The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joseph R. Leith

User:Joseph R. Leith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

abandoned userpage created solely to promote the authors work, which is apparently not notable enough for an article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as promotion by a non-contributor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete User has no other significant contributions beyond this page since the end of October - textbook self promotion. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 11:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was deleted by RHaworth. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:American Civil War/Selected picture/to do

Portal:American Civil War/Selected picture/to do (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Very outdated, no longer needed. This isn't the to-do for the portal, it's the to-do for a subsection of the portal. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As page creator. Concur with everything User:Sven Manguard says above. That user lately has been overhauling a portal created and brought to FP status many years ago. I appreciate the effort that user has been applying to the portal. BusterD (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Personal life

Portal:Personal life (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This portal has a poorly defined scope, seeming to touch on a large number of fields (biology, sociology, human rights), and the jumble of only tangentially related items on the page reflects this lack of scope. Also, it is malformed and does not have rotating content (i.e. is heavily underpopulated). Sven Manguard Wha? 03:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a pseudo article violating WP:No original research. No support for Sven's style preferences being a reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, synthesis of tangentially related articles, not what a portal's for. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Optometry

Portal:Optometry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Malformed portal. A portal is composed of several sections of rotating content, including selected articles, selected images, and other relevant information. This is a few static paragraphs and some images. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Terrible reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really SmokeyJoe? Does this look at all like a portal to you? It doesn't have a selected article section (or a selected biography section). It doesn't have a section that lists related WikiProjects, or a topics section, or at "Things you can do" section, or a DYK section, or a related portals section, or an "Associated Wikimedia" section, or a selected quote section. While almost no portal has all of these, all portals need to have some of these. It doesn't use the portal construction templates. The person who built this created something that tried to look like a portal, but is more of a gallery. Quite simply, it's not a portal. That's not a terrible reason for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Formed incorrectly, and possibly out of process. Not created properly, not maintained, not liked to most articles. All valid reasons to delete a portal, per precedent. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sven & TPH. What makes a portal "malformed" or "incorrectly formed" or "out of process"? If these are real and accepted notions, then you should link to the relevant policy. Sven's view that a portal must necessarily have rotating content seems a style bias inclined to readers attracted to flashing lights and catchy jingles, and unsuited to readers looking for things more considered. If he can't cite a policy for a need for rotating content, then I don't think this is a nomination worth considering.

  If the Portal seems "incomplete", as Sven argues, then why has the option of "impove it" been unaddressed?

  When TPH says "per precendent", is this a citable precedent? I don't remember any trackable Portal precendents at MfD.

  While I am completely unconvinced that Portal space has any positive net value, and have previously supported TPH's idea of deleting the entire PortalSpace, I simply can't agree to an argument to delete something because it wasn't created right, according to the nominator's uncited definition of right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• SmokeyJoe Look at the portal in edit mode. See how it's actually one giant table with formatting in it. That's not how portals are constructed. There's actually something called Template:Box portal skeleton that is what is used to build portals. If you look at the edit view for a properly built portal, it isn't using tables, it's using a series of templates. That not only makes everything look cleaner, but prevents the display from breaking easily, as there are a whole bunch of things that you can't do inside of tables without breaking them. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. So by "malformed portal" you mean "horribly and hopelessly formatted", and you suggest Portal:Massachusetts as a better example, and please see Template:Box portal skeleton. Offer userification, should someone want to attempt to reuse the text or image choices. Delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I support this deletion because this is a portal with a two year-history for a portal with only a minute amount of edits ([1]) and clearly no wikiproject support. LT910001 (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Glaisher [talk] 17:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Negros Island

Portal:Negros Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This portal was created in September 2012 with a message saying it was under construction. Over a year later it has not been worked on at all and is empty. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. I do not see any consensus to delete--count the votes, and note that both sides have valid argument, and all that spells NO CONSENSUS. STALEDRAFT applies in principle, but as participants here have pointed out (thank you Newyorkbrad) there is a greater interest besides the intent of the editor who created it: at the risk of sounding like a New Critic, let us not fall for the intentional fallacy; I'm more a poststructuralist, and hope that the creator take no offense at a passing reference to the work of Barthes. TenPoundHammer, your diligence is appreciated, but SmokeyJoe's eloquent rant (!) was really not too long to read, and I think that the MfD process is better reserved for such things that actually interfere one way or another with the way things ought to work, like fantasy reality competitions and such.

