Misplaced Pages

• WP:MFD

• • Deletion today
  • Undeletion
• • Deletion review
  • Deletion log
• Request a copy of a
  deleted article

• today
• all (sorted)
• closing
• log

• today
• all
• closing
• holding

• today
• all
• closing

• today
• all
  • category
• closing
• speedy
• working
• manual

• today
• all
• closing
• log

• today
• all
• closing

• candidates

• all (sorted)
• BLPs

• • Policy
  • Process
  • Guide (Images)
• Administrator guidelines

• v
• t
• e

• If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}} if it is a userpage, or {{db-author}} or {{db-g7}} if it is a draft. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.

• Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.

• Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
• Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
• Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
• User pages about Misplaced Pages-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
• Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.

• Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
• Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.

• It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
• WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Misplaced Pages. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, consider userfication.
• Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.

• Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
• Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Misplaced Pages namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.

• Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

• If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
  For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Misplaced Pages Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

  {{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~

  to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as

  Notice of deletion discussion at ]

  replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
• If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
• If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

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 snow delete. Bencherlite 11:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Common diseases and their treatment

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Common diseases and their treatment (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned AfC space article, not yet eligible for CSD:G13. I found it in response to this help desk comment, and while I don't think it rises to the level of a WP:Medical violation, it probably shouldn't be sitting around either. It is totally unsourced, and would not be useful in writing an article, so there is no reason not to delete it. Monty₈₄₅ 04:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure: I informed the editor who inquired about the AFC page at the help desk that I started this deletion discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 04:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Since every disease in this article seems to require drugs, the content is covered already in Pharmaceutical drug, and it at least has some sources. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Misinformed (calcium carbonate for heart burn?), unreferenced. Leaving this non-article where it can be found is a health risk for users. Maproom (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

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 move and redirect to Thor (film)#Cast. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Darcy Lewis

Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Darcy Lewis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was a minor character in Thor (film). The article's creator apparently decided it was not notable enough for an article and moved it to the incubator back in November, where it has sat without being improved ever since. I poked around looking for a suitable merge target but did not find one. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Move back to Darcy Lewis and redirect to Thor_(film)#Kat Dennings as Darcy Lewis, keep history in case some would like to look into merging. I am uncomfortable in MfD being used to delete pages boldly moved out of mainspace. Darcy Lewis has multiple direct mentions at Thor_(film). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Move back to Darcy Lewis, then redirect to Thor (film)#Cast, per User:SmokeyJoe. -
  

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I was surprised to find we didn't have a list article with full character bios. Joe's idea works for me, if at some point the character warrants a full article the history would still be available. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Move back to Darcy Lewis, then redirect to Thor (film)#Cast, per SmokeyJoe. I don't agree that a full section is justified. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 15:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

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. Bencherlite 21:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Wikimedia Incubator

Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Wikimedia Incubator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At first I halfway suspected this was a joke. In a way it is. This poor draft has been passed around like a blunt at a Snoop Dogg concert, from user space to the abandoned draft project, back to userspace, and just over a year ago came to the incubator where it has not had any substantive edits. Despite all the different users who have given it their time there is not a single reliable source attached, so it is unlikely it would make it in mainspace. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment perhaps it should be a ProjectSpace page? A place to point people who want go suggest creating entire new wikimedia projects at some other process page -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Why that is not really the right answer is simple: The subject of this draft article is already that place. Entire new WMF projects are not developed on Misplaced Pages. Wikimedia Incubator is currently a redirect page that can help users find the information about the WMF incubator. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No way this would stand as an article. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - The last addition to the page was 10 July 2012‎. Despite being located in various spaces, only two editors have contributed to the page and their contributions have not been continuous and not based on reliable sources. The page would not stand as an article. There is no intention that the article can and will be improved, so the page fails the criteria listed at Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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) 22:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Chrishan

Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Chrishan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This unsourced stub was created right in the incubator last year and has had no substantive edits since the one that created it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Concur with nominator. Kumioko (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

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) 18:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Jimbo Matison

Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Jimbo Matison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was moved to the incubator in 2010 and has had no substantive edits in the interval. Incubating clearly has not had the desired effect. Should either be moved back to mainspace or deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

So...delete per WP:SILENCE? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - per WP:ATD-I. I found and added two references to the draft. However, it is not enough to meet wp:GNG, which is probably why the draft has not received continuous collaborative editing as per WP:ATD-I. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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 Snow deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

User:DavidSharpe2013/sandbox

User:DavidSharpe2013/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Using WP as game host. | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Misplaced Pages is not a web host, and games like this do not belong here. TCN7JM 22:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - Misplaced Pages is not a web host for fake reality game shows. -- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - no benefit to the encyclopedia. Let them use facebook. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - Non encyclopedic. Kumioko (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

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 Snow delete JamesBWatson (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Last Mast Standing season 2

User:Last Mast Standing season 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Using WP as a game host. | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Misplaced Pages is not a web host, and games like this do not belong here. TCN7JM 22:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - Misplaced Pages is not a web host for fake reality game shows. -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - no benefit to the encyclopedia. Let them use facebook. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - Non encyclopedic. Kumioko (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

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. Bencherlite 21:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Unfettered

Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Unfettered (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was moved into the incubator in November of last year. There have been no substantive edits in all that time, so incubation appears to have failed in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• keep in incubator until book comes out FishFingersCustard (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That happened in June with the release of the limited edition, you can now get it as an e-book for ten bucks . It's just that, like so many other items in the incubator, once it was put there nobody ever updated it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be an argument for updating and moving to mainspace and having an AfD. I doubt it's notable, but AfD would be the better place to have that discussion. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that as a suitable alternative to permanently "incubating" it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - The notable discussion has already taken place. AfD1 consensus looks like delete to me due to lack of in-depth coverage in a source that is both reliable and independent. However, the AfD was closed and the page was moved to the incubator in November 2012. WP:ATD-I requires continuous collaborative editing, but Article Incubator/Unfettered has not received that since being moved from AfD to the incubator. There is no interest in updating the page. Both AfD and incubator failed to turn up enough source material for the article and the standards of AfD (lack of notability) and incubator (lack of continuous collaborative editing) both tell us that it is time to delete the page. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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. The page has not been edited in any substantive way since being incubated and hasn't been improved. --> "incubation" not having the desired effect. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Bugei Ryūha Daijiten

Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Bugei Ryūha Daijiten (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was created in 2007 and moved to the incubator in May after an AFD in which nobody advocated incubating... It has not been edited in any substantive way since then, so clearly "incubation" is not having the desired effect. That being the case it should either be moved back to mainspace or deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• keep seems to have enough sources. most people don't know about the incubator so it's no surprise no one added to it. moving to namespace will be just the thing to get eyes on the article. FishFingersCustard (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete This seemed to be the consensus at AfD and the article hasn't been improved. Most of the votes are for delete and the keep arguments are unsupported claims that the topic is important. Jakejr (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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 Move to mainspace. Consensus is that the topic has significant coverage per WP:GNG, even though principal photography has not yet started. The draft clearly is ready for article space. WP:NFF and a fear of deletion appears to be preventing established editors from improving Misplaced Pages in this case. Misplaced Pages rules should not work to discourage established editors from collectively working together to add notable, stand-alone content to article space. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Ant-Man (film)

Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Ant-Man (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an odd case. From what I can see this article was created in the incubator as opposed to being moved into it. This film seems to be in "development hell" having been in the pre-production stage for some seven years. They're planning to start casting it sometime this year. After 13 months of "incubation" we should be able to determine if this is notable enough to be moved to mainspace, or should be deleted per WP:FFILM. (and yes, I realize that is "just an essay" but it is a good guide to what kinds of unmade films we should have articles on) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Addendum: per my remarks below, I would consider merging with Ant-Man a viable alternative as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. The article has been and continues to be in active development by numerous editors. The film itself is moving forward, with new information being regularly added. Unfortunately, project guidelines do not permit the creation of film articles, until filming has begun or unless there are special circumstances. Many other film articles have been created this way with great success, including: Thor: The Dark World, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy (film) and most recently The Avengers: Age of Ultron.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

From the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead of Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator: "Incubation is not designed for creating or developing new articles outside of mainspace." It is for articles that were already created and subject to a deletion discussion, as an alternative to deletion. It is not meant to be the permanent location of any content, and at the pace this film is moving it is possible it will never end up being made. It's happened before, for example the Dark Crystal sequel had a director attached in 2006, yet it was never made. This is probably a good candidate for just merging with the article on the character, it can be spun back off easily enough if and when the movie actually starts production. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not meant to be permanent, it is a temporary central location for editors to work in collaboration and nurture its development until such time it is ready for inclusion. Merging is not an effective option as it would dwarf the existing article, which is tangent to its primary scope. If this current incarnation of the film, falls through we can reevaluate it, but there's no need now as things are progressing exponentially.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Progressing exponentially? Really? They've written a script and shot some test footage. They haven't even cast it yet. The release date is basically a "best guess" at this point. I'm not saying this will never warrant an article, but keeping it in incubation for whoever many years it will take to put together something that can survive on its own is not really how we normally do things. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes really. Just read the article, things are moving faster at an increasingly greater rate. Also this has been done many times before with great success. There's no reason to delete an incubator that is as active as this one. Others I might agree with but this incubator is far from stagnant. I actually forsee this article surpassing WP:GNG before WP:NFF if things keep up like they are, if it hasn't already. Many released films are not as well covered as this one.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Again with your wording Beeblebrox: "The release date is basically a "best guess" at this point." Have you not looked at the whole article and the sources and just zeroed in on the first paragraphs of the Development section? Here are four from the page discussing facets of the films increased production: solid release date, leading MCU's Phase 3, confirmation of script completion and scheduled casting start, and how the film relates to the film preceeding it, The Avengers: Age of Ultron. All of this contributes to the film no longer being in "developmental hell" and progressing. Exponentially? I don't know if that is the proper wording, but new info is coming in more frequent than before and it is moving forward to surpassing WP:GNG as noted above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Beeblebrox, you are wrong when you say that "at the pace this film is moving it is possible it will never end up being made". The film has been given a solid release date and this incubator was created when that info was released. TriiipleThreat created the incubator in July 2012 when it was announced at Comic-Con that the film would finally get a release date. As Triiiple has stated, this article is not meant to be permanent in the incubator, only to nurture the content until it has reached film page notability to be added to the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It isn't really reasonable to tell me I'm wrong for saying there is a possibility of something. Also, just FYI, adding "strong strong" to your oppose doesn't actually strengthen your argument. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies on the double "strong". Didn't realize it happened like that, or in the edit summary either. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per TriiipleThreat's statement. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I think article needs some form of incubation however I don't know if this article completely qualifies according to WP:AI?. Was this article deleted previously? The actual film has been developing for a very long while, but it does appear to be picking up towards filming and release.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel of Mischief (talk • contribs)

If it is that much of a problem to have this in the incubator can we move the article and its history to Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Ant-Man (film)?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think leaving it in the incubator is a problem, however it may be a better compromise to move it there. Definitely don't delete it though. Angel of Mischief Talk 17:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The release date is not a "best guess" but a definitive date given by Marvel Studios. Casting is scheduled by the end of the year, and filming in 2014, similar to The Avengers: Age of Ultron.Richiekim (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Let me try, if I might, to restate my case here as I feel some of you are not quite getting it, possibly because I did not explain it well enough to begin with. I am not in any way suggesting that we should have no content on this film. What I am suggesting as that our readers are better served by having it somewhere where they can actually see it as opposed to hidden away in a dark corner like the incubator. So, from that perspective, either moving it to mainspace or merging it, even perhaps doing a WP:HISTMERGE with another article is preferable to leaving it in the incubator for another few years while we wait for the movie to actually be made. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No, we understand your argument, we just don't agree with it. The main points are already included in the mainspace. We wish to continue to develop it in article form in a central neutral location with all the inherent formatting and minutiae that might not be appropriate in an article with a larger scope. Also as stated, we don't believe it will be years before the article is deemed notable for inclusion. If it comes down to that and the incubated article becomes stagnant, we can reevaluate.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Principal photography is scheduled to take place in 2014, so it will be in the Misplaced Pages mainspace by then per WP Film guidelines. It's not going to take "another few years".Richiekim (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

If not sooner per WP:GNG.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• move to mainspace per Beeblebrox's argument that eyes are not on articles in the incubator. Searching for a term does not ever lead you to the incubator, the only way to get there is to try and create the article. FishFingersCustard (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this if we agree that there is "significant coverage" per WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. However if not, the incubator should be kept. There is already information about the film in the mainspace. The point of the incubator is to develop the information in article form.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Considering the tortured development history of this project, I would rather keep this detailed history incubated until filming is confirmed to have begun per WP:NFF. It seems more likely now than before that Ant-Man will actually be filmed, but it's still not certain. As it has been said, the main points are mentioned at Ant-Man#Film. I think the level of detail is appropriate for the encyclopedia when we know we have a tangible product, the film itself, for which we will have coverage like critical reception and box office performance. Hypothetically speaking, if no film was ever produced, this would be a lot of indiscriminate detail in this form. We can wait a little longer to see if the film actually enters production, and then we can have an article for the ages. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I oppose deletion as there is sourced encyclopedic content here. I don't really understand why this could not have been developed within the Ant-man article, however. Merging there may be the best option. --Michig (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The idea is to develop the information in article form. The main points are already in the Ant-Man article, what is here is just more elaborated and includes many more superfluous details that are more appropriate for a stand-alone article. The incubator should either be kept or made into a stand-alone article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Just in the time of this AfD, two more references have been added, bringing the total number independent reliable sources used in the article to 24 (there many more reliable sources re-reporting information from other sources). If kept, we will soon be discussing if the article meets the "significant coverage" requirement per WP:GNG.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That strikes me as a fine argument for moving it to mainspace, not for keeping it incubated. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Lets get through this AfD first. Then we can tackle any mainspace notability concerns.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no , this is exactly the right time to discuss whether this should be moved to mainspace since that is one of the possible outcomes. If there are 24 reliable sources it doesn't seem like something that should be hidden away on the incubator, it should just be an article. I don't understand why you are so insistent that it remain incubated when it apparently doesn't need to be. The incubator is explicitly not a place to indefinitely develop articles and in fact it was neer intended to be a place to create aricles but rather a place to temporarily hold them as an alternative to deletion. Frankly it is starting to seem more like a desire to WP:OWN the content rathwr than put it out in mainspce where readers can see it and the broader community can work on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

AfD is not the process to asses if an incubator is ready to graduate to the main space. That should have been done on the talk page. If you want to graduate it then fine but you did not need to nominate it for deletion first. Also I flatly refute the ownership charge and I think others might as well. From the beginning this has been a collaborative effort. We want to see the incubator graduate, which is why we work so hard on it.

