Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/September 2005

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 21:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Future Prospects

I'm not sure what the project is meant to be about, the creator Jay P pledged to update it every week, yet the three edits on the 16 June 2005 are the user's only edits. All other edits to the page are relatively minor, involving link updating. I suggest deleting, or perhaps userfying to User:Jay P in case that user ever returns. Steve block talk 19:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This page is nonsense, or sufficiently close to it. Xoloz 08:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant, not maintained, not clearly defined. Alai 17:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dead portal. Weird name. Horrid color scheme. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:03, 26 September 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 21:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Verb

Moved here from AfD, see below DES ^(talk) 02:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Seemingly purposeless 'stub' in the WP namespace. Not a policy page; not a policy proposal, or indeed an anything proposal. Long-standing merge notices, but little real content to actually merge. Alai 01:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC) this comment copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wikipedia Verb
• Delete. Meaningless crap. Useless. Reads like it was written by some out-of-work management consultant—which is a good sign, because it means that companies aren't paying for this bullshit anymore. Doesn't mean they can foist it off on us. — Phil Welch 22:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with nominator. Barno 07:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Fairly Strong Delete Not worth the space it takes up on the Wikipedia Servers. --Quadraxis 22:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Patent nonsense --Knucmo2 12:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wiki namespace pages should be subject to particularly strong scrutiny for at least some purpose relating to the project. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:02, 26 September 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as useful no content/request. Martin 19:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:New Jawa Order

Only changes to the talk page were by me suggesting that New Jawa Order should be deleted. It was, and there seems to be no good reason to keep the Talk: page for an article that will probably never exist. Al 15:49, September 9, 2005 (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 article'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 article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, nonsense, we have Penis pump anyway. Martin 09:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Penis pump

Been around since 2004, a stub that shouldn't be in the Wikipedia: namespace anyway. Delete --pile0nades^talk

• Delete. What the heck? Inappropriate namespace. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Definitely not for Wikipedia namespace, dubious at best in the main article namespace. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 9 September 2005 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 21:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikification

Project never took off, and was unnecessary anyway, last edit was a participant (of the only 2) who removed their name! Martin - The non-blue non-moose 20:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I'm all for saving old project pages but this is content-free. Ashibaka (tock) 04:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Severely inactive, no real content, seems in practice to be redundant with the wikification category page (which has long since dropped even a link to this page). Seems like a perfectly good idea though, so without prejudice to future re-creation (provided it actually does something). Alai 17:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dead project. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:59, 26 September 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

I hesitated before closing this discussion because I have very strong feelings on the topic. However, I am starting to realize that many other admins also participated in this discussion. I'm not sure we have any disinterested closers left. Time to be bold and take my lumps if the decision is contested.

I count 52 valid "deletes" (one discounted as unsigned) to 16 "keeps". 6 people (including one anon) made comments or retracted their comments in such a way that their final opinion could not be determined. I further note that the arguments for keeping this article held sway until somewhere between 20:00 and 21:00 on the day of nomination. After that, the community consensus swung overwhelmingly toward deletion and stayed there through the rest of the discussion.

I am calling this as a "delete" decision. Rossami (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Current charitable causes

