (9) the app documentation over-implies the reliability of information on Wikipedia. I would think that this banner should not be addable (or removable) on mainspace pages by any editor, but should be boilerplated like other WMF notices. I still can't find where this should be centrally discussed and explained. I don't think MfD is the right place for this. Can this be continued elsewhere? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- (5) Yes everything is open source (6) "We have an offline version of our healthcare content" means that all information can be found on Wikipedia (if the internet is working in you area of the world which of course is often not the case in much of the world) (7) We could have the banner redirect to a WP page first (8) okay sure but it is only on one page (9) how does it over imply reliability of WP? In fact it says "Please keep in mind that this is volunteer generated content. While we try our best to make it as accurate as possible it is not perfect. Thus we request that you use common sense." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- It sounds good. I can see myself using it. I'd like to follow what's happening. I think it should be documented. Where? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
-
-
- WP:MED/App is mostly were the on WP development takes place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
-
- So far the application to articles has been minor and more or less a trial (I was not aware of it). With more support and given some time, the proper venue may be the VP. As you say this is probably the wrong venue to discuss it, so we can hopefully close this MfD soon and prepare for wide-spread discussion. I'm happy to look into the issues you raise, potentially building a landing page on-wiki that can direct users to the download page and to detail how they can get involved. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
-
- It sounds good. I can see myself using it. I'd like to follow what's happening. I think it should be documented. Where? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- (5) Yes everything is open source (6) "We have an offline version of our healthcare content" means that all information can be found on Wikipedia (if the internet is working in you area of the world which of course is often not the case in much of the world) (7) We could have the banner redirect to a WP page first (8) okay sure but it is only on one page (9) how does it over imply reliability of WP? In fact it says "Please keep in mind that this is volunteer generated content. While we try our best to make it as accurate as possible it is not perfect. Thus we request that you use common sense." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- It does appear that the app is: (1) Free; (2) non profit; (3) WMF sponsored; (4) WMF branded. These things are good. Not good is that it is not clear that: (5) everything is open source; (6) information is easily found here, on Wikipedia, or Meta; (7) the banner app takes the reader offsite immediately; (8) there is no opt-out of seeing it; (9) the app documentation over-implies the reliability of information on Wikipedia. I would think that this banner should not be addable (or removable) on mainspace pages by any editor, but should be boilerplated like other WMF notices. I still can't find where this should be centrally discussed and explained. I don't think MfD is the right place for this. Can this be continued elsewhere? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yup the app was developed by the Wikimedia community. If you wanted to make a better version would love to work with you User:SmokeyJoe. We are looking for more volunteer programmers. Not sure what language it is written in but happy to connect you with the others who are working on further improvements. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- In the unlikely event that you do, and it abides by the general open licenses, non-commercial nature of Wikipedia, and has a strong support base — absolutely. However, you won't. This app is over 5 years in the making, and has several independent support teams from within Wikipedia, from Kiwix, and from the WMF. It is not something you could likely replicate. We could discuss hosting the package file on Wikimedia-servers and to avoid Google in that way, but so far that discussion hasn't even been raised.Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
-
- Keep per previous rationales. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- delete, distracting large banner that I apparently can't turn off. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please explain why this is at all a rationale for deletion. I'm unable to turn off your userpage, yet that is not grounds to delete it. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- As banners come it is actually very small. And much less distracting than many. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- @CFCF: if you don't want to see my user page, then you don't click on the link? there is a difference between article-space and user-space. @Doc James: it makes no sense that I have to look at after I have seen it dozens of times. add a class to the banner so I can turn it off in my personal css. for example, change the
class="plainlinks"
toclass="plainlinks advert"
or whatever. just something that I can use as a key for controlling the appearance in my personal css. I never thought I would see a day when WP would have banner ads that couldn't be turned off. Frietjes (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)- Sure User:Frietjes done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- thank you, this works now. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sure User:Frietjes done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- @CFCF: if you don't want to see my user page, then you don't click on the link? there is a difference between article-space and user-space. @Doc James: it makes no sense that I have to look at after I have seen it dozens of times. add a class to the banner so I can turn it off in my personal css. for example, change the