I have never actually said we should have no content on this film, but I do not see why a draft article with 24 sources, that you insist is only going to get more notable, cannot be moved to mainspace. Could you provide a clear, specific, non-procedural reason why keeping this in the incubator is preferable to moving to mainspace? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not object to graduating the incubator to a stand-alone article in the mainspace. However I do not think we should risk deleting the incubator in the process because if it is not notable now it soon will be. There was never any intent to keep this article incubated indefinitely, we have steadily worked to increase the subject's notability in article format during its time in incubation. As I mentioned before, we have graduated several articles in the same manner with great success. Incubation is a better alternative to userfication, as it is centrally located.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion per... everyone else, and move to mainspace if it is ready to go. BOZ (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

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 delete as a blatant hoax per criterion G3. (non-admin closure) TCN7JM 22:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

User:P.Street 04

User:P.Street 04 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE. Non-existent Reality TV show. Shirt58 (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

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, with histmerge. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/ITablet

Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/ITablet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See discussion at WT:Article Incubator/ITablet#Incubator Greenhouse discussion.  There is an interesting story here, but not the one on the Article page.  To use Misplaced Pages to synthesize the available sources would be WP:SYNTH.  Based on the sources now listed, a Taiwanese company registered the name in 2004 and went to being British owned, while rumors leaked that Apple had selected the name for what is now the iPad.  The article has the story of the report that a competition iPad was being released, just weeks after the release of the iPad.  The current info is that the product is a keyboard.  I looked in both Google books and on the web for a synthesis of reports about the history of the tradename.  Meanwhile, "X2 Computing" and "AMtek" are topics that appear to be under-covered in the encyclopedia.  As per Ultra-mobile PC, AMtek was the 2nd company to release a UMPC.

As a further complication, there is an existing article at Itablet, with an associated talk page.

IMO, this is one of those cases in which a double redirect is correct.  Itablet should redirect to ITablet with a {{nobots}} template, so that however ITablet is handled, Itablet will follow.

There is also an issue in that the mainspace article has been indefinitely protected.  After asking the admin, this seems to have been a misunderstanding.  The article in 2007 and that in 2010 were different, and the 3rd deletion was not done because of a re-creation.  The third deletion was done to remove an improperly attributed copy of the incubated article, which was copied to change the redirect into an article.  A redirect out of AfD is not binding, and although it may be helpful to have incubated articles protected, keeping the article protected going forward would interfere with someone wanting to edit the article.

As for this MfD, I propose that the edit history for the incubated article and the incubated talk page be history merged in mainspace at ITablet and Talk:ITablet, the redirect at ITablet be restored, both targets be marked with {{lowercase}}, protection removed, and the incubated article and talk page be deleted.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• I was notified about this (which is much appreciated :)) and I don't have any view on what should be done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - The edit history for the incubated article and the incubated talk page be history merged in mainspace at ITablet and Talk:ITablet, the redirect at ITablet be restored, both targets be marked with {{lowercase}}, protection removed, and the incubated article and talk page be deleted. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

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 Alex Shih 23:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Singapore-weng

User:Singapore-weng (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:NOTWEBHOST. User page about a gaming clan last edited two years ago, completely unrelated to the project, account has made no contributions other than this page. January (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:NOTWEBHOST does apply. TCN7JM 23:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

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) 19:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Adam mugliston/List of bus routes in Peterborough

User:Adam mugliston/List of bus routes in Peterborough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deleted material stored in userspace unedited for over two years. All of these lists have been deleted by overwhelming consensus at numerous Afds. The initial edit summary admits that it was copied here to evade deletion. Charles (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Also nominated:

• User:Adam mugliston/Lists of bus routes/Petersfield & Bishop's Waltham
• User:Adam mugliston/Lists of bus routes/Eastleigh & Romsey
• User:Adam mugliston/Lists of bus routes/Alton, Bordon and Tadley
• User:Adam mugliston/Bus routes in Colchester
• User:Adam mugliston/Lists of bus routes/Andover
• User:Adam mugliston/Lists of bus routes/Farnborough & Fleet
• User:Adam mugliston/Lists of bus routes/Basingstoke
• User:Adam mugliston/Lists of bus routes/Huntingdon
• User:Adam mugliston/Lists of bus routes/Winchester

• Comment Once again Charles, you have acted very predictably. I just knew that when Adam moved over his created Buses in Ipswich page earlier today that we would see action from you. You removed some content on the page itself and now you have nominated a whole bunch of his old drafts for deletion the very same day. I'm not saying I oppose these nominations (some clearing out did need to be done) but its just the way you do it which is the matter. This could have been done any time, and yet you choose right now to do it. You only look into these things when something stirs it up and reminds you of Adam, like him publishing a page, which you couldn't leave alone. Yes, it's a free wiki, you're following guidelines but think a bit more about your timing. Furthermore, a single nomination of all of these would have done, instead of clogging up the MfD page. I am being kind and grouping them together for you. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk) @ 22:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, Since Lists of bus routes in "X" have mostly been removed, Having these stored is now beyond pointless!. -
  →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep The lists are in my own userspace and are kept there for my own reference and for possible future development into an article with much higher standards and prose. I cannot see any harm in them remaining, as they are not articles readers may easily stumble upon and confuse them.  Adam Mugliston  talk  22:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Other than if you google something like "List of bus routes in xxx" where, certainly for some of the articles, it's the first hit. That's potentially a reasonable search term for google users - making it entirely possible that people will stumble upon them from outside the project. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - these articles would go at AfD straight away given current consensus. They're better off being taken off wiki - there are plenty of spaces to store data on the internets or even on your own machine. It's not difficult to do so. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Delete all - The fact that they are sitting in your userspace does not keep them from deletion. Besides, only one of these lists has been edited any later than July 2011, so they're most definitely stale, added on to the fact that "List of bus routes in X" is pretty much considered unencyclopedic. TCN7JM 10:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - They are in userspace of a user is still active. They are not hurting anything. Kumioko (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• A similar copy of a deleted list has been renamed as Buses in Ipswich and is causing huge disruption because its creator insists on keeping the deleted content in the article against consensus. That is why it is better to get rid of these now.--Charles (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok I understand but to me that's a completely different scenario. As long as they are in user space, they aren't hurting anything. As soon as the user renames it to article space, delete it. Kumioko (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

