Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). |
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 and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.
Filtered versions of the page are available at
Information on the process
[edit]What may be nominated for deletion here:
- Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 5 disambiguation pages) and the various Talk: namespaces
- Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
- Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.
Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.
Before nominating a page for deletion
[edit]Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:
Deleting pages in your own userspace |
|
Duplications in draftspace? |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
Alternatives to MfD |
|
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 – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
- Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
- 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:
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]V | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 58 | 58 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.
Archived discussions
[edit]A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.
Current discussions
[edit]- 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.
October 23, 2024
[edit]WP:NOTWEBHOST violation GrayStorm(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.) 04:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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?
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Ensuring that the same rules apply to everyone isn't 'disruptive'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- I'm astounded if you have never read WP:5P. jp×g🗯️ 09:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 saysUse of a user page as a personal web page unconnected with Wikipedia's mission may be a speedy deletion criterion
andother 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 saysPersonal 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)- 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)
- 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) anda 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 sayif 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)
- 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:
- 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)
- Wikipedia's deletion policy says:
- 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)
- Ensuring that the same rules apply to everyone isn't 'disruptive'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- Delete Supermario applies. Not just U5 but U5 rendered as wide as the canyon. SerialNumber54129 10:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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) anda 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)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 uncollapsingJzG'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)No offence, btw. SerialNumber54129 14:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Struck in this edit SerialNumber54129 14:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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:
- 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. TarnishedPathtalk 15:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- What WP:NOTWEBHOST actually says is this:
- 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)
- Delete - as using wikipedia for web hosting. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 talk \\ 17:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- How is it relevant to a Wikipedia article? Mztourist (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- How is it relevant to a Wikipedia article? Mztourist (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
October 19, 2024
[edit]This essay is unclear and not useful. The issues described in the 2016 deletion discussion were never resolved. Users arguing for keep and the discussion closer suggested editing the essay for clarity, which has never happened. I regard the clarity problems as inherent in this failed attempt at humorous presentation and attempts to edit to ameliorate the issue would necessarily result in a wholly different page. There are better essays on the relevant issues. See Category:Wikipedia essays about experts and expertise and any number of elaborations on WP:DUE, including Wikipedia:Academic bias, Wikipedia:Neutral and proportionate point of view, Wikipedia:Scientific point of view. Daask (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Unlike policies or guidelines, essays need not have consensus, nor do they even have to be good. The fact that it would still benefit from revision to make it clearer, and the fact that better essays also exist, are not valid reasons for deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Completley agree with the above. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep What is the problem being solved with this nomination? It's an accurate essay. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - This is a useless essay. Essays, like drafts, should usually be tolerated even if they do not seem useful, especially if they are marked as {{humor}}, even if we don't think that they are humorous. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep or I'll sic my sword-wielding skeleton army on you, transported from the distant galaxies on DC-10s from the mighty Axis of Cosmological Truth. (Fine and concise essay, and the first time I'd ever heard of this cosmological axis thing. Cool.) Antandrus (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep. It's not a good essay IMO. Confusing -- I don't really get what the author is on about. It's listed as a humor page, but its not very funny IMO. There is a level of quality required for essays in mainspace. If an essay just isn't good enough, it should be userfied. Is this essay that bad? Not bad enough to delete IMO, altho it's close. Herostratus (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I'm not sure what this essay is about, but I don't think there's any policy violations occuring with it either, not least ones necessitating deletion. JavaHurricane 07:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- @JavaHurricane and Tryptofish: I'm confused by your appeal to policy or "valid reasons" for deletion. There isn't anything but WP:DEL-REASON, which itself states that it is not exhaustive. On project pages, we have nothing but WP:IAR and WP:PURPOSE to guide us. I nominated it because I thought this page was a net negative to the encyclopedia, and as far as I know that's a valid reason for pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Daask (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- You are certainly entitled to make a case for your opinion that it's a net negative. But that's your opinion, as opposed to a violation of policy by the essay. And, as your opinion, other editors are just as entitled to respond to it with their opinions, which, in this case, are starting to "snow". And that, in turn, is why we have WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is incorrect that on project pages we have nothing to guide us To delete a projectspace essay, that page would normally need to manifest