As a side note, I am pleased to see "Rush" listed as a "dubious contender"--yes, if it's a verb in the imperative, it fits the bill. How do we decide? Ask the band? What if the band splits up and members disagree? No, in both cases we'll fall victim to the same intentional fallacy. Ah, the philosophy of grammar.

Pardon me for bungling the paperwork by way of this "archive" template; after all these years I still don't know how to properly close an MfD. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archive templates changed to the {{subst:Mfd top}} and {{subst:Mfd bottom}} templates, which can be abbreviated with {{subst:mt}} and {{subst:mb}}. Cunard (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jnestorius/List of Bands whose names form complete sentences

User:Jnestorius/List of Bands whose names form complete sentences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

List of unclear purpose, untouched since 2010. Page history suggests this was once an article, but I can't find the history. WP:STALEDRAFT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like WP:OR, but it is not so bad to be worth deleting. Just blank it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @SmokeyJoe: Why are you always so averse to deleting stuff in userspace? What benefit do we gain from blanking vs. deleting? Aren't they achieving pretty much the same goal, except one leaves behind a blank skeleton that just takes up space? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not averse to deleting stuff in userspace if the stuff is so inappropriate that it should have never been created, or there is a reason why it should no longer be accessable. WP:UP#COPIES, FAKEARTICLES, promotion by a SPA, and other things are very good reasons to delete.

  I am averse to needless insults to other editors by deleting their workspace without the courtesy of at least talking to them first. This applies to this case.

  I am averse to enabling userspace busybodies, users who peruse others workspace with the apparent aim of restricting others use of userspace to their views of what it should be. Instead, users should be free to be creative in userspace, as long as it is related to the project and not actually problematic (issues of promotion, copyright, libel, etc).

  I am averse to the perpetuation of busywork, which includes the nomination of things that could be more efficiently blanked. MfD is an important forum where important decisions are made, with long term ramifications. These important decisions are few and far between. Many nominations are simply not worthy. Nominations with half baked rationales, and where the author has not been engaged, are especially unworthy. If you were to nominate every userpage as bad as this one, you would complete disrupt MfD so much that it would be unworkable.

  What do we gain from blanking instead of deleting? We gain not inconveniencing the author by not allowing him access to his edit history. If it is deleted, and the author wants to review what it was, he has to ask for help, which is a burden compared to allowing him to access the history immediately. If the author is active, deleting content without talking to him first is rude. If the author is inactive, needless deletions are unwelcoming for them on their return.

