Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/April 2008

< Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion | Archived debates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MfDBot (talk | contribs) at 00:04, 3 May 2008 (Archiving closed discussions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:04, 3 May 2008 by MfDBot (talk | contribs) (Archiving closed discussions)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

2008-04-24

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 debate was delete. bibliomaniac 15 Do I have your trust? 00:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject London Transport/DLR

Violates policy because Misplaced Pages is not a travel guide. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete...but. Basically, I agree. This page is useful but not encyclopedic, nor does it appear relevant to the improvement of the articles in this Wikiproject and thus I would favour its removal. However, I do feel that it would have been more polite to have brought this to the attention of the Wikiproject (as on the project talk page) first and let them handle it or else defend its existence rather than bringing it here straightaway. OlenWhitaker • or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 21:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep and leave for the Project. This is not in the mainspace where policy applies. It should be left to the Project to decide. I have notifed them. --Bduke (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. No longer needed or wanted. UNI Project founder 07:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete - we don't need it... BG 7 10:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep if the project still wants or requires it, otherwise Delete. Celarnor 03:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete since the wikiproject participants seem to agree that it's no longer useful for the wikiproject, and don't seem to want to keep the page for some purpose --Enric Naval (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete - obviously useless, and if the WProject has agreed its non-usefulness then it should certainly go. Just as a side comment, I think that it is better to bring pages like this straight to MfD, but notify the project. This is still polite, but keeps discussion in one place. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 16:30, April 28, 2008 (UTC)
Delete As one of the more active members of this project I can't see a need for this; the service changes are always listed on TFL's website should anyone need them. — iridescent 20:27, 28 April 2008 (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.

2008-04-23

The result of the debate was Many-see below. — xaosflux 23:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Klostermankl/CareFlash

Enough time to build after speedy, canvasing for links, and using Misplaced Pages for COI Website on SPA account. Misplaced Pages ia not a storage server. If after more than a month the editor has not endavered to build the article with WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS it needs to go. speedy delete Igor Berger (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: There is currently a DRV here. I'd suggest waiting for the outcome there. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree; deleting this at the moment would derail the DRV. A decision on the page should be deferred until the DRV has been closed. BlueValour (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