AS has been said above these pages can be listed by search engines so they are potentially providing outdated information to the public. The stored information is of no value because it will not be allowed in a mainspace article. Better to write a new article from scratch.--Charles (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)--Charles (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand that too but we can't consume ourselves with what is and isn't visible on google. These are clearly under the User namespace so we should not and cannot control what is or isn't being pulled up in google. I hate to sound callous but that's really not our problem. If these were in article space I would totally agree and say delete. But as long as they are in userspace and the editor is active and it doesn't violate any of the policies for what can and can't be in userspace, then its not really an issue. Also, Misplaced Pages:User pages is pretty clear what can and cannot be in userspace. Kumioko (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Misplaced Pages:User pages clearly says "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion."--Charles (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You guys are grossly misinterpretting that policy and what is and isn't allowed in userspace but I don't really feel that strongly that this content needs to be kept. There are better fights out there to engage in. I am going to disengage from this discussion now. You have my vote as Keep. The closing admin will need to determine what the consensus is. Kumioko (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue can be solved very simply by putting a 'This is not a current list of bus routes in xxx'. Problem solved.  Adam Mugliston  talk  22:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete all User:Adam mugliston/List of bus routes in Peterborough states: "This is a copy of the real articles, in the case someone deletes it." List of bus routes in Peterborough was discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough (3rd nomination), where the closer wrote that the page's merge/redirection should be discussed on the talk page. After the page was redirected, it was deleted at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 14#Lists of bus routes in East Anglia.

  Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST and Misplaced Pages:User pages#Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages, which states (my bolding): "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Cunard (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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 partial blank. Some legitimate userpage information was retained, but the fake article parts have been removed. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Aminuddinshroff

User:Aminuddinshroff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE checking history of this page, it is clear the information is more than promotional. Estimates of wealth changing, and details of degree. If this (dormant) self-promoting editor actually works for WMF I think we'd know about it. Editor has previously removed NOINDEX from page, and has other copies of this fakearticle on WP.in Widefox; talk 18:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete fake article. OSborn _contribs. 04:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

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) 18:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:AnthonyNotes/User subpages

User:AnthonyNotes/Morphy Gambit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:AnthonyNotes/Morphy Gambit/Morphy Gambit Best Defense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:AnthonyNotes/Morphy Gambit/Morphy Gambit Traps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:AnthonyNotes/Two Knights Defence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:AnthonyNotes/Morphy Gambit/Morphy Gambit Knight Retreats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These are user space pages created by an editor who has not edited since December 2010. Clues gained from looking at talk page posts and deleted edits suggest that they may have been intended for off-Wiki use in teaching, in which case they are use of Misplaced Pages as a web host, but even if this is not the case they are WP:STALEDRAFTs. In any case, they serve no useful purpose for the encyclopaedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete if the user hasn't edited in 3 years we don't need them. If they user returns they can ask for them to be restored by an admin. Kumioko (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

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) 18:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Meanie/sandbox

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

WP:FAKEARTICLE. Abandonded sandbox of blocked sockpuppeteer. Article on subject deleted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stephen Aarons. May be an unimproved copy paste move of deleted article. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete  As per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Meanie/Archive, this is a stale draft.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

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. There Tony1 only says, that he has nothing against the deletion of the page, but not that he doesn't want it. Therefore the move of the page in Misplaced Pages namespace should be discussed with him first. Armbrust 10:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem if people want to keep it—either here or moved elsewhere. I just noticed it a little while ago and thought it was just housecleaning. Tony (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Tony1/Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes

User:Tony1/Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not updated since 2008. A search on WP:Updates brings you here. The author agrees with deletion Noyster (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Multi-authored resource page on Project history. Misplaced Pages has a daunting array of styleguides and policy pages. They come under very little central coordination and are subject to change without wide notice. This makes it hard for users to keep track of changes to rules and policies they need to be aware of, and to attain a sense of how the project is evolving. This was true then and is true today. It is particularly true for styleguides. If inaccurate it could be blanked. What it needs instead is a header asking visitors to "please update". Or is there a better page to redirect to? If Tony1 doesn't want it, move to ProjectSpace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep and move to ProjectSpace if Tony1 does not want it. I agree with SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs)'s comments.

  The page states:

  Misplaced Pages has a daunting array of styleguides and policy pages. They come under very little central coordination and are subject to change without wide notice. This makes it hard for users to keep track of changes to rules and policies they need to be aware of, and to attain a sense of how the project is evolving.

  This page displays the important changes in a central location, month by month; it enables all Wikipedians to keep abreast of what is happening, quickly and conveniently.

  Contributors to styleguide and policy pages are asked to notify us of changes for each upcoming monthly summary by posting a brief note of substantive changes (with a diff) on the talk page.

  Summary updates are posted here and at the talk pages of MOS, (main page), FAC and FAR shortly after the start of each calendar month. Copy-editing and relatively trivial changes are generally not included in these summaries.

  The page contains a selected history of updates between January–July 2008 to style guides such as Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style.

  Link to discussion on Tony1's talk page where he did not oppose deletion Cunard (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps the page could be moved to a subpage of Misplaced Pages:Update, which is primarily maintained by Dank (talk · contribs)? A sample page at Misplaced Pages:Update is Misplaced Pages:Update/1/Enforcement policy changes, December 2008 to June 2009. Cunard (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep and move to ProjectSpace - (per Cunard) particularly to Misplaced Pages:Update/Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• It's really up to Tony1, I think, it's in his userspace. Tony, if you're there, I'd be happy to host the material in a subdirectory of WP:Update if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 03:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

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. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:What does 'per' mean?

Misplaced Pages:What does 'per' mean? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Maybe this is just me, but this essay seems very pedantic. Perhaps others agree, as it has no links from the Talk or Misplaced Pages talk spaces (two in User talk and one in Template talk). I've never seen anything to make me think there's much confusion as to what "per" means. It seems a solution in search of a problem. BDD (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• delete wtf is this? If you don't know what a word means look it up in a dictionary. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - This describes the usage in a wikipedia discussion context. This is what essays do, they more broadly explain things. The idea I presume is to supplement WP:CON, and show that editors shouldn't merely "vote". In addition this (as noted on the page) is apparently intended as a help page for newbies. Expressing a policy/guideline based reasoning rather than merely stating opinion can often have more "weight" in a discussion and can affect the closure. We do not "count votes" here, after all. - jc37 18:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per (lol) jc37. I don't see anything wrong in this essay (nothing like WP:NOESSAY). And as jc states above, it explains how the term is used in context of Misplaced Pages discussion. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per jc37 (couldn't resist.) The essay could use cleanup, but I think explaining some of the more technical terms of Misplaced Pages's bureaucracy could be helpful. OSborn _contribs.
• Keep per above . While it isn't particularly useful to most people and is rather hard to find for those who may need it (better linking would help here), there's no harm - in fact there's a benefit, however small - in having pages explaining WP jargon. Ansh666 17:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I note that it was intended as a "help" page, but was edit-warred and MfD'd in its early history (I don't know the editors, but I suspect WP:POINT), after which the compromise was to make it an essay. Ansh666 18:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per all of above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep I don't find it to be a particularly good or well-written essay the same could be said of many others like it. That in and of itself is not a reason to delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

