Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions for the period 1 January 2013–31 December 2013. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I was doing a bit of cleanup and research on MfD, and I came across a rather disturbing discovery; I cannot find any of the archived discussion for 2013. If they keep the same naming format at the previous years, their should be displayed as this:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/January 2013
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/February 2013
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/March 2013
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/April 2013

I attempted to bring this to the current archiving bot's operator on their talk page to try to get an answer. Either way, I find it rather disturbing that about four months or discussions seem to have either completely disappeared or have been misplaced. Steel1943 (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like this has now been resolved. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The editor in question here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GroundRisk/sandbox would like this discussion closed, but keep in mind that there is an open investigation here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GroundRisk as to whether or not this user is a sockpuppet. Guy1890 (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Can someone move Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Raidriar/forum to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Raidriar/forum and Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jeffrey Lalloway to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jeffrey Lalloway to complete the MFD nomination process for these two pages? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not my intent to spam XfD....I'm actually preferably making G8 deletion requests or asking 'active' users to delete these themselves as appropriate....my use of 'this venue' for these is based on my immpression that it is 'inappropriate' to G8 nom a page someone elses userspace. Revent (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Readers of this talk page may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#RfC: Should Userbox templates in Template: space be nominated at TfD or MfD. Bencherlite^Talk 17:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is the policy on deleting User Pages against the wishes of the User? Why does the User Page of a just blocked Editor get nominated for deletion but User Pages of Editors who haven't edited for 5 or 8 years escape deletion? Why are recently blocked Editors targeted but not Editors who clearly have left and will not be returning?
I'm just trying to understand what the thought process here is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It depends on what the user was blocked for, and whether it's likely to be permanent or not. If they were blocked because of constant disruption in a topic area, promoting a fringe position against consensus, and using their userspace to host their personal version of things, then it can be appropriate to sweep their user space in order to limit further disruption and to provide some closure to the other editors involved. It's definitely not a common practice to automatically nuke the user space of a blocked user, it's usually the more extreme cases and the ones where part of the block reason included somewhat abusive use of userspace.

Regarding inactive editors with generally normal userspace drafts, we generally give them leeway. We want them to come back to editing some day, and if they come back to find that someone deleted all their drafts and user pages, that may be pretty annoying to them. At some point it does become appropriate to do something about their old drafts, at the very minimum, tag them to get them out of Google, or blank them so that potential readers don't get confused into thinking they are reading an actual article. Gigs (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

What's with all these pages dedicated to fake reality shows? There must be some external reality show fansite where people are being encouraged to take advantage of the free hosting Wikipedia doesn't actually offer. I know editors have floated the idea of a CSD being created for these pages, though they don't seem numerous enough for that. It's a shame to have a week-long discussion that's always going to come to the same conclusion, however. If we could determine where these people are coming from, perhaps we could stop the problem at its source. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There have been several incidents in the past where these online game forums with a reality TV show style have specifically instructed their members to use Wikipedia to host their games. Here is the fallout from one of these incidents from years ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive505#Web_forums_using_Wikipedia_as_a_webhost. That incident is from 2009, but I'm sure there are more recent examples (I can't find others at the moment). One difficulty with dealing with these is that the users sometimes make useful contributions to Wikipedia's articles on reality TV shows and the real ones are difficult to distinguish from the fake online ones. Peacock (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for digging that up. It looks like at least one site, RTVgames, was told not to do this and "there should not be a repeat," but there must be at least one more site out there where this is happening, or perhaps there's a lack of institutional memory at the first site. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need a new CSD really, I think that CSD patrollers need to apply a little common sense (or maybe be trouted a little more for bad denials). Don't deny a deletion on something that will be uncontroversially deleted at MfD. Most of these would qualify under G3, and the tagger picking the wrong reason is not a good reason to deny a speedy deletion. I'll leave a note on the CSD talk page to this effect. Gigs (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There has been an RfC started at WT:CSD#RfC: Does Wikipedia need three different CSD criterion for "No indication of importance" or should they all be merged into one? that your participation would be appreciated at. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey folks, I recently deleted Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/#User_talk:Danjel.2FTWA.2FEarth, As this was just from testing WP:TWA and was in the user's userspace. I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with the process to remove an entry from the MFD page. I did assume that as it was user-requested that 7 days was not necessary. Please let me know if I can do anything differently. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 10:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Graham87 fixed the formatting at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Danjel/TWA/Earth.[1] -- Jreferee (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

per WP:MFD: "An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process."

Reasoning: The North Face (disambiguation) was a disambiguation page, now moved to North face, hence this is no longer a valid WP:HOWTODAB redirect, it has been superseded by North face (disambiguation).

If any further action needs to be taken, please go ahead.

Thanks. 82.132.236.222 (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Since this would now be a redirect, the proper place to go would be WP:RFD (redirects for deletion). However, I think that this should be kept as a redirect, in case someone searches for the disambiguation page itself by typing The North Face (disambiguation). Cheers! bd2412 T 19:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)