Hopelessy PoV. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. I also fail to see how this fits in with our goal of building a free encyclopaedia. Dan100 (Talk) 15:20, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment See MediaWiki_talk:Sitenotice#Time_to_replace_the_second_line for details.
• Strong keep. This page arose out of talk at MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice and is part of a compromise I formulated based on feeback from several different people. I've tried to create a version that addressed their major concerns. It is also just a start. And it is part of an experiment on how to compromise on this type of thing. So far there are few different causes, add more to reduce the POV. Oh, and Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be a collection of links, but this is not an article. --mav 15:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • But you are only allowing admins to edit it. This isn't a community consensus. But you only allow admins to edit it to protect it from numerous causes filling it up. This is tantamount to admitting that it can't be written in a NPOV. Of course, one could assume that from the title: Anything considered a "Current charitable cause" is POV by definition.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:01, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you should read the page. It clearly explains why it is protected. But let me tell you again: To protect donors from people who may put in links to phony sites just to steal their credit card info. --mav 04:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is meant to have as few protected pages as possible. If from the first day the page was created it cannot exist without protection, it probably shouldn't exist. Administrators represent less than 0.2% of Wikipedia. The list can't be community consensus in the same way that other pages are (talk pages allow administrators to decide whether other peoples' suggestions are good or not--not what Wikipedia is for)--naryathegreat | (talk) 21:18, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is meant to have as few protected pages as possible. That is flat out wrong. Wikipedia is meant to be the biggest, most comprehensive, and accurate encyclopedia on the planet. Everything, I mean *everything* else is a means to *that* end (either directly or indirectly). So if, when and where one of the supporting aspects of the project get in the way of our primary goal, then it is perfectly reasonable to back-off in that case. The problem of people scamming donors by putting in bogus links is just too great - it is therefore OK to protect that page. We have had to lock out general editing the Main Page and the various templates linked from it to protect them from vandalism. We have had to do the same for the sitewide message and we should also certainly expand that to any page listed from the sitewide message - esp one that has links to external sites where people can donate to. Oh, and before anybody mentions it, this page also provides information and thus helps us toward our goal. It gives information to people with potential donor money where that money can go to. Several choices are given, but many more should be added. The page as it is now, is just a start. --mav 16:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for now given the Hurricane Katrina situation. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now per Mailer Diablo --Carlsmith 15:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• It'd'be preferable to be able to link to a list that someone else maintains. Pcb21| Pete 16:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We do already from that page. This page should have a top selection of what is available. We are pretty good at creating things that are neutral and comprehensive. :) --mav 16:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with Dan100 that this does not seem to further our goal of creating a free encyclopaedia, and I don't like the idea of us being seen to endorse any particular charities as it could compromise the NPOV policy. Worldtraveller 16:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Our NPOV policy is concerned with how articles are written. This is not an article. --mav 16:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If site visitors are directed to a POV page from every single article on Wikipedia, how then can they be expected to believe that all the articles themselves are written from a neutral point of view? Worldtraveller 17:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Excellent point.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:01, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Wow - giving to humanitarian efforts. So human suffering is bad? How POV. --mav 04:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since this was part of the compromise surrounding the site notice. The argument that Wikipedia is not a collection of links is not relevant since this is not a Wikipedia article. Listing resources in the project namespace need not be covered by the same policies that rule the article namespace, which is why we also have pages like Wikipedia:Public domain resources. Angela. 19:53, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since so many people oppose this, there would be little point keeping it now because it will never be prominently linked to. The compromise while the sitenotice was still up is no longer relevant since the fundraising drive has ended. In future, perhaps the compromise suggested below of simply linking to list of charities instead of this, could be considered. Angela. 13:59, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • • If site visitors are directed to a POV page from every single article on Wikipedia, how then can they be expected to believe that all the articles themselves are written from a neutral point of view? Worldtraveller 17:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not an article but it's linked to from every article, I think that fits quite clearly into the spirit of WP:NOTs claim that Wikipedia isn't a collection of links. --Gmaxwell 19:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Agree with Dan100, it's not part of an encyclopedia. Further, this isn't material that is difficult to find elsewhere and there isn't a good criteria to decide what to include/exclude... Free speech online is a humanitarian and worthy cause in intellectually repressed parts of the world, so why isn't EFF listed, etc? Finally, it's not a good use of Wikipedia resources that we donate to keep running... it would be like using or servers to run folding at home. Oh wait. :) --Gmaxwell 19:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or at least get it off of the header thats on every page. This has nothing to do w why people read an encyclopedia, and is instead a distracting ad. Sam Spade 20:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or move to the Wikimedia Foundation site. If the page is to be moved, there should still be a link to the donation page on Wikipedia, though. --Ixfd64 20:04, 2005 September 7 (UTC)
• Delete. — Trilobite 20:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think that wikimedia is getting selfish and wants all the money for itself,(check the top o each page, no need to make, other charities, on a smaller font. what is this?Imdaking 20:09:50, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
• Imagine that, Wikipedia (which is not a charity in the usual sense), wants to keep itself from going under. That's very selfish. All that happened was the Hurricane Katrina disaster happened in the middle of our fundraising drive. That was unavoidable.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:01, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- It's coming down on Friday, by which time this Vfd process won't even be finished. For the remaining 2 or 3 days, it'll do a nice job of reminding the world that we haven't lost our sense of proportion, rattling the tin for computer gear while people in the states next-door are lacking much more basic items. –Hajor 20:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Dan100 (sic) at Talk:Main Page/Archive 32#Can we have the donations box back now, please. (And not particularly relevant, but when I saw "(diff) (hist) . . MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice; 19:57 . . Angela (Talk) (vfd!)" show up on my watchlist, I was sure she meant the site notice itself...) —Cryptic (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus for this page, as there was for the 2004 IOT link (which was only on the front page, not every page). Dan100 (Talk) 07:38, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - We're not a charity, sorry. People don't go to an encyclopedia to donate, and while the reminder is nice, the fact that we link charity for one event which has just occurred demonstrates that there's an American bias to this website, in that, it's Hurricane Katrina. What about donations for the sufferers of HIV in South Africa? Those of terminal cancer? The bias is clear. This can't be seriously upheld. Also delete as per Trilobite's insightful comment about media bias in such affairs. --Knucmo2 20:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, per mav above. Andre (talk) 20:40, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Removing it would leave a red link at the top of each and every Wikipedia page. Almafeta 20:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course, since that page text has changed every day for the past 15 days, I suppose it is now suddenly uncorrectable?--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:01, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • By that logic, we need to delete Current events, regardless of the fact that every page links to it, because what is 'current' can also be subject to interpretation. Almafeta 02:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Quoting Hajor (and I really don't mean to single him out; this is a general point): "it'll do a nice job of reminding the world that we haven't lost our sense of proportion" I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more. The page as it currently stands [1] reminds the world what a twisted sense of proportion we have: a string of links for Hurricane Katrina on top, then a couple of others shoved in at the bottom for the irrelevant Africans. As we all know, several thousand people may eventually turn out to have died as a result of Katrina, and one of the biggest problems faced by those not drowned or otherwise killed directly by the hurricane was the lack of clean drinking water in its aftermath. Turning now to poorer parts of the world: "Every day, more than 25,000 people die from water-borne diseases. Approximately 80 per cent of diseases and over one-third of deaths in the developing world are caused by contaminated water." [2] I find it unfortunate, to put it mildly, that some of Wikipedia's finest minds and most dedicated volunteers, who came up with this 'compromise' at MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice, are unable to grasp the unfortunate fact that media attention and financial aid given to human suffering is not proportional to its severity. "Bush is to seek an additional $51.8bn to fund relief efforts in the southern US" [3]. Meanwhile in Niger: "Donors have given less than half of the $81 million appealed for by the UN." [4]. If only we did have a sense of proportion. — Trilobite 20:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • fully agree Dontaskme 22:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Then add more links for them. But to remove the whole page due to a current lack of balance is not the right path. --mav 04:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • My point was that human suffering on the scale of what we're seeing now as a result of Katrina is a daily reality, and if we gave other worthy causes proportionate attention Wikipedia would be forever carrying notices asking for money for some charity or another. As a result I feel it's best that Wikipedia does not go down the route of soliciting donations for charitable causes other than our own encyclopedic mission, however deserving of our readers' money they may be. — Trilobite 04:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this is an advertisement and does not fit in the goals. Worse, it appears everywhere if you want it or not. I do not want it. If I want it, I can turn on television. If the foundation raises money to pay for itself or to upgrade equipment, that is different, as it maintains independence and prevents me from being flooded with propaganda. If they feel they have too much money, they should stop the fundraising altogether. To Strong keep, if you feel your argument gets more plausible by adding a "strong", think again. Longbow4u 20:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per mav and Angela. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 20:49, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Another comment People are well aware of Katrina if they can access Wikipedia.--Knucmo2 20:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, but I don't see the point and I think it would not be fair. bogdan | ^Talk 21:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pretty much for the reasons listed above. Not in line with Wikipedia's raison d'etre, and it seriously undermines our no ad policy. (One would wonder why the selected places were chosen.) I'll admit Wikipedia's heart is in the right place, but Wikipedia isn't the best place for this, just like it isn't the best place for a lot of other things as per their rules. --Canuckguy 21:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I think that the welfare of those suffering due to natural disasters is far more important than the neutrality of an encyclopedia. --Ixfd64 21:21, 2005 September 7 (UTC)
• Delete The welfare of those suffering due to natural disasters is not helped by Wikipedia having a biased, partial list of places to donate to help them. This is not our mission. Agree with Canuckguy. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Other charities also need your help." Duh, really? This is cluttersome advertising, and it's patronising too. Rollo 21:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete' per Trilobite. Acetic'^Acid 21:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It seems inappropriate to single out certain charities over others. There are thousands of worthy charities. Listing them all (or attempting to, anyway) doesn't help, either, because then the page becomes so large that it's useless. Dpark 21:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per dan100. SECProto 21:56, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per Trilobite -- Joolz 21:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Suddenly asking for people to help charities just because the most popular country has a need for it is rather hypocritical. Either we prop charities all the time, or never. Since they aren't directly relevant to the encyclopedia, never is the more appropriate solution. (On related note, I dislike the fundraising notice altogether, but in the case of missing money for our servers, that's an issue that is directly relevant to process of serving every page that the notice is on.) --Joy [shallot] 22:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it does no harm whatsoever --High^{(Hopes) 22:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete - Each and every one of us has a personal page - we can list our 'favourite' charities there. Adambisset 22:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Information is easy to find elsewhere but should not be part of an encyclopedia. Dontaskme 22:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. See MediaWiki_talk:Sitenotice#Time_to_replace_the_second_line for details. ~ Syrae Faileas - «Talk» 22:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because it does not facilitate the making of an encyclopedia. Tuf-Kat 23:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not Wikipedia's job to solicit donations for other charities. And this could never have a fair or representative listing. Jokestress 23:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for certain admins' pet causes, jguk 23:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not related to creating an encyclopedia, and brings up questions of neutrality and POV. -- Creidieki 23:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Well meaning, but WP:ISNOT this. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless permanently unprotected, protected pages are evil. JYolkowski // talk 00:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since this will be full of edit wars and Wikipedia is not in the business of evauluating carities. Image if something like QuakeAID is sponsored by us, that could be the end of things. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Am I the only one who's already been reminded several hundred times that Hurricane Katrina victims need help? Even Amazon.com has something going on about it. You might argue that this is giving people an avenue through which to find places to donate, but if they're serious enough about it to actually donate (as I have) to a charity, I think it's safe to say that Google and/or CNN, Amazon, and every other entity in the world has helped them find somewhere to do it by now. As for other charities... It's a good idea in theory, but based on arguments made here, I don't see it working. --Schrei 00:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think we all know about Hurrican Katrina now. That's really why this link is there. So people don't think we're selfish. Wikipedia isn't going to go away because 3 people think we should be donating to charities. Over time, people stop feeling as charitable. Well, over time Wikimedia's costs don't go down. We have a bottom line to watch too--one that won't be helped by redirecting people to a POV list (which we can't all edit by the way, which just blows it out of the water) of other places to contribute money. Oh, and anyone who can access Wikipedia is already well aware of Hurricane Katrina; we don't need to point that out.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:01, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• I would also suggest reading the talk page discussion. The fact that Ayn Rand Institute lasted for more than two minutes on such a highly visible page is laughable. I'm sure any rational person can see the direction this is headed towards.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:07, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are more than enough places to get information on worthwhile charitable groups that are looking for money. If the foundation needs to raise money to continue running, then it's reasonable to run a fundraiser. To try to maintain a list of worthwhile charitable foundations here is senseless.
• Strong keep. Everyking 01:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator.--nixie 01:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. Biased, and too easy for folks to say, "Why not my current charity needs?" Aaronwinborn 02:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, too many let people read ITN and decide if they want to donate money anywhere. This link is Broken 02:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons given above. Flowerparty 02:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - so, it's OK to solicit funds for Wikipedia on each page but not for any other current charitable causes? Wouldn't that imply favoritism towards Wikipedia's needs and thus be POV in itself? --Jtalledo (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not help building encyclopedia. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for about a week or so. I'm so shocked at the delete votes that I'm donating more. --fpo 03:08, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Your comment seems to imply that the people who are voting delete have not dontated, don't want others to donate, or don't care about the hurt people. This isn't correct and it's a pretty hurtful position. I hope you think about the other reasons we think wikipedia doesn't need to be in the bussiness of recommending or approving charities, and revise your position. --Gmaxwell 05:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If Wikipedia were to endorse charity every time something bad happened somewhere, we'd just become the Yellow Pages of giving people money. Setting aside very real issues of systemic bias, this is simply unmaintainable, hopelessly POV, and unneeded: people who want to donate money to a good, non-Wikipedia cause can do so without us poking them. Lord Bob 03:34, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, I'm highly unimpressed with the point-proving shenanigans of some of those pushing to delete. On the other hand, this is exactly why I wasn't keen on anything resembling endorsement of specific charities.