- As banners come it is actually very small. And much less distracting than many. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - This is transcluded to approximately 15 pages, one of which is an article. In regard to its use in the mainspace: Displaying a maintenance-esque banner template that serves as an advertisement at the top of articles is basically unprecedented to my knowledge and seemingly lacking community consensus. Furthermore, it is a violation of WP:ELNO numbers 5, 8, and possibly 12, and the general spirit of WP:EL (i.e. "All external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions.") — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- It says "We have an offline version of our healthcare content." Readers can now use an app to read healthcare content. This is amazing. QuackGuru (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Looking at "5", the app does not sell anything and the app contains no adverting. "8" it does not require any plugins "12" does not apply either as the app is not an open wiki. This appears a little like argueing that "Download as PDF" and "create a book" fail the spirit of WP:EL. They simply do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- In regard to 5: chiefly the similar apps to the right and the google chrome advertisement at the top (at least for me as I'm not using chrome), and even the links to the left to a certain point, are advertisements. In regard to 8: The app is an external application, and rich media is mentioned which states "Try to avoid directly linking to any content that requires special software, or an add-on to a browser." In regard to 12: the app is likely a mirror or fork of Wikipedia. Even with the older wording, before the usage of app became what it has, they still clearly apply. Furthermore, the banner is generally inappropriate for the mainspace per WP:NOTADVERT (especially without explicit consensus for it), as is mentioned above. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Doc James: My objection basically boils down to this: If this banner is to be displayed at the top of articles or article talk pages, the community needs to approve it. I agree with SmokeyJoe above that I see a lot of positive things in regard to the app. I also think the mention by CFCF of hosting the app download locally would be preferable. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- We have an apk separate from the app store that can be side loaded. This can all be downloaded from the Kiwix website (so could probably also come from Commons). The problem with side loading is that on android phones one needs to by pass a bunch of warnings. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. I think that both SmokeyJoe and Godsy are making very helpful observations here. It seems increasingly to me that the real issue is not one of deletion, and I continue to favor a consensus of "keep" in this MfD. Instead, the issues are about revising and improving the banner, and about determining its optimal use. What I see at Diabetes mellitus type 2 is commendable in terms of intent, and offensive (to me at least) in terms of looking very WP:NOT. I think that eventually there will have to be a community-wide discussion to determine the proper implementation in article space, but it would be premature to do so now. Instead, it seems to me that there is a lot of need for wider discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/App. I strongly encourage editors to discuss these non-deletion issues there now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- We have an apk separate from the app store that can be side loaded. This can all be downloaded from the Kiwix website (so could probably also come from Commons). The problem with side loading is that on android phones one needs to by pass a bunch of warnings. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Looking at "5", the app does not sell anything and the app contains no adverting. "8" it does not require any plugins "12" does not apply either as the app is not an open wiki. This appears a little like argueing that "Download as PDF" and "create a book" fail the spirit of WP:EL. They simply do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- It says "We have an offline version of our healthcare content." Readers can now use an app to read healthcare content. This is amazing. QuackGuru (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- keep per QuackGuru and Tryptofish--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I thought a discussion like this would happen soon. I think that it is useful, as Doc James has argued above and from looking at the reviews on Google Play. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- keep - This whole WikiProject Medicine is pretty unique and very amazing, actually. Within a few short years the medical content of Wikipedia has improved so much that it is benefiting thousands (millions?) of people worldwide. Now there is even an offline App for it which is also totally awesome. As this is a unique effort and a great achievement, I think we should be open to allowing this "exception" of having this kind of banner on some of the articles (and if possible even on all health articles for one day of the year, like User:Doc James suggested). If folks don't like the size or appearance of the banner, then be all means suggest a viable alternative. But until then, I strongly vote for keep. EvMsmile (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Restrict from article space I think slapping this advertisement on top of articles like Toilet is a poor presentation of encyclopedic content to readers. No issue using it on talk pages, project pages, etc. If the community wants to advertise something a dismiss-able banner for readers would be better, after seeking a consensus. — xaosflux Talk 16:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Is dismissible now per above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Doc James It appears that a hack can be put in for a logged in user to hide it, but that is far from dismissible. For example, I just opened a private browser instance to Toilet to see the page as a random reader - I see the advertisement, but no way to dismiss it. — xaosflux Talk 05:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Is dismissible now per above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment This banner appears to have some image issues as well, it includes images that require attribution, however the description is being forcibly redirected to an external commercial website. Wikipedia:Alternative text for images#Links and attribution says Links should not be suppressed for any image that requires attribution. — xaosflux Talk 17:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Restrict from article namespace - Lack of reasonable dismissability is a concern, but a secondary one. It has been shown above that this banner doesn't comply with several policies and guidelines. This makes community approval at a venue with wide visibility and participation, such as the village pump, neccesary if this is to be used within the article namespace.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