use of the ... project ... namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace
(WP:DEL-REASON#13). That established separate "policy" for a projectspace essay is WP:ESSAYPAGES.Essays can be ... short theses, ... funny, ... or opinionated
. —Alalch E. 18:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- @JavaHurricane and Tryptofish: I'm confused by your appeal to policy or "valid reasons" for deletion. There isn't anything but WP:DEL-REASON, which itself states that it is not exhaustive. On project pages, we have nothing but WP:IAR and WP:PURPOSE to guide us. I nominated it because I thought this page was a net negative to the encyclopedia, and as far as I know that's a valid reason for pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Daask (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- WP:SNOW keep. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:E40E:82FD:34F5:80E2 (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Userfy as an unhelpful and confusing essay which isn't funny. I don't see this as being helpful for the Wikipedia namespace. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep/Userfy - It's poorly written and not funny but that is not enough to delete. But it's quality level might be better for user space vs mains. PackMecEng (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
All prior XfDs for this page: |
This page is a how-to guide on how to get banned from Wikipedia in the fastest possible time. It exists solely to encourage readers to violate Wikipedia policies. This page detracts from our purpose of building an encyclopedia and is forbidden by Wikipedia:User pages § Advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit. Daask (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - This essay does not encourage readers to violate Wikipedia policies. It is sarcastic, and tells readers two ways that they will get indeffed in a hurry. By the way, they won't get banned. Vandals and trolls are very seldom actually banned because they aren't worth the formality of a ban proceeding at WP:ANI, and no one will disagree with the admin who blocks them as not here, which encompasses a multitude of sins. Essays, especially humorous essays, are usually tolerated even if we disagree with them, and I agree with the real message of this essay, which is that these are two quick ways to get indeffed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's hard for any reader to differentiate whether an author is sarcastically recommending bad behavior or actually recommending bad behavior. See Poe's law. The project content guideline I cited above states that user pages may not contain "
Statements or pages that seem to advocate, encourage, or condone... vandalism
". Whether the author intended to encourage it or not, their words certainly seem to do just that. Daask (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)- Poe's law is irrelevant, as the essay states that it is humor. FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's hard for any reader to differentiate whether an author is sarcastically recommending bad behavior or actually recommending bad behavior. See Poe's law. The project content guideline I cited above states that user pages may not contain "
- Clarificatory comment This is a copy+paste of a project-space essay that was the subject of an MfD at some point by Liz, who stated that
I have no problem if this is moved to User space but I don't think it should be in project space
. I userfied it in the interests of preservation of info and in protest at the dry humorlessness of some of the !votes, which were coming off as a bit WP:BITEy towards the author. - While I am of course fully aware that I am now responsible for this content, I’d also like it known that I did not write it as such, because if I ever applied for advanced perms it might lead to awkward questions.
- Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of the prior history. There was strong consensus to delete in the last conversation, although several people did comment that they would be fine with userfying. Daask (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. There is a marginal but non-negligible chance that the essay could inspire vandalism. This detriment is not outweighed by any benefit coming from the essay. Et cetera. See all the other delete !votes in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia ban speedrun. Projectspace, userspace, same difference.—Alalch E. 16:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep . The article is clearly joking in tone. In fact, the essay explicitly says "Do not do this no matter what"
- So, I think that this article should be kept on the grounds of allowing humor, same as articles like WP:Ignore every single rule and WP:APF FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Additional argument: I got a bit of a smirk out of reading the article, so I believe it has value as humor. FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete is this the Wikipedia equivalent of Hipster racism? lol. Just because you say that you're giving tips "ironically", you're still inspiring vandalism. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's giving tips on how to get banned.
- The vandals inspired by this would be reverted and gotten rid of easily. FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
The vandals inspired by this
- So you're admiring this page will inspire vandalism? -1ctinus📝🗨 16:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- No. I'm just entertaining your argument, which in my opinion is completely ridiculous. FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand how me posing a hypothetical (in my opinion, absurd) situation where you're right can be interpreted as me agreeing with you. FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- No. I'm just entertaining your argument, which in my opinion is completely ridiculous. FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Alalch E. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 02:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
September 22, 2024
[edit]Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Aramea |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC) 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)
|
Old business
[edit]Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 01:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC) ended today on 26 October 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. |