Comment - This is a moral issue either way, and I wouldn't say that those who are pushing for deletion are using sophistry at all. Another point I have is to respond to User:Jtalledo's point about bias. NPOV only applies to articles.--Knucmo2 10:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It's also worth noting the nominator's comment in a similar dispute over putting a donations box on the Main Page, in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean earthquake/tsunami: "There is clear community consensus for it and let's be honest here, it is the right thing to do." I would love to know how he reconciles his views then and now. --Michael Snow 03:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem: there is no consensus for this page, and the 2004 IOT was infinitely worse than this and did not occur in the richest country in the world. Dan100 (Talk) 07:53, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:48, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete We have a perfectly good list of charities (which could use a little charity itself if all those red links are an indicator). It is far less Amerocentric than this hopelessly lopsided list, and I can't understand, if promoting other charities is the point, why the banner message didn't just point to the already existing article. Denni☯ 04:09, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
  • Because that article lists wiki links, not direct links to places were donor dollars can help. Nor is it organized by event. --mav 04:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It's two mouse clicks to get to the charity's website from that article. How hard is that? And I am prepared to give credit to people for figuring out that the Red Cross might be helping out victims in Lousiana and Somalia, while AfricaCrisis.org is really a bad plan if you want to help children in Baton Rouge.

I guess what my real concern is, Mav, is that we have this =honking= big list of sites to go to to offer aid to the Katrina victims, while Sudan gets one and Niger gets two. In the big picture, both of these make Katrina look like a Sunday picnic, and in the meantime, both cancer and AIDS eat people like they were dim sum. This list is hugely distorted in where its priorities lie, and is unworkable as it stands. Denni☯ 02:55, 2005 September 9 (UTC)Denni☯ 02:43, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

• Comment' Note that the nominator said this about the removal of the tsunami support message from the Main Page.

I don't care that Jimbo doesn't like it. I don't care that Brittanica haven't got one. There is clear community consensus for it and let's be honest here, it is the right thing to do. If any admin is reading this, please restore it at the earliest possible opportunity. Thanks in advance. Dan100 10:00, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

So this current nomination sounds a bit hypocritical to me. Is this not also the right thing to do? Note that this effort is an attempt to create a non-event specific page. Sure more editing is needed to get it there, but that editing will not happen if the page is in danger of being deleted. --mav

Lol how many times are you going to link to that Mav? As I've said in my other replies so far: There is no consensus for this page, unlike for that single link on the Main Page back in January, nor do I believe the Katrina disaster warrants a link from Wikipedia. It's nowhere near the scale the 2004 IOT was. Dan100 (Talk) 07:44, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

The Katrina disaster is not the only thing listed on this page. It just happens to be the most recent event listed and somebody else added all the extra Katrina links - not me. I was my hope when creating this page that it could be expanded and improved to the point where it could be used to help more than example events I listed just to get the page started. Having haphazard disaster-by-disaster efforts is POV and will be factious. This could have been the start of a sustainable answer to this type of thing. Yet you killed that effort with this VfD. Many people affected by the events listed on that page could have been helped that won’t be due to all this. I hope you all get a warm fuzzy feeling about that. --mav 16:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• That was a while ago. I'm willing to assume good faith and say that he simply changed his mind over the nine months that have passed since the first of January, 2005. Lord Bob 04:44, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