December 26, 2016[edit]
User:B3430715/Userboxes/privacy[edit]
Per the discussion at DRV (log), it was found that this userbox was not removable under CSD criteria. Therefore, I am opening an MfD for this box as requested by the editors at DRV. - This opening is procedural in nature, and I hold no view on the deletion of this page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Offensive, divisive, and serving no project related purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Approximately 10 contributors transclude this to their userpage. I believe PRISM (surveillance program) is what's being called "America's bullshit".— Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- If so, it is too subtle, and still is not project related, crosses WP:NOTADVOCACY. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- The left image, i.e. File:PRISM logo.jpg, is the logo of the program, and it directly links to PRISM (surveillance program).— Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now pointed out, it is obvious. Too subtle for someone unaware of PRISM (surveillance program), what jumped out was calling America the expletive. Non-project related political offence can be tolerated, but should be done more diplomatically. A rewording could bring this userbox back from across the line. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- The left image, i.e. File:PRISM logo.jpg, is the logo of the program, and it directly links to PRISM (surveillance program).— Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- If so, it is too subtle, and still is not project related, crosses WP:NOTADVOCACY. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. While I agree with the sentiment, we're here to build an encyclopedia, and this doesn't advance that goal. There's no shortage of other, more appropriate, forums for users to express their political views. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:POLEMIC. While reasonable expressions of opinion are fine in userspace, this crosses the line from a statement of opinion into "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities" which aren't allowed. Alternate wording like "this user is opposed to the US government's surveillance programs" would be acceptable. Hut 8.5 10:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Hut 8.5 already nailed what I was thinking... chill-- (talk) (c) 20:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – I was the one who submitted this to deletion review. Ultimately, it's not important to me whether or not this userbox exists. What is important is the community's true commitment to NPOV, which I just haven't seen in this case. WP:UBX/POLITICS and related pages carry a big warning box at top which states in part "Please remember that the purpose of userboxes is to tell people about yourself as a Wikipedian (an editor of an encyclopedia), not as a human being in general". I've backed far away from political topics due to the countless cases of cherry-picking sources to produce a party-line narrative, often without regard for any inherent POV baggage found in those sources. On the one hand, too many corners of the encyclopedia glorify the U.S. government and flavor-of-the-month media-darling politicians at every possible turn. On the other hand, many non-mainstream topics are heavily weighted towards the opinions of the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center and similar, often at the expense of actually covering the topic. Given that context, perhaps this userbox DOES allow users to express who they are as a Wikipedian, unless "being a Wikipedian" means worshipping officialdom and expecting others to follow in lockstep.
- We appear to be using the bluntness of this userbox's message as an excuse to single it out, all the while other userboxen which may violate WP:NOTADVOCACY or WP:POLEMIC escape similar scrutiny. My poster child is User:Apollonius 1236/userboxes/Strong ProLeader. Stating that one "strongly supports the policies and views of Barack Obama" could be seen as highly divisive, especially given that Trump's election has been viewed in part as a rejection of his presidency. Or are such views exempt from scrutiny because of Obama's "popularity"? I'm quite certain that if I were to (perhaps falsely) claim that I "strongly support the policies and views of" David Duke or Willis Carto instead of a laundry list of media-darling politicians, someone would be putting that userbox under this same microscope. Perhaps Hut 8.5's suggestion of alternate wording is the way to go here. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- My problem with this userbix is that it reads as broadly anti-American. I see now that this was not intentional, but is due to clumsy lacking articulation. That is not sufficient excuse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- A huge difference between your poster child and this is that the poster child is worded positively, this is worded negatively. Stating who or what you love is great. Statements of hate are not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I'm getting genuinely concerned on how politically correct this place is becoming. JAGUAR 14:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Closed discussions[edit]
For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.