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) 17:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Mazi Obi Okoli

User:Mazi Obi Okoli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

seems overly self-promotional...only recent activity is by IPs, account itself was a one-hit wonder over a year ago. DMacks (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UPNOT. JohnCD (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

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. Bencherlite 12:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Dimension10/Permanently protected or else

User:Dimension10/Permanently protected or else (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This recently survived a TFD by virtue of having been moved to userspace. However, it is still formatted like a template yet grossly misrepresents policy and, as if that weren't enough, contains a death threat. It may have been intended as a joke, but it it's not funny, and is never going to be ok regardless of what namespace it is in. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, leaning slightly Meh I don't care much one way or the other, but I do want to note that calling this a "death threat" is hyperbole. (Admittedly, calling it a "joke" is hyperbole too...). There will be essentially zero harm to the encyclopedia if it is left alone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Quite harmless. Unless transcluded on a page, I can't see a policy problem! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. It is actually used on his "retired" user page now . (I wonder how Dimension10 obtained the deleted content from ScienceApologist's former user page.) Anyway, on the first iteration of his user page , Dimension10 took responsibility for the edits of the indefinitely blocked user PsiEpsilon CSD#G5 applies. The SPI has some additional examples of trolling from his old account . Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I still do take responsibility of my previous accounts: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Dimension10/Contributions . Dimension10 (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. It's a physics joke about being plagued by pauli - villar ghost states in dimensions other than 10 . If vulgar templates are ok, what's wrong with a physics joke, this . ? . Dimension10 (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The original threat you put in the template was: If you edit it, the user will immediately die, and their ghost will appear in your house and kill you. This is not a some type of physics joke (and your attempt to connect it somehow to Pauli–Villars regularization is laughable). Singularity42 (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Singularity42 Um, I know I often use the word pauli-villar wrongly, but I meant the negative norm-squared states, certainly not the regularisation technique . Dimension10 (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Aah, so in norm-squared states, ghosts appear in a person's house and kill them? Give me a break, and knock off this ridiculousness. Singularity42 (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Singularity42 Is the joke so hard to understand? Negative norm-squared states are called GHOST STATES . Dimension10 (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Given the self admitted block evasion right here in this MFD as well as on their user page, I have indef blocked Dimension 10. At this point that makes this template qualified for speedy deletion as a page created in defiance of a block. However, in the interest of not appearing overly WP:INVOLVED I will nominate it and let another admin decide. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Update: User unblocked, and speedy tag removed. MFD can proceed as usual, as I mention above I don't have a strong opinion about it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. "Or else" is never appropriate language in this context. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a strong delete, as the editor is retiring and the page would likely sit in quiet obscurity never to noticed again, but I think we are better off without it. (Note to anyone coming across this MfD and checking the page: the objected-to language has been edited out of the template, thus rendering the "joke" meaningless anyway. And I'd hate to see an edit-war about whether it can stay in or not.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

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 delete by Bishonen because pages containing negative material like this shouldn't be allowed to sit in userspace and because the user in question hasn't edited for almost a year. (non-admin closure) TCN7JM 22:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Evilphoenix/potw

User:Evilphoenix/potw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

eight year old hate page Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Andy, have you tried simply asking Evilphoenix to delete it? I can't find anything like that in their talkpage history, but perhaps you've done it elsewhere. Anyway, it seems an obvious first step. If they refuse, I'll support deletion through MfD. Bishonen | talk 13:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC).
  • They haven't edited for almost a year. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Many people who've stopped editing have an e-mail alert active for their talkpage, so I'd still ask if I were you. Doesn't cost much. Bishonen | talk 15:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC).
• I withdraw this MfD on the basis of Bishonen's offer elsewehere to speedy the page concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• Speedied. Old pages with negative material aren't supposed to live in the userspace forever, and Evilphoenix is no longer around to take care of it himself. Bishonen | talk 20:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC).

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. Bencherlite 17:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Phoenix and Winslow/Xenophrenic

User talk:Phoenix and Winslow/Xenophrenic (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Per WP:UP#POLEMIC, user pages that are for the "recording of perceived flaws" should not be kept indefinitely. This page was created one month ago but it was not used swiftly for dispute resolution purposes, as required. There is no other page linked to this user page, showing that it has never been disclosed, let alone that it has not been "used in a timely manner." Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that User:Xenophrenic is now notified of this discussion as he is the target of the "recording of perceived flaws." Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The page is linked in dispute resolution at the Evidence page for the ArbCom proceeding. Linked in green boldface, in the first sentence of the third paragraph here. That proceeding is still pending. Binksternet is well aware that Xenophrenic is the subject of dispute resolution, and since he's on the same side as Xenophrenic in the content dispute at Tea Party movement, and I'm on the opposite side, one can only wonder whether this is an attempt at WP:WIKILAWYERing by Binksternet. Delete the evidence before ArbCom can make a final ruling on it? That's an interesting tactic. Accordingly, this MfD should be swiftly deleted and perhaps Binksternet should consider carefully what he's doing here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Xenophrenic on a regular basis, so that red herring has nothing to do with this case. The reason I filed this Mfd was because the "what links here" button returned nothing at all when I first looked. I am now seeing that you linked to this page at ArbCom through the use of the full URL http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Phoenix_and_Winslow/Xenophrenic rather than by wikilink, which is probably why "what links here" came up empty. Binksternet (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per P&W's URL link to ArbCom. Binksternet (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep....currently used as a linked page from an open arbitration case.--MONGO 02:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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. Bencherlite 17:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Qcomplex5/boxes/UBX/random/gsex

User:Qcomplex5/boxes/UBX/random/gsex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Offensive and pornographic userbox The Banner talk 11:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per my reasoning below on the jerk-off userbox. Kim Dent-Brown 12:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - Nudity and pornography may have a place in the project, such as the appropriate articles about the subjects. Personal userboxes are pretty much just Facebook-ish "here's what I'm interested in" types of ads for other users to see. There's a lot of fluff in userboxes to begin with, but informing others that "you like facials" is just IMO too far down the road of acceptability; this isn't chaturbate.com y'know. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - Misplaced Pages is not a social networking site. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete serves no purpose towards encyclopedia building.--MONGO 03:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - Sexual images have their place on the site, but it's not in userboxen. TCN7JM 08:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Per the above and per my more detailed comments on two of the associated MfDs. Δρ.Κ.  19:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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. Bencherlite 17:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Qcomplex5/boxes/UBX/random/bigload