And there is now nearly clear consensus to remove this one, although I'm sure the discussion is suppressed somewhat because the VFD notice has been removed from the article again. It appears to be out of the site notice now, so I'm not sure why. I think Mav should refrain from futher inserting or removing of this article because its clear from the prior discussion that he is very emotionally involved in this issue. --Gmaxwell 05:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I don't really like the idea of Wikipedia wanting you to donate to anyone other then them, and I certanly don't like the fact a link is on EVEY PAGE about it. --Bky1701 07:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia as an encycylopedia and lets keep it that way --Clawed 08:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per all the reasons stated above. →Vik Reykja 09:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Get rid of the ad or Delete: 1) Why now as opposed to all the time? Oh wait, there's a current catastrophe in America, which is obviously more important than other places in the world which deal with conditions worse than New Orleans's on a daily basis. 2) Organisations to donate to are not hard to find, phishers notwithstanding. 3) If Wikipedia puts a call out for this, then they have to put a call out for every worthy cause. 4) Part of Wikipedia's ethos is no advertising: the only advertising or soliciting for funds we do is to keep the site operational. That's it. Darobsta 09:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per lots of people above. Hopelessly POV and in no way contributes to the goal of building an encyclopedia. And part of our ethos is no advertising. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Regardless of which way this goes, could the admins please stop changing the page/template long enough for the vote to take place? Especially stuff like Ayn Rand - what's the point of locking it in the first place if stuff like that happens anyway... --Schrei 09:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Though I have my sympathies for the people who suffer, I strongly feel that this is not the forum for doing this for the following reasons. a)It's bound to be POV. b) It'll dilute our own fundraising efforts. c) It's simply taking us away from our core mission. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — tpower 10:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I fail to see the purpose of this in an encyclopaedia. JSIN
• Remove immediately this article is in the Wikipedia namespace, where it clearly does not belong. It also unnecessarily replicates information of List of charities. The encyclopedia therefore would not loose any information by speedily deleting it. Gebruiker:Dedalus 11:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Since I have already voted for immediate removal of this page, I wanted to add a link to Jimbo Wales' comment and add that this we need a policy in place to keep this from happening in the future. It is an idea, though well-meaning, that goes completely against the spirit and policies of Wikipedia. Jokestress 19:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • He comments that we need a policy about this issue, not against it. Pcb21| Pete 20:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • And I quote, "the arguments for it are not persuasive to me, and we deseparately need a coherent policy about this in the future, to avoid this kind of edit war.". Interesting. I would have that arguments for it not being persuasive was tantamount to not being in favor of it.--naryathegreat | (talk) 21:26, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Why is it so wrong to help other worthy causes? I'm not sure the bandwidth used for this page is all that much compared to the amount of help it creates for carities that really don't get as much press as say the red cross. The fact that it is a "locked" page is good so that it doesn't really have much extra bandwidth/server time utilized on helping other causes. This is not just because of the hurricane, there are other good causes on the page as well. -- ×××jijin+machina | Chat Me!××× -- 01:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It might be a worthy cause, but other 'worthy causes' are taking preference over certain others. I think a consensus has been reached, time for the admins to step in. --Knucmo2 14:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • They did, but other admins feel very strongly about this matter because they believe that our message might help those in need, and they feel ethically bound to push that agenda. Other admins feel very strongly that the list isn't helpful and consider the result here to command a change. As a result there was an edit war, and Jimbo had to step in to stop it. :( On the plus side, it's been removed from the site-notice which is all people mostly cared about, ... now this is just a POV fork of list of charities in the wrong namespace. --Gmaxwell 15:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:29, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

• Delete. There is nothing bad about encouraging people to donate to charity, in fact, this is great! But this can so easily be done in an NPOV style. In fact, it's ALREADY BEEN DONE. Instead of linking to this messed up page, just link to Wikipedia list of charities ("Thanks for your charity! You are still welcome to make a _donation_ or _purchase Wikimedia merchandise_"). Then everyone can add charitable causes to the aforementioned page, organized by country, in true NPOV fashion, each proportionate to the attention in the current public conscious. Connelly 06:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I like this solution. I think it might be a good compromise; user:anthere
  • Hmm. I think this would be a minor improvement. But I fear it would largely just shift the problem, it would encourage edit warring on the charities article, and there are many users (including myself) who consider list of charities as non-encyclopedic content that should be removed along with many of our other list of articles. At least when it is not linked site wide it assuming good faith on the part of link submitters comes more naturally. I think when it comes down to it, if someone is motivated enough to donate their hard earned money, they are motivated enough to actually find a charity since it is rather easy without our help... so the only purpose for our list is to potentially show users good charities they might not have found otherwise, but there in lies the rub: many people will jockey over whats in the list and the order of the list to try to obtain better visability for charities they feel are better... On the sitenotice talk I made a late and not-serious suggestion that we make the notice say Wikipedia would like to remind you to feel guilty if you are not suffering as much as so many other people in the world. Without a link. Because beyond directing people to a POV list of charitites the only other thing we could accomplish with a donation notice would be to remind people to donate, which would be better accomplished with my above message. :) --Gmaxwell 15:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not so sure. I think charities simply decree those who donate as socially responsible for disasters and shift the burden of blame. I see this in a lot of cases. In addition 90 per cent of charity in the USA is collected and spent locally, thus, we see privelege applying to charity (how ironic), namely that rich, well-funded charities are usually in rich communities and poor communities have poor charities, and about only 10-15 of all donations are sent the way of the indigent. Thus no amount of donations fix this fundamental social problem.--Knucmo2 16:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, my comment could be construed as unhelpful to those in the Katrina incident. But my main point is: I think that Wikipedia does an exceptional job of covering current events in an NPOV style. I compare Wikipedia to the major TV news channels, and Wikipedia is just so much more "unbiased" (in the common sense of the word). I find it highly refreshing to not have peoples' bizarre ideologies always pushed down my throat. Surely Wikipedia can do this for Katrina, too! I don't have any problem with Wikipedia linking to a general list of charities, but it seems strange when Wikipedia links directly to a list of Hurricane Katrina relief organizations (Like maybe...an agenda being pushed down the reader's throat? Would you resent this if say you think the Sudanese need help much more than the Katrina refugees?). - Connelly 10:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and regretably so because I am sure that the page was made with plenty of good intentions. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not the website to post these kind of things. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Sjakkalle. Martin 14:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• No vote and go for consensus instead. Take this to Wikipedia talk:Current charitable causes. As has been pointed out elswewhere before by others, we shouldn't be voting on policy on MFD (not even on application of policy). 80.126.238.189 17:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete immediately. I'm sure this was created with the best of intentions. However, 1) Wikipedia is not a list of links. This page can never be anything but a list of links. 2) The selection of "worthy" charities is inevitably biased. It also represents an area where Wikipedia does not have any special expertise. (Unless you plan to enlist a dedicated cadre to visit each charity and confirm that they are real, that they are efficient, that they are well run, that their goals are in line with the advertised goals, etc.) 3) There have been far too many very sophisticated hacks, phishing attacks and cons associated with charities both in the tsunami disaster and even faster and more numerous since this hurricane. This list of links is just a convenient target. We can do our best to defend our links but it is not our core skill set and it is not an efficient use of our developers' time. 4) This stretches the "no advertising" rule past the point of breaking. If you want a charitable giving clearinghouse, go to the United Way. We all do have lives outside of Wikipedia. We don't have to solve every problem through our work here. Rossami (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete... good intentions aplenty, but simply saying "here's a list of links to some charities that may or may not be good" just isn't part of what an encyclopedia should be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Leave this kind of thing to the BBC and news agencies. You will never get a sensible consensus on which good cause is the most important at any time and WP is about consensus. --BozMo|talk 09:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and keep instead the neutral List of charities ChaTo 13:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We shouldn't try to get people to donate to any charity, really; to ourselves is just about OK, but... James F. (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• No vote - Who would actually use or benefit from this charity list? You won't get impulse donations. The list could be compromised in time by unreliable posters. The warning already tells the potential donor "buyer beware". What's the point? - Tεxτurε 17:12, 19 September 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. dbenbenn | talk 21:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Subpages of Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs

• Wikipedia:Template_messages/Stubs/Misc
• Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/Science
• Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/Technology
• Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/Broadcast media
• Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/By region

This page is hopelessly out of date and long deprecated (as are all pages of the form Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/Foo). The template messages page now uses the stub type list at WP:WSS/ST Grutness...wha? 09:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia namespace needs cleanup, this old list is a start. Ashibaka (tock) 00:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Combined the five subpages with their near-identical nomination and Ashibaka's identical vote comment. -- grm_wnr Esc 03:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all. They barely load when the servers are not at peak performance, the simple list at WP:WSS/ST is much easier to handle. We don't need two (or more) lists, and these are the ones that should go. -- grm_wnr Esc 03:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm for cleaning the Wikipedia namespace. CG 09:52, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: There are quite a few more pages like this. I've found the following, which I think is all of them:

Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/Arts

Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/Beliefs

Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/Culture

Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/General

Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/GeneralStubs

Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/Geographical

Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/History

Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/Leisure

Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/Life

Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/Math

Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/Military

Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/People

Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/Poligov

Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/Society

Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/Sports

Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/Templates

Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/Transportation

Should these simply be added to this proposal, or do they need to be proposed for deletion separately? Grutness...wha? 08:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I would say adding them to this proposal - I can't see anyone wanting to keep some and delete others. If anyone disagrees, they should speak up, of course. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect all to WP:WSS/ST if that page has made these obsolete. No real need to delete these, some of which appear to have a decent amount of inbound links. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:23, 2005 September 9 (UTC)
• Unless it would mess up the template server software somehow, redirect all as suggested by C Parham. Barno 04:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Since there are inbound links, I agree with Christopher. Redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Good point. Nothing wrong with a redirect here. Since I didn't actually vote above (just brought the pages here for discussion), I'll weigh in with my support for redirect. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirecting is fine with me too, except for one: Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/Templates should be kept, because the templates on it aren't actually stub templates - it should, however, probably be moved somewhere else. Sorry for not noticing this earlier. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That one probably should redirect to Wikipedia:Stub. it shows three metatemplates, only one of which is usually used, and the current procedures for creating stub templates are more accurately given at WP:STUB. Grutness...wha? 06:11, 12 September 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moved to user space per page-creator's request. (Page-creator is also essentially the sole editor.) The redirect from the Wikipedia-space is deleted. Rossami (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Curing boredom

• Delete. I'm not at all sure what this is, but it isn't a proposal, or a guideline or a Wikipedic essay. It doesn't belong anywhere but userspace. -Splash 20:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge onto WP:BJ or one of my userpages as I am the creator of this. --Arm 01:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and put into Category:Wikipedia humor. CG 05:36, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep looks ok to me. Could be expanded or merged though Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Moved to user page. Dan100 (Talk) 11:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with userfication per creator's request. Not usefully relevant to the WP project. Barno 04:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Since it's been moved and nothing linked to it, delete the redirect. Angela. 23:39, September 10, 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Dan100 as patent nonsense. Titoxd 03:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:You Know You're Addicted to DXM When

Delete another part of the semi-joke-book stuff a couple of debates down. -Splash 20:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy or BJAODN, but somehow kick it out of the Wikipedia namespace. It doesn't belong there. --Titoxd 07:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete joke. This would be inappropriate in the article space and is even more inappropriate in the Wikipedia space. Move to Wikibooks Jokebook if you like. Rossami (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bad joke Ashibaka (tock) 18:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN and Delete. I'm for a little humor in the Wikipedia namespace, but at least it should concern Wikipedia. CG 09:53, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense. — JIP | Talk 09:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Which kind of patent nonsense is it? It's intelligible and has meaning. -Splash 12:57, 7 September 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Toby

WP:NOT censored. Userfy, fail that DeleteKeep (just a note that I am somewhat sympathetic, but just don't think this is the way to do it. Maybe a campaign to get more scientific images... but not censorship) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Interesting idea, though hard to understand, which is probably why people are calling it censorship. (Hint - it's opt-in.) --SPUI (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - I'm strongly opposed to the proposal, however there's no reason to delete policy proposals. Just because it's a proposal doesn't mean it will become policy if we don't delete it ;) It will soon become what it deserves to be, a failed policy proposal. -- Joolz 14:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - It obviously won't make it into policy, and we will need it as a historical reference the next time someone tries to censor wikipedia. Should be about two weeks after this fails? Oh, and RN, I think our images are pleanty scientific enough, except a few like autofellatio. --Phroziac ^(talk) 14:56, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, all proposed policies - including those that fail - should be left for historical purposes. Alphax ^τεχ 15:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this isn't the method we use to oppose policies we don't like. 86.133.214.36 15:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, despite its tone it seems to be a serious proposal. It doesn't seem to have much support though, and its first test run was considered vandalism and reverted - so marking it as {{rejected}} sounds appropriate. Radiant_>|< 16:04, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

That is a lie. The Simple Toby demo is nothing close to vandalism; nobody has had been foolish enough to so label it; and it is now alive and well, and available for your viewing pleasure. The comment above is FUD. — Xiong熊talk* 19:00, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