  Blanking and deleting use the same space. Deleting does not mean deleting. Deleting is actually worse because it creates unimportant log entries. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• tl;dr Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reserve MfD for things needing deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Most people would agree that this is something that does need deletion. You're usually the only one saying "no, don't delete it, just blank it" in cases like this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't need deletion, because userspace pages don't need to have a clear purpose to others. You haven't even asked the user (I presume, I don't see that you did). Untouched since a long time is a reason for {{Inactive userpage blanked}}, not a deletion discussion. Users are allowed to have notes pages. This page could be a list of topics the user would like to ensure exist in mainspace, being approached in an eccentric manner. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - UP:Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages and speedy delete WP:G13 show a strong community consensus to delete a page under development to be included as an article where that page has not been edited in months. The history of the above listed MfD page[2] shows that the page has been worked on by the community. Over the years, the page could not be brought to a point to where it could be included as an article in main space. Jnestorius has not edited the page in three years, and edited Wikipedia on 12 November 2013,[3] after being notified on 10 November 2013 of this MfD.[4] It is not true that Jnestorius has not been engaged about the page. Rather, the situation is that Jnestorius has simply chosen not to be engaged. Blanking is not an alternate to deletion any more than deletion is an alternate to blanking. Each outcome needs to be supported by arguments. If this page were notes related Jnestorius's Wikipedia work and activities per WP:UPYES, then Jnestorius may have the page in his/her user pages without regard to time. Under such a situation, blanking at MfD may be a reasonable outcome depending on the circumstances. However, those proposing to blank this page have not shown a need to blank the page based on the content of the user page and process. While the user has an interest in managing their user pages, the community has a strong and important interest in managing community project pages. Focusing only on a perception of what the user's interest might or might not be does not take into account the actual user's interest or take into account the community's interest. There is strong community consensus to delete a page under development to be included as an article where that page has not been edited in months. There is agreement in this MfD that this page meets that criteria and the page should be deleted. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Jreferee, you misrepresent the consensus behind G13. The consensus related to tens of thousands of abandoned, mostly thoroughly hopeless AfC submissions, and thought some suggested it, there was definitely not a consensus to extend the cull into userspace.

  Part of the support for the G13 consensus was that mass nominating abandoned drafts at MfD was not a viable option, and it is similarly a bad idea to welcome nominations for random abandoned userpages with nothing actualyl wrong with them.

  You assert that there is something actually wrong with this page. If so, there is a reason for this nomination. However, I wish that the nominator would substantiate what is wrong with the page at the time of the nomination.

  On your assertion that something is wrong with the page, I don't agree. User_talk:Jnestorius/2008#List_of_Bands_whose_names_form_complete_sentences & User talk:Jnestorius/List of Bands whose names form complete sentences explicitly demonstrate other's interest, as does the editing of the userpage by other editors.

  Blanking is obviously an alternative to deletion, I can't imagine why you would deny that, although your sentence construction (tautologically connecting false statements) makes it very unclear as to what you are saying. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Interesting compilation of links to notable material, reasonable leeway for a productive editor. It is clear that User:Jnestorius is not intending this for mainspace, and it is not necessary nor forbidden for userspace material to be intended for mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Most delete rationales provided are invalid. Article rules such as no original research don't apply to userspace, and G13 has nothing to do with userspace either. This bitey behavior is getting out of hand here. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is hardly WP:BITE. It's WP:STALEDRAFT. What do we gain from keeping this, when it's clear that the editor has let it gather dust for six years? How much staler does it need to get? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So, now that Wikipedia has become mature, and there is more to do in improving the quality of existing coverage than building new content, your WikiMedian philosophy is decidedly falling towards meta:Immediatism, away from the opposing meta:Eventualism, and consequently, you see no value in dusty drafty old ideas? Would you agree with that that? I can respect that, but still disagree with you imposing your philosophy on others. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am the user in question here. The page is clearly trivia and as such will never be in the main article space. If some parallel trivia namespace, wikiproject, or wikimedia project ever exists it could be transwikied to there. I will leave others to debate how the dryer points of wikipolicy apply. I have an offline copy, so I won't cry or anything if it gets deleted. FWIW, it has been linked to a few times from outside Wikipedia. jnestorius^(talk) 23:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep STALEDRAFT exists, but I am uncomfortable applying it to things in active editor's userspaces, because it's. I'd rather point out that the draft has been sitting there and ask the editor if they want to keep it or not. If they do, leave it, it's not causing any harm. Going to MfD before talking to the user about it (if the user is active, of course), strikes me as being unnecessarily rude. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was going to close this as no consensus, but given that the hosting user says this "will never be in the main article space," it's not an active draft, which brings us into WP:NOTWEBHOST territory. Yes, it's interesting, but that's beside the point. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Acceptable in userspace, and a good corollary to Geoffrey Pullum's list of book titles that aren't grammatical constituents. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted on privacy grounds/G11 and as part of a pattern of abuse of WP as a free webhost for a non-WP-related project across several namespaces. Acroterion (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yixian.lee.20111