User:Qcomplex5/boxes/UBX/random/bigload (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Offensive and pornographic userbox. Not in use by any one except the creator. The Banner talk 11:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per my reasoning below on the jerk-off userbox. Kim Dent-Brown 12:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - per Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Qcomplex5/boxes/UBX/random/gsex. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete....contributes zero to encyclopedia building.--MONGO 03:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - Gratuitous and detrimental to a professional working environment. Carrite (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per my comments on the group sex one. TCN7JM 09:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete The function of these userboxes is socially unjustifiable, especially in a project dedicated to building an Encyclopaedia, where users are expected to work with their minds. Also the user subpage links to File:Citroën DS 21 Pallas (1).jpg which is linked to Citroën DS and Citroën, two pages of combined total readership of about 29,000 views per month, so it is visible to a good number of readers who can click the host user subpage at: User:Qcomplex5/boxes/UBX/random which is linked to the image. In fact the host user subpage has about 130 views per month even if we subtract the recent spike of 114. Over the past 90 days grok gives above 500 views for this user subpage even after subtracting the spike of 114 making this user subpage more popular than many of our more obscure articles here. Δρ.Κ.  19:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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. Bencherlite 17:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Qcomplex5/boxes/UBX/random/jo

User:Qcomplex5/boxes/UBX/random/jo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Offensive and pornographic userbox. Not in use by any one except the creator. The Banner talk 11:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. From WP:UBX: "A userbox (commonly abbreviated as UBX) is a small colored box .... designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's user page as a communicative notice about the user, in order to directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles." I don't feel this box is going to serve any purpose in improving collaboration. This particular userbox is hidden away and does not appear directly on the editor's user page and I'm alive to the strictures of WP:NOTCENSORED. However the Manual of Style has this section on offensive images says this: "However, images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Misplaced Pages readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. ". I don't feel that these userboxes treat are using the images in an encyclopaedic way. While I do think many readers would be offended in the unlikely event that they discovered them, I don't think the encyclopaedia would in any way be adversely affected if they were deleted. Kim Dent-Brown 12:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - per Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Qcomplex5/boxes/UBX/random/gsex. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - No plausible encyclopedic benefit. Creates a hostile working environment, particularly for female editors. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete' Contributes nothing to encyclopedia building.--MONGO 03:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per my comments on the group sex one. TCN7JM 09:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete The function of these userboxes is socially detrimental, especially in a project dedicated to building an Encyclopaedia, where users are expected to work with their minds. Also the user subpage links to File:Citroën DS 21 Pallas (1).jpg which is linked to Citroën DS and Citroën, two pages of combined total readership of about 29,000 views per month, so it is conceivably visible to a good number of readers who would click the host user subpage at: User:Qcomplex5/boxes/UBX/random which is linked to the image. In fact the host user subpage has about 130 views per month even if we subtract the recent spike of 114. Over the past 90 days grok gives above 500 views for this user subpage. Δρ.Κ.  19:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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. Bencherlite 17:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Qcomplex5/boxes/UBX/random/facial

User:Qcomplex5/boxes/UBX/random/facial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Offensive and pornographic userbox. Not in use by any one except the creator. The Banner talk 11:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per my reasoning above on the jerk-off userbox. Kim Dent-Brown 12:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - per Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Qcomplex5/boxes/UBX/random/gsex. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - No possible encyclopedic benefit. Creates a hostile working environment for female editors. Carrite (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Not just them, Carrite. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless, obscene, and hostile. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Contributes nothing to encyclopedia building.--MONGO 03:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per my comments on the group sex one. TCN7JM 09:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Per the above and per my more detailed comments on two of the associated MfDs. Δρ.Κ.  19:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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. Bencherlite 17:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Gregcrowe/Game Industry News

User:Gregcrowe/Game Industry News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This should be deleted per WP:STALEDRAFT. The article was moved to user space after being deleted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Game Industry News in November 2011. There has been no significant edits after that. SL93 (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete as a stale draft. -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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. Bencherlite 17:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Pharaoh Hound/Game

User:Pharaoh Hound/Game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This should be deleted per WP:UP#GAMES. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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. Bencherlite 17:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Article Incubator

As the Portal:Contents/Portals says, "Portals complement main topics in Misplaced Pages, and expound upon topics by introducing the reader to key articles, images, and categories that further describe the subject and its related topics. Portals also assist in helping editors to find related projects and things they can do to improve Misplaced Pages, and provide a unique way to navigate Misplaced Pages topics."

This is does not meet the criteria for a Portal as outlined above. The portal is supposed to be encouraging editors to edit incubated articles, but portals are for readers not editors. By definition, incubated articles aren't in the main namespace as they aren't good enough for the main namespace, although the potential of articles is recognised and editors are allowed to work on them. Therefore this is a portal that links to no current content, and is worthless clutter. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• This portal was created in response to WP:Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (3rd nomination) in conjunction with a discussion at WT:Article Incubator#incubated article created in mainspace.  The question asked there was, "What is the procedure for an article created in mainspace while a similar article exists in the incubator?".  Portal:Article Incubator was created on 24 June 2013.  Not so coincidentally, an RfC to mark the incubator as historical was created on 25 June 2013, with the argument, "Expanding it into portals and so forth is not going to change that."  But the discussion about the incubator portal itself at WT:Article Incubator#Portal:Article Incubator has not raised any concerns.  It was also proposed at WP:Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (3rd nomination) without receiving comment.  The portal was deployed to mainspace for the first time yesterday, on an article which is likely to get attention if and when the movie is released, and at which time I also initiated a discussion at WP:VPP#Incubator Portal review.  So this MfD, just as the AfD, are forks of the discussion at the Village Pump.  There is nothing urgent here, the worst that can happen is that a few people from the part of India that speak Malayalam may be attracted to becoming Misplaced Pages editors.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the history lesson but I don't see how the back history of this is particularly relevant. Can you address the points I made above? Can you explain why this is a useful portal for readers? What content will it direct to? Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Do you normally trout editors working to improve the encyclopedia, like you did at WP:VPP#Incubator Portal review?  Unscintillating (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • As has been explained to you, it's not personal, and it's not a personal attack, and I understand you believe you are doing good, but you really should listen to when everyone else is telling you that you're not and respect consensus on these issues. This is what WP:TROUT says. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Meanwhile can you answer the question as to why you think this fits in with policy and is desirable? Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Inappropriate Portal. Incubated pages are not articles (they are essentially project sub-pages. and we don't have portals for project sub-pages.)

On the underlying issue... "What is the procedure for an article created in mainspace while a similar article exists in the incubator?"... I would say the answer is simple... do what we always do when we end up with two articles on the same topic:

• Merge the two articles.