Radiant! was referring to Toby's outing last night with SPUI. He was reverted very quickly. -Splash 19:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep all failed serious proposals. ~~ N (t/c) 17:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and NOOB -- this nomination is invalid, a violation of The Wiki Way. — Xiong熊talk* 18:55, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
  • No, the nomination is not invalid, and citing some document that you wrote a few does ago does not make it so. -Splash 18:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The nomination is invalid, a violation of our most cherished principles. I did not create The Wiki Way; I only put a page full of words together to describe it. This cornerstone of Project and Community was here long before you or I ever came on board. — Xiong熊talk* 19:03, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

• Keep, a good object to point the next attemptor to. -Splash 18:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN 70.119.150.127 19:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC) User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 19:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and watch it fail on its own. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy, delete, keep and mark as rejected, in that order. It isn't funny, and it's not sensible, and it is our business, Xiong. [[smoddy]] 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - no deletion of failed policy proposals kthxplz. Haven't we've been through this before? -- grm_wnr Esc 20:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Erwin
• Keep so long as it is labeled {{rejected}}. — Dan | Talk 21:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I disagree with the policy, but I wouldn't be able to express this as well as I do if it wasn't articulated somewhere. Insert suitable reference to Voltaire. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. [5]. -- Norvy (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and reject. I agree with the rejection of this proposal. It needs to be kept as evidence that censorship tags -- even minimal content-free ones! -- are rejected. The "Toby" system is necessarily the least offensive system of censorship tags, since it does not impose any specific bias ("POV") as to what is censorable (nudity, violence, sex, etc.). Any system which does carry a bias is more offensive against Wikipedia principles than Toby. Therefore, the rejection of Toby carries with it the rejection of every system of censorship tagging. --FOo 21:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Reject. Goodfaith policy, terrible idea. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Fail (== Keep and mark as {failed}). (New page, new specialism, so why not new and more useful shorthands?) Ah oh yeah, the reason why is because we should never delete policy proposals you see, it's always a good idea to keep a record of what's been tried. Since this particular policy seems likely to fail though, it should be marked with a failed tag. Does that all sound reasonable? Kim Bruning 00:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Using Misc Deletion to determine that a proposal has failed sounds like a bad precedent to set. -- Norvy (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh hmm yes. That was not my intent, but I can see how it might be read that way. Sorry for the confusion! Kim Bruning 02:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Just keep it is, then. Kim Bruning 02:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:26, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- DS1953 03:26, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I like the idea of Toby (especially because of the fact it's opt-in), but I think we need to come up with a method we can all agree on. Hopefully, that'll come. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 03:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to vote ban Xiong from using the acronym FUD :P —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 03:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. No. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, and we don't need Toby around. --WikiFanatic,^{formerly WikiFan04Talk 00:06, 5 Sep 2005 (CDT)}
  • This is more of a "I choose to censor" feature than a "you must comply with our censorship rules" feature. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 06:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Aaah, the first really contentious nomination at MD... it makes me feel proud. :) As for the topic at hand, keep as rejected proposal. As far as I know, Toby didn't get much support, but the "Disable inline display of images" option did sound like a good proposal. Maybe that could be split from it, but that is beyond the scope of this debate. Titoxd 07:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep failed proposal and ban Xiong from using the acronym FUD Ashibaka (tock) 18:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy or Keep as a record. Xiong can Toby his own user page if he likes. Karmafist 19:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I actually nominated this after cleaning up SPUI's toby images, so I probably saw red when I saw the guy. At any rate I'm changing my vote as listed above
• Weak Keep. I hate this proposal with a passion, but that's why I don't want to have to do this discussion all over again, so it should probably be kept for documentation purposes. Please keep that {{rejected}} tag firmly in place, and let's hope this doesn't inspire more bad ideas. --IByte 15:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and mark as rejected. It's a good-faith proposal, and it doesn't advocate vandalism or other disruptive actions. --Carnildo 20:10, 6 September 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted at 04:54, 12 September 2005 by user:Bluemoose who commented as per misc. del.. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:You Know You're a Pothead When

I'm pretty sure this isn't official policy. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a jokebook. Transwiki to Wikisource if they want it, delete otherwise. Radiant_>|< 16:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although there's no stricty speedy, this doesn't need 5 days of deliberation! -Splash 19:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Out of place here. -- DS1953 03:41, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Actually on official Wikipedia guidelines nowhere does it say Wikipedia is not a jokebook. From Bad Jokes and various humor pages located on Wikimedia projects, ide say Wikipedias got some room for humor. For jokes not properly labeled as jokes so tightasses like yourselves will take them seriously, maybe we need to label or move them. I wrote those joke articles while on a hardcore ego trip. Never would I of thought they'd be taken seriously. --Arm 07:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• BJAODN. We're just trying to clean up messes here, not to bite any heads off. Please refrain from personal attacks. Titoxd 07:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN and Delete. I'm for a little humor in the Wikipedia namespace, but at least it should concern Wikipedia. CG 09:54, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, useless. — JIP | Talk 09:59, 7 September 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Martin 08:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:You Know You're a Pothead When, Wikipedia:You Know You're Addicted to Caffeine When, Wikipedia:You Know You're a Pothead When, Wikipedia:You Know You're Addicted... When..., Wikipedia:You Know You're Addicted to Internet When

I'm pretty sure this isn't official policy. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a jokebook. Transwiki to Wikisource if they want it, delete otherwise. Radiant_>|< 16:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikisource is for, well, source material, not user-generated material. I believe Wikibooks may have a joke book, and ten bucks says Uncle G will come here and tell us where this belongs. Dmcdevit·t 03:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • There's one at Wikibooks:Jokebook. Angela. 19:30, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Dmcdevit, Angela was the one who came and told us about the Jokebook. Since Uncle G wasn't the one who did it, pay up! :P Titoxd 07:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Dmcdevit paid up. :D Titoxd 22:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, youve been out to get me since I pissed you off in the Tarja Turunen page. Since you posted you know your a pothead when... twice, I'm guessing your memory aint that good (possibly from being a pothead), so mellow out dude. And what about the you know your addicted to DXM page too? Or in your marihuana-induced memory impairment did you forget about the dexhead page?

Admit I was right about the Tarja page and quit trying to destroy my joke pages. At the very least there is a whole section on Wikipedia dedicated to bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense is it's name of course.