User:Yixian.lee.20111 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A combination of blatant advertising and misuse of the project "This wiki page is the collaboration between Accenture's staff and students from local university to provide consultation of to our client", with a large number of sections in what I believe to be French. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accenture Collaboration, an exact duplicate of this userpage in the mainspace. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedy-deleted it here too: Accenture can afford their own webhosting, and it's a blatant misuse of Wikipedia resources. Also, the French is complete nonsense. Additionally, it contains inappropriate links to email addresses for private individuals who shouldn't have their addresses spammed here, so it's deletable on privacy grounds. I've deleted the AfC as well. Acroterion (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikitini/Jonathan Cheban

User:Wikitini/Jonathan Cheban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned draft. Note: not the same person as in Jonathan Cheban. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment both Chebans are definitely the same person. The difference in birth date is a plausible error. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, incomplete form of the real article, and has nothing to add. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, assuming same subject as Jonathan Cheban and with nothing to merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:STALEDRAFT —Anne Delong (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jon Roland

User:Jon Roland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Apparent recreation of a 2006 AFDed article which was G4ed and G11ed once each and subsequently protected from creation. Last edit was in 2007. Not 100% sure it qualifies for a promotional CSD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as re-creation? But an admin needs to check if it's the same. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The reasons for deleting this article from articlespace do not apply to this userpage in userspace. "WP:COI, article was created by the subject of the article; no assertion of notability, no sources other than the subject's own websites; and the article is about a failed third party candidate from an already-concluded election." Userpages are normally created by their own subjects, they are not required to assert notability, and they are not expected to have sources. Thus, the deletion of similar content at AfD is irrelevant to whether the user is allowed to write about himself on a userpage. If there are concerns about promotional content, they can be resolved just by removing the external links. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G4 says that such re-creations in user space are only permitted for explicit improvement to the article. Being unable to see the deleted article, I can't tell you if that's the case or not. That's why I threw the tag on there, so an admin could have a look and see. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CSD#G4 states that a page can be deleted under G4 if it is "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." The reasons given for deletion of the page at AfD don't apply to this same content in userspace. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You just quoted what I intended to quote - "but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy." That is, if it is moved to user space only to get around deletion policy, it does qualify as G4. (Reason for deletion no longer applies would be if an unknown actor became famous later, for example.) So, if there has been no improvement and no effort at improvement, then it is only here to circumvent deletion policy and explicitly qualifies for speedy deletion. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• If not a re-creation, it is absolutely deletable as a stale draft, BTW. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as stale autobiography previously deleted for notability concerns. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Constantinpro/sandbox

User:Constantinpro/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete promotional sandbox being used to recreate promotional article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, at least for now. Although promotional, I don't see that the sandbox article itself is being used for advertising, but rather being used for article development, the very reason for a sandbox. At least one editor is offering help to shape up the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - copyvio as noted by Anne Delong. -- Whpq (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a copyvio of https://www.sparx.org.nz/about . —Anne Delong (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Book:Ayn Rand, George Orwell, Popper, Spying and other subjects

Book:Ayn Rand, George Orwell, Popper, Spying and other subjects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Also nominating Book:Ayn Rand, George Orwell e temas relacionados

As the title of the book reflects, this is a mishmash of different subjects with no obvious theme. Some of the selections are related to surveillance and government oppression, but others (Dickens, Shakespeare, etc.) make no sense for that. The secondary nomination is the same book with a different title. RL0919 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Likewise. Keφr 15:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:S.e.tirado

User:S.e.tirado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User page is user's only edit, and it's from 2011. ... discospinster _talk 20:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - wikipedia is not a web host for publishing one's bio. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:BiH/Dave Smith