I would merge them into the incubated article... which we would then review to see if it can now stand on its own (in which case we move it to main-space) or if it has to continue at incubation. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Did you look at the portal?  Why do you say that the portal is a portal to project sub-pages?  Are you objecting to having the list of incubated pages appearing on the Portal page?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• There is currently an active proposal to close the incubator and mark all pages associated with it as inactive/historical. That would effectively close this portal as well, but deleting would also be appropriate. This portal seems to have been created by one user who keeps adding new sub-sections of the incubator in what appears to be a desperate attempt to make the incubator project appear successful when the vast majority of the community wrote it off as a lost cause some time ago. But what is more relevant is the point the nominator makes, this simply is not what portals are for. Portals are for helping navigate related topics, not for trying to advertise failing projects. All the portals and greenhouses and magic rainbows aren't going to revive interest in this well-intentioned but failed experiment. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• The proposal to close the incubator is currently headed to defeat, as anyone who would mark what is indisputably an active project "inactive" in the face of broad opposition, and in doing so would be making back door changes to WP:Deletion policy, would not be serving the purpose of building an encyclopedia.  The real puzzle is why you are so invested in closing the incubator.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete-The pros and cons of the actual incubator are irrelevant. This is, quite simply, not what portals are for. The introduction claims that "Portals exist for those new to Misplaced Pages, to introduce them into the editorial pages and process at Misplaced Pages". That, as far as I can tell, was made up by the editor who wrote it.--Fyre2387 23:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment if this is kept, it needs to be reformatted and renamed, to overview all article creation processes on wikipedia -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Rename I'm wondering if the goals of what the user who created this portal might be more interested instead with turning it into a Wikiproject, under Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Incubator. This particular link is currently a redirect, so simply renaming this portal page to become a Wikiproject might just be a better alternative. I'd have to agree that it may be inappropriate to keep this as a portal, but there could be other alternatives. The primary issue here is that the creator of this page legitimately thinks there should be other complimentary ways to access content of the incubator... to promote its usage within the Misplaced Pages editing community. If you think that is appropriate or not is more to discuss on the Village Pump or on the talk pages related to this effort. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete not an appropriate use of a portal. The page says that "Portals exist for those new to Misplaced Pages, to introduce them into the editorial pages and process at Misplaced Pages", which is wrong. Portals exist to showcase article content to readers. They do not relate to our article development process and aren't meant to showcase non-article content (such as pages in the incubator). Possibly we could rename it so that it isn't a portal, but I don't see any particular reason to. Hut 8.5 11:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Note that as per the WP:VPP#Incubator Portal review discussion in the statement at 21:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC), the nominator has stated, "I really don't care about the past history here..."  Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Although well-intentioned, this isn't what the portal space is for. Finding some way to better manage our various sources for draft articles (the incubator, AFC, user pages) is a worthy topic of discussion, but this is the wrong solution. --RL0919 (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Is it your intent by starting discussion forks to undermine the main discussion at WP:VPP?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

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) 10:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Herpetology

User:Herpetology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned userspace draft for non-notable journal, last edited April 2012. January (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - This page is a stale draft. TCN7JM 07:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

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. Bencherlite 12:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Geoburke/Crypto Street

User:Geoburke/Crypto Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article was userfied on May 8 by request at WP:REFUND after having been deleted. Since that point, the draft has become more promotional in tone, and remains unsourced. The business itself is clearly non-notable - having barely released a "BETA public site" as of 2 days ago. Fails WP:NCORP. As this draft is findable in a Google search, and seems to be linked to their Facebook profile, this unsalvageable article should be deleted. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. The page states:

  On April 23rd 2013, the Crypto.st domain name was registered

  On July 29th 2013, Crypto Street launched its public BETA website

  I agree with Bwilkins that Crypto Street fails WP:NCORP and thus Misplaced Pages:User pages#Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages, which states: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Cunard (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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. Bencherlite 12:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Hirnaxi karelia

User:Hirnaxi karelia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A WP:FAKEARTICLE to promote an actress who is not notable. Listed references do not support the text. Almost all contributions to the page were from IPs. (Note that a Google search for the name does return this page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctree (talk • contribs) 04:00, 25 July 2013‎

• Wow, I didn't know that Misplaced Pages was around on January 1, 1970...Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. The page also violates the guideline Misplaced Pages:Do not create hoaxes because the userspace draft uses "isted references do not support the text" (per the nominator). Cunard (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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. Bencherlite 12:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Dave Jeanes

User:Dave Jeanes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Promotional user page by new contributor who was " told by my management that I should do a Profile on Misplaced Pages about my songs, scripts, CDs, etc". I have explained to him that Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UPNOT. JohnCD (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTADVERTISING. The told by my management that I should do a Profile on Misplaced Pages about my songs, scripts, CDs, etc quote was written on the user page at User:Dave Jeanes. Cunard (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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. Bencherlite 12:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Katebhom/sandbox

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

Very fringe POV-pushing content that will never be suitable for wikipedia. Violates MEDRS severly since this is an anti-vaxxor pro-homeopathy piece. Includes the very dangerous recommendation of not taking a vaccine but taking homeopathic products instead. Article is also liberally sprinkled with other nonsense and grand claims. Sources are all unreliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• delete anti-vaxxor screed. Editor's only other edit so far was to edit the MMR controversy article to euphemize the Wakefield hoax. Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

In defense: Never in the article does it say to not vaccinate and references the mal-effects of vaccines as reported by the CDC. The article discusses the method Homeoprophylaxis which has been around for as long as vaccination has. Each reference has been verified and I have read all the science referenced. This article is a pro-protect against infectious disease article. This article offers another alternative to vaccines that is thoroughly reference historically and scientifically. Vaccine science is dated and limited and damaging millions of children world wide. This article is not a propaganda piece. Nor is it based on opinion. Many of the medical references are to articles written prior to the establishment of current day medical journals which does not nullify the research but more puts it in historical perspective. The commentator obviously has very strong emotionally held opinion on homeopathy without regard to its empirical evidence or historical significance. This entry is suitable for Misplaced Pages as it offers completed definition of homeoprophylaxis: its terms and concepts.

As to the note regarding Wakefield's claims on MMR. His research has been verified and vindicated and a defamation suit against Ernst and others is underway. Sorry I jumped into that one without taking the time to get the appropriate articles.Katebhom (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This comment is a damning indictment of this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I understand your article on Wakefield is a damming indictment. He has since been absolved of that false accusations by others who have replicated his research before and after his paper.

2. Law A written statement charging a party with the commission of a crime or other offense, drawn up by a prosecuting attorney and found and presented by a grand jury. http://www.trustedhealthproducts.com/blog/wakefield-absolved-sources-of-fraud-accusation-misrepresented-lied-and-hid-facts. Anyways I don't care about your article. I know the truth because I work with autistic children every day. You can change it back and keep propagating the defamation if you like.Katebhom (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Wakefield has not been absolved of anything. The sources you regard as reliable are merely utterly unreliable for any statement whatsoever. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Katebhom, what are your plans for this page? Do you intend to move it into mainspace to make an article of it? --BDD (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

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) 22:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Bebebel/sandbox

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

Another fantasy-game user page. Nothing to do with the encyclopedia. User's only contributions are to this and similar pages. Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. JohnCD (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. This is misuse of Misplaced Pages as a free web host to hold content unrelated to contributing to the encyclopaedia. (Note: This is apparently the same person who has used the accounts Gev Arif, Gevian IA, Gevian Arif and Gevin Gevian to create multiple user sandboxes, and in some cases articles, on related fantasy themes, sometimes repeatedly creating them in the face of deletions. If it is not the same person, then it is two people acting together. Apart from the very similar content, Gevin Arif has edited User:Bebebel/sandbox and Bebebel has edited User:Gevian Arif/sandbox. See also Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gevian Arif/sandbox.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