And do you dare to find the rest of my joke/Nihilartikel articles Delaney?--Arm 17:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Although there's no stricty speedy, this doesn't need 5 days of deliberation! -Splash 19:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Please don't let personal matters get in the way. Wikipedia: is a bit dusty since no one really *fds pages in there, but these are clearly deletable. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 19:07, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What's this doing there? Dmcdevit·t 19:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - these jokes don't belong in Wikipedia. -- DS1953 03:45, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Maybe they deserve a special section there, but that's for the BJAODN people to decide. Titoxd 07:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all these jokes. They are not appropriate as articles and are even less appropriate in the Wikipedia space. Yes, there is a Wikibooks Jokebook. Move them there if you like. Rossami (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN and Delete. I'm for a little humor in the Wikipedia namespace, but at least it should concern Wikipedia. CG 09:54, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete the lot of them. — JIP | Talk 10:06, 7 September 2005 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied as user test. Radiant_>|< 17:52, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Справка

Seems to have been a test CG 16:40, September 3, 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus/Keep Furthermore, I know admins should not close VfD's they voted on. Or MD or whatever the hell. But note I'm closing opposite my original vote. This page is five days old, so I should close. Also. most of the keep votes say keep the rejected tag. So we shall. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Zap

Patent unhelpful nonsense which will never become a policy. — Dan | Talk 00:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep provided that the rejected tag stays and we keep the boldtext saying to NEVER ZAP ANYTHING... EVER!Delete. See its talk page and FreplySpang's comments. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Freply's comments. Toothpaste 00:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Like Toby, but even less useful. Stlemur 00:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Freply's and my comments on the talk page. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons given on Wikipedia talk:Zap FreplySpang (talk) 00:22, September 3, 2005 (UTC) Keep and mark as unsupported by consensus. I agree, it is an useful historical document. FreplySpang (talk) 21:24, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Calling this page "patent nonsense" is a provocative statement bordering on personal attack. You're warned. It will never become policy because it is not a policy proposal. It is not even faintly related to Toby -- that statement is mere FUD. The page in question is a formal statement of an existing method of dealing with poor content -- and that policy is long established. — Xiong熊talk* 00:22, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
  • It doesn't bear the faintest resemblance to a personal attack since it has nothing to do with a person. What, if I may enquire, do you mean by "you're warned"? What are you suggesting might happen if I continue calling things nonsense? — Dan | Talk 00:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not "patent nonsense", whatever else it may or may not be. That's obvious. You may not like it, but then, I dislike a lot of things that are coherent. Attaching such a label to something which I am primarily responsible for writing is a personal insult. If you don't understand this, I don't know how to help you.
      You are confusing a warning with a threat. I warn you that I take personal offense at your remark, Sir. I threaten nothing; and I do not pretend to fortell your future. — Xiong熊talk* 01:56, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the clarification. — Dan | Talk 02:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment as far as I know, there's no policy saying to redirect useless pages anywhere. I don't see why you keep saying there was. Nonsense pages are CSD'd, and killed. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as another experiment on WP:XD; it deserves to be looked at together with the other experiments there (IMHO it's better than at least one of them). --cesarb 00:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I already suggested that, but the author said no on the talk page. -Splash 00:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, seeing as it has come here. It's not a viable proposal for a mounting list of reasons. -Splash 00:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I was going to change to keep as an object-lesson. But if the author won't allow the {{rejected}} tag to stick, then it'll have to be deleted. Semantics over proposal or not are wide of the mark. A newbie comes along and thinks this is ok if they are sure its ok is going to get a bit of a shock. -Splash 20:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This has little in common with XD or any deletion reform proposal. It's not a proposal at all. No policy is to change in the least. How hard can I draw that line? No exceptions. — Xiong熊talk* 00:43, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
    • Respectfully, if it is not a proposal for reform of the deletion system (which in the abstract is a welcome thing), then I do not see what this is. It is perhaps a suggestion, though it reads very much as a recommendation to follow the Zap process. I think that is not a good suggestion, and a bad recommendation. If we are still allowed to delete the redirects i.e. take them to RfD then nothing is changed, since it will be necessary to examine the article history to decide on the deletion/keeption. It would become VfD by another name, but with a directionless redirect in the middle. -Splash 00:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you mean that, about the respect? I have a positive dislike of having smoke blown up my ass. I'd rather be called a rat bastard openly. If you genuinely want to understand, I'm willing to explain -- but I don't know how much more plainly I can put it. I'll try.
    The deletion system is currently broke. I'd love to improve it. What I've done so far is this: I printed out every word I could find written on the subject. It came to a stack half an inch high. Now, I'm going through it, reading it all. You want to talk about a thankless job? I hope to come out of the cesspool with an intelligent, unbiased report for the Community. I expect a kick in the shins for my trouble.
    The bigger we get, the more attention we attract. The more attention, the more new editors; the more new editors, the more new crap. The more new crap nominated for deletion, the greater pressure on the system -- whatever it may be. The more pressure on the system, the more pressure on admins (and all editors) to hurry through the process, vote hastily, close quickly, and delete delete delete delete. The more deletions, the more likely it is that Something will be deleted wrongly -- and the less likely that anybody will take the time and trouble to try to undelete anything, or that anybody who does make the effort will be heard and heeded -- no matter the value of the deleted content.
    All of these reform proposals do very little to address the root issue, half of which is timid editors afraid to delete pure, obvious, blatant crap on sight. (The other half being the ability of any dumbass with a broadband connection and a basic understanding of proxies to dump more crap on us in an hour than any community should have to contend with in a month.)
    The worst thing about the current deletion system, though, is that so much crap gets left out to dry and stink as we root through it, holding our noses. Sooner or later, the spiders come by and pick it up. Now, it doesn't matter if we delete it -- it's cached.
    Zapping is a bold act; it has nothing to do with fixing the deletion system. Indeed, it deletes nothing -- which is at least half the point. It is an individual intervention by a single user who takes crap right out of the path of the deletion system -- and out of sight of spiders, passers-by, and indignant Moms. This action has always been available to any editor -- even an anon IP. No need to whine for admin attention. The job is done. In true wiki fashion, however, Somebody Else can always come by and make it better -- by changing the redirect, if possible, or deleting it entirely.
    The page in question should certainly not be read as an incentive to idiot users to zap good content -- or even possibly good content. Right now, that sort of stuff must pass through our deletion process -- warts and all. Zap merely lists redirection targets and cautions users to document what they do in this way; attaches a catchy name to the action; and points out some of the issues involved -- advantages and otherwise.
    If you feel that the page does not go far enough to warn idiots against zapping the user pages of longtime contributors (or similar vandalism), then Be Bold. Edit this page. Take responsibility for your opinions, and promote them.
    I just now added a huge orange WARNING box to the top of Zap, in answer to your kind of concerns. If you don't think its wording is strong enough, fixit. Turn the box red, if you like -- {{divbox|bloodred}} if you insist. Add your cautions to the list. Join this Project and contribute to it by making things better. — Xiong熊talk* 01:56, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
    • As an aside, I happen to think that WP:BEANS is a rather fine piece of work, and highly applicable to Zap. -Splash 01:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you; but in what way? — Xiong熊talk* 01:56, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
• NO VOTE: I've put the {{md}} tag on the associated page User:Zapped User page. I'm sure everyone can agree that if we delete Wikipedia:Zap, we can delete the user page too. Vacuum c 03:37, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but archive and inactivate. This appears to be a good-faith policy that did not gain consensus. Vacuum c 03:51, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've also held a TfD on Template:Zap. Vacuum c 15:51, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've also held an IfD on WP:IFD of Image:Zap.png. Vacuum c 16:11, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Page encourages actions that are indistinguishable from vandalism. --Carnildo 07:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support your statement, Sir. — Xiong熊talk* 22:28, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
• Delete per Carnildo. Page seems to have been created to support an unusual vote on MFD as if such votes were normal. They are not, and we don't need further convolutions of our system. Radiant_>|< 09:32, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speak plainly, please. Did I do wrong? Say so? Do you support user page SPAM or not? — Xiong熊talk* 22:28, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
• Keep as per Xiong and Vacuum. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 13:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a rejected policy which would have encouraged a form of blanking. Clearly marked as not policy, clearly marked as "do at own risk". Useful as reference when a similar plan is suggested again, and it will be. If there is ever evidence that this page has been vandalized to look like policy, revert and Protect it. Septentrionalis 20:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The problem isn't whether or not its a policy, that never was the problem. The problem is that its existence allows people to do it. If the page didn't exist, there would be no reason to do such a thing. People doing it still creates useless work for RfD, regardless if the page is a policy or not! Also, note that Xiong once voted 'Zap' at a VfD and then said he would be bold and zap the page itself, while it was still on vfd. ...er, afd. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as record of rejected proposal. -Sean Curtin 23:23, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm pretty sure it's policy to keep rejected proposals, and if not it should be. There's no harm in having this around, and it may make a useful object lesson someday. ~~ N (t/c) 00:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the page, but reject the proposal soundly. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - no deletion of good-faith proposals please. Seems to be soundly rejected though, so mark it as such. Alternatively, put it on WP:XD like the rest of the non-policy and highly experimental deletion proposals. -- grm_wnr Esc 02:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • As has been pointed out, the author does not see this as a form of deletion and is opposed to making it an XD, though I don't see very much difference between it and the other XD proposals. ~~ N (t/c) 02:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Neither do I, and right now I feel tempted to write up Wikipedia:Ownership of policy proposals... -- grm_wnr Esc 02:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, good point. It should definitely be on XD. ~~ N (t/c) 03:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not at all sure XD would benefit from a suggestion that is soundly rejected already. -Splash 03:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Probably. It'd be nice to run it by the XD crowd though - I'll post on their talk page. ~~ N (t/c) 03:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Carnildo says it best. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:34, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • There's already a big tag on the page saying not to use it and to see CSD instead. ~~ N (t/c) 03:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think. I don't really understand this. Why are we trying to get rid of a failed policy proposal? Shouldn't we keep it as a record, or in case someone wants to try to revive the idea at some point in the future, they can just reopen this instead of starting fresh? I don't consider VfD to be a sensible option here. Just because a policy proposal fails doesn't mean you erase all trace of it. Everyking 05:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Originally he said not a policy, therefore we were trying to kill it. Then it was tagged with rejected and so now everyone's voting keep. Which is fine by me because I put in bold print, 'Do not Zap something. EVER.' Redwolf24 (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Failed policy proposals should be kept as part of the record. Incidentally, I think it is premature to call this a "failed" proposal. The first draft was created at 17:21, 2 September 2005. It was nominated for deletion within mere hours. Looking at the edit history, the proposal is clearly still in flux. A proposal can't be "rejected" until it's reasonably finalized and proposed. The deletion process should not be used to register your objections to a proposal. Rossami (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• A clearly bad idea, but not a bad faith proposal. Move - archive somewhere (without a redirect); do not delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 14:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and archive, no reason to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:57, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
• Delete Highly dangerous. Prone to misuse. CalJW 21:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Huh? It says outright "don't do this". ~~ N (t/c) 21:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • He might be thinking of WP:BEANS. --cesarb 21:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and archive. Andre (talk) 01:04, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the page as a record of the proposal. -- DS1953 03:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Strange, but apparently good faith. In my book, good faith = keep when it comes to the Wikipedia space. Dragons flight 06:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is certainly worthwhile. Deleting it while still under consideration would be premature. --Matt Yeager 04:26, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm lenient on proposals, but this doesn't read like one. This reads more like a WikiEssay, so it has no place in here. Also, it advocates vandalism as Carnildo correctly pointed out. Titoxd 06:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep failed policy in good faith. Ashibaka (tock) 00:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Ashibaka. Perhaps the historical tag should be placed on it. Falphin 01:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a record of this overwhelmingly rejected policy proposal so that when a subtle variant of it is proposed in, oh, about 30 days, we have notes to refer to. Nandesuka 03:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with caveats. As the big red box (currently) says - "This is a Good-Faith proposal of a bad idea." the wub "?/!" 12:34, 8 September 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied by Rdsmith4. Radiant_>|< 09:33, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Myspacex