User:BiH/Dave Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

no apparent notability & very promotional -- no real chance of an article.; there have been other promotional articles from this admitted paid editor. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of self-promotion (in this case, via a proxy). MER-C 05:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brewcrewer/list of Palestinian ax attacks

User:Brewcrewer/list of Palestinian ax attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian ax attacks on Israelis. Came across it when Googling, so there's that obvious problem. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:FAKEARTICLE for the reasoning above. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tweehtah/Resources Global Professionals

User:Tweehtah/Resources Global Professionals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT from 2009, promotional, user's only contribs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per TenPoundHammer. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 23:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is very unlikely to ever result in a satisfactory article. DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jreferee (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:YesYesY'allBanger/UBX/User Flipmode1

User:YesYesY'allBanger/UBX/User Flipmode1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused userbox. ???^{uest (talk • contribs)} 18:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep being unused is a very weak reason to delete. The user may want to make use of it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unused userbox without a valid image? No, I don't see the value in keeping. The userbox would effectively have to be updated before being used anyway. Editors interested in reviving it can either start from scratch or contact me or another admin willing to undelete. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Are YesYesY'allBanger (talk · contribs) & ?uest (talk · contribs) the same person? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch; it would appear so. The former went inactive just as the latter was getting started, and the former's userpage now redirects to the latter's. G7 probably applies now, though I'll leave that decision to someone else. --BDD (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. YesYesY'allBanger was my old alias. ???^{uest (talk • contribs)} 22:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as the prerogative of the sole author. Could have been deleted using {{db-g7}} or {{db-u1}}. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/PA Differences

Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/PA Differences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No reason to keep around. No discussion. Almost entirely untouched since 2007, except in 2013 when an IP added some nonsense. I see no historical relevance in this, and it's not linked from anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What it shows is that Wikipedians used to engage in fan fiction original research. The IP editing the page further, despite the tag, shows that these things, if kept for the sake of keeping Wikipedian historical records (which I favour), should be kept blanked, or redirected. Page histories are the appropriate place to browse histories, there is no need to keep one of the versions live. No strong objection to deletion, but I think that all such pages (Wikipedian work ultimately not used for good reason) should be blanked, replaced with {{ombox|image = [[File:X mark.svg|30px|link=|alt=]]|text = '''This Harry Potter WikiProject subpage is no longer in use and is kept primarily for historical interest.'''}}, and then redirected to Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter, substituting the WikiProject name for "Harry Potter" for other WikiProjects. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is essentially a draft of a previously deleted article; see AfD. I think WP:STALEDRAFT applies, though I would be open to changing my opinion if project members are interested in keeping it fresh with an eye to republication. The project really should've been informed of this, which I'll do now. I'd request the closer give this some more time in light of this. --BDD (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coalfacesally/A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex

User:Coalfacesally/A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplicate of content deleted at A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex. Nothing suggests this will ever be notable, so the userspace draft can go too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello. I do wonder why you felt it necessary to delete this page. Does it mean that the page came be re-instated at a later date? Also, why is it just up to your advice to delete the page? I note that many pages on Wiki could be up for deletion. As regards the image. On what basis do you recommend it for deletion? I went to some trouble to do as requested - that is to send to wikimedia permissions on the 25th October 2013 Evidence of Permissions of the image. Do you have no contact with the administrational infrastructure for wiki that you can recommend deletion of an image even though I did exactly what was asked on me? I look forward to hearing from you. coalfacesally (talk) (Coalfacesally (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep This is a draft of an article about a film which is unreleased. I supported deleting the article from main space, as it is not yet notable. However, it is quite possible that the film may become notable once it is released. I see no reason to delete this from user space, unless many months have gone by with no development of the article draft, and no evidence of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this actively edited userspace draft. Contrary to the nominator's opinion, reading the article suggests to me the film may become very popular and so meet our populist standards of notability. Indeed, I might go and ... But I have digressed. Thincat (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.