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, with Delete for User:Obtund/CVUA/Zedd Milestone. If any of these pages are ever relisted at MfD, they should be listed individually and one or more reasons for deletion from Misplaced Pages:User pages should be used. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Obtund/CVUA/AlexJFox

User:Obtund/CVUA/AlexJFox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Subpage of a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Tricdl27 created in violation of his block. AussieLegend (✉) 18:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of other related pages that I am also nominating for the same reason:

• User:Obtund/CVUA/Zedd Milestone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) redirect to a now deleted page
• User:Obtund/CVUA/LlamaDude78/archive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) nominated under WP:CSD#G5 which was rejected because "It's archived from something that was used by someone else, not just Obtund", although this page is an orphan.
• User:Obtund/CVUA/Zedd/archive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) also nominated under CSD#G5 which was rejected because "This is kind-of a talk page", although it's an orphan and its only use was its creation by Obtund.
• User:Obtund/Samsung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) nominated under CSD#G5 which was rejected because "Created by Dank". According to Dank's edit summary, he was "re-creating deleted page per request on my talk page". The only link is to the original request for a copy of a deleted page by Obtund. No use has been made of the page since its creation.

I don't see any reason for these pages to exist. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep all except the redirect one. These pages were not only created and written by the banned user in question, as they all consist of discussion between the banned user and somebody else, so G5 doesn't apply. Unless the other user named wants the pages deleted I don't see any reason to get rid of them. Hut 8.5 19:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• LlamaDude78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't edited since 14 September 2012 and I can't find the diffs in his contribution history that match the times shown.
• Zedd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vanished in January 2013. Not being an admin, I can't even find his contribution history.
• User:Obtund/Samsung doesn't serve any purpose for anyone except Obtund, who won't be able to use it anyway because he is blocked. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• WP:CSD#G5 applies to "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others." Neither of the archive pages have substantial edits by others so G5 does apply. There's nothing in G5 that says it applies to copies of discussions. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• You're interpreting these terms extremely legalistically. The pages may not have been edited by people other than a banned editor, but it's clear that they contain content which was not written by a banned editor, and so the spirit of G5 would be violated if these pages were deleted under it. We don't, as a rule, delete archived discussions unless we have some compelling reason to do so, even if those discussions involved banned or blocked editors. Hut 8.5 11:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• No, I'm interpreting using some common sense. These pages serve no purpose to anyone except an indefinitely blocked editor who can't use them. Anyone else mentioned on the page is unlikely to know they exist and if they wanted a copy, they can ask for a copy themselves. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• All of these pages consist of a discussion between a banned editor and somebody else. They aren't only of interest to the banned editor, that somebody else might be interested as well. Other editors may be interested if they want to investigate the behaviour of either party. Even if that isn't the case it isn't a valid reason to delete the page. We don't delete pages just because nobody has laid claim to them, we delete them when there is some compelling reason to do so. I'm not seeing any such reason here. Hut 8.5 17:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. The Samsung page was never edited by Obtund; it was copied by Dank (push to talk!) from somewhere else, where Obtund was engaging in a discussion. Others have all been edited by others, and while I don't hugely see a reason to keep them, they appear to be equal to any other talk page, so we shouldn't delete them any more than we should delete any other old discussion. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note that I've deleted the redirect on IAR grounds. It doesn't completely fit the criterion, but it's thoroughly useless now that Obtund is blocked, it has no useful history, and I can't imagine anyone finding it useful. Finally, AussieLegend, look at Special:Contributions/Vanished user 23520819 for Zedd's contributions. Nyttend (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• User:Obtund/CVUA/Zedd/archive and User:Obtund/CVUA/LlamaDude78/archive haven't been edited by other editors. They are copies of pages that have been edited by others, but they haven't been edited by others. User:Obtund/CVUA/Zedd/archive is a cut and paste of this revision of User:Obtund/CVUA/Zedd, which isn't nominated. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

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. Ruslik_Zero 19:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Evolution and Culture

Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Evolution and Culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The closing rationale at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Evolution and Culture was nonsense. The content was meant to be merged, but with the Article Incubator being a holding cell? What? SL93 (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Personally, I think the closing an acceptable compromise. It does need to be worked on, so why not give it a try yourself, or remind some of the editors from earlier this year. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The result was merge, but where would it be merged to? SL93 (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, if no merge target has been identified then there is no way to do a merger. I would suggest that this be moved back to mainspace and then sumarrily deleted. If and when there is consensus regarding an appropriate merge target it can easily be restored and merged. The incubator is not supposed to be an indefinite holding pen/dumping ground for material that we can't find a place for. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete because no merge target has been identified after nearly four months and because no one has stepped forward to offer to work on this content after three weeks at MfD. No prejudice to undeletion if a merge target is identified later. Cunard (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)'s recommendation to move this back to mainspace and summarily delete it there. Cunard (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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) 18:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Jessie J's upcoming studio album

Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Jessie J's upcoming studio album (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was created in July 2012 and was last edited in May 2013. The infobox says that this will be released in early 2013, but it isn't early 2013 anymore. The article also mentions an upcoming tour to promote the album, but the album would need to be released first, which I doubt that it will. SL93 (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

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. Bencherlite 21:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Winki

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Winki (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Not notable. The creator of the article (MarkWanted; talk) said this, which was insulting:

Enjoy your power of rejection Minna no sora no shita. I know which site im not going to be donating to ever again.

みんな空の下 (トーク) 06:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• partial blank This retort could have easily been blanked, and it is not so seriously offensive that deletion is needed. Another option is revision deletion of the silly comment. However I can also understand repeated declines for a reason that is not accurate causes frustration. The topic is not web content but looks to be software instead. However I still agree that the topic is not notable. So overall I am suggesting blanking the offending text rather than deleting, and leave it declined. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, partially blank the insults, and fully protect if there are more insults. The page can be speedy deleted if unedited in six months per {{db-afc}}. (If anyone attempts to game the system by making trivial edits every few months that don't improve the page, then I recommend renominating this page for deletion in six months. I am certain the consensus will be to delete.)

  I agree with Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) that the subject is non-notable. But because this was recently created, the page is not promotional, and {{db-afc}} exists, I see no harm in letting it stay for now to allow the creator to continue working on it if he can find reliable sources about the subject. (I myself have searched for sources on Google News Archive and have been unable to find substantial coverage in independent reliable sources.) Cunard (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - Five declined submissions, no indication of available source material per this discussion - what are we hanging on to? -- Jreferee (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per Jreferee. This is junk. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

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. Ruslik_Zero 17:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

User:DarkclawUmbreon/sandbox

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

WP:NOTWEBHOST, appears to be a personal project of the user (considering his editing history on this site, which is largely edits to this page). TheStickMan 00:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - this was a good nomination, but in response the offending material has been moved off-wiki and all that remains is a pointer to it, which I think is acceptable. JohnCD (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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.