Spam - promotional of a web service. Was created twice at Myspacex and once at Talk:Myspacex. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion as vandalism. - Mike Rosoft 15:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is too far, even for userspace. Google does sometimes pick up non-mainspace stuff, and WP wouldn't to be helping its pagerank inadvertently. As long as this isn't one that Jimbo has sanctioned, but there's no evidence of that. -Splash 15:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• This "user" has so far only contributed to this user page and to the Myspacex article (edits which were immediately reverted). This is not an appropriate use of the user space. The Myspacex article itself still needs aggressive cleanup. This is way over the top. Rossami (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Zap -- This content should be removed and the page title redirected to the Sandbox. In fact, I'm going to Be Bold and do just that, right now. — Xiong熊talk* 20:49, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
  • Nope. No cross-namespace redirects. Sorry. -Splash 21:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I worked with this user via email to get this user page working. If the page has to be deleted, then you will get no problems with me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, inappropriate userspace. It's not really useful to make up a zapping process on the spot and act on it as if it were policy. Radiant_>|< 22:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead, delete it. While you debate, I act -- and I seriously doubt that anybody wants to retain the nominated page in any form. I think it is highly useful to create tools whenever needed. But that doesn't make them policy -- and I never said it did. No FUD, please. — Xiong熊talk* 23:07, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

• This is obvious spam. I've speedy-deleted it. — Dan | Talk 00:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank You! — Xiong熊talk* 02:38, 2005 September 3 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep since the page is an archive. All pages can be archived. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:The original Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense

Is any of this notable and/or worth giving lots of valuable space on Wikipedia for? UniReb 00:19, 1 September 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.