- ~~This matter is stayed pending DRV closure. If DRV results in the article remaining deleted from the mainspace, re-list this discussion at the top of the page.~~ Discussion should not be finally closed until 5 days after re-opening but should be archived with 10 April 2008 archives.--Doug. 02:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Clerk note: DRV has been closed as "keep deleted" --Enric Naval (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not know what all this means. What is DRV (deletion review?). Is it likely that this page will be deleted? If so, what can I do? Thanks, Klostermankl (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. I am just starting and learning about wikipedia. This is not my full-time job, so I may not be as quick to comply or understand, but please don't take that into consideration when reviewing the page for deletion. Also, I've had trouble with the pictures... and have sent in an approval, but am still not sure if they are ok under a copyright. Additionally, I do not work for CareFlash and am not the CEO. I think this is a great resource for sick individuals and caregivers and would like to help aware others of this resource. Thanks for your advice and constructive criticisms. Klostermankl (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deletion Review of the article closed as "keep deleted", the matter of whether the draft in userspace may remain or should be deleted is now ripe for discussion here.--Doug. 19:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete - storage of article on non-notable website; the links are weak (and horribly malformatted). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep for now (Per DGG's comment, there *might* be some notability on the cancer hospital thing, and DGG says that he's going to help the author to improve the article) ~~Delete~~ Looking at sources, only this 2007 history on Houston Business Journal is somewhat notable, and it's only one agreement with one hospital to use their product. In isolation, this does not establish notability except to a local level. The rest are press releases, that don't count per WP:SELF self published since their wording is not neutral at all (and full of buzzwords too) "This cutting edge alliance empowers patients (...)with the most credible specialists in the sector (...)in the rich, focused circumstances that they are dealing with at that minute of their lives(...) the most comprehensive library of healthcare graphics and animations anywhere in the world.(...)world-class 3-D quality and accuracy(...) delivering unprecedented, world-class, advocacy and education(...)provides a common place on the Internet(...)3D healthcare animations on hundreds of disorders, procedures and anatomical functions, all produced with world-class quality and accuracy," . The rest of sources are passing mentions that don't establish notability. It fails WP:CORP notability per size and impact. Also, appearing on lists of web 2.0 companies looks like "trivial coverage" on WP:CORP. The author has actually made some improvements , but unfortunately for him they don't really address the concerns at DRV, like written as advertising and notability. I assert that the article can't describe notable feats of this company on neutral tone but the article doesn't currently have any such feat, let alone covered with secondary sources. The author has had plenty time to provide those sources, and has only produced regurgitals of press releases and trivial coverage. I suggest becoming more famous and then trying again. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I see one thing additional to that--the page for the MD Anderson Childrens Hospital This is a cancer center of the highest possible reputation & if they are partners with that hospital they might in fact be notable. So I think an article could possibly be written. Leave it there, & I'll help the author. I'm going to now remove some excess as a preliminary. DGG (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the help very much. I had a list of alliance partners earlier with their repective links, but it was suggested that I delete this section, so I did. Could these alliances to notable foundations and companies provide notability? I'm also wondering why other companies that do a similar thing have pages on here that sound much more like advertising and they are ok. Caringbridge is one of them. Should some of the links be deleted b/c they aren't notable. If so, that's no problem. I thought the more the better, but I must be wrong. I appreciate all of the help. By they way I'm a female... :) Regards, Klostermankl (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The link might be helpful. Klostermankl (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep I don't think we should remove pages like this until there has been a full chance to improve them. this is not a abusive use for advertising, but a genuine attempt to build an article.DGG (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep Since it doesn't seem like the page is being used for advertising, and there seems to be some reasonable potential for it to become article space content. -- Ned Scott 04:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Could someone help me with the pictures... I don't know what else I need to do to have them post to the site... I've sent the email with permission to the correct[REDACTED] group. I appreciate it. Klostermankl (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

2008-04-21

The result of the debate was keep. Wizardman 14:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:JackSchmidt/List of snowclones

Deleted, userfied, left lying around for no apparent reason. One edit since last year. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep. No reason to delete a userfied article. I assume its been userfied to keep it from getting deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 23:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It was already deleted in mainspace. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The AfD specifically said userfy was fine. The article needs a lot of work. If the current content somehow offends you, I can blank the offending part until I have time to sit down and work on it. Tracking down pop culture references is a bit tedious, and weeding through long history to find the decent versions is perhaps funny, but definitely tedious. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep. What's the WP policy on deleting stuff in user space? Grover cleveland (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy is that you can keep it for a while if you intend to rework it to comply with policy, but keeping deleted material in userspace indefinitely violates WP:NOT a free web host and is an end-run around WP:CSD#G4, so userfied deleted content that is not being worked on to resolve the issues which caused the deletion, is deleted. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The history information is useful and a pain to export. Most of the pages in my user space have few edits. I could blank it if it is causing some trouble somehow. JackSchmidt (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Question Was this at one point a sandbox or some thing? Was this used in preparation of an article? If the article is completed, delete. If it isn't, keep. If it's not for an article, delete. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 00:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a userfied undelete. The article is quite messy (as you can see), but during some points in its history is was (mostly) good. With well over 500 edits in its history it takes quite some time to go through them. Currently I am working on GA articles for WP:MATH, templates, and patches for mediawiki, not silly articles about 21st century culture, but this particular bit of 21st century culture is on the todo list. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep ~~if it is still needed by the user, otherwise delete.~~ Apparently still needed. No reason to delete if it's being worked on/planned to be worked on. It's not like this is a BLP issue or anything of utmost importance that it needs to be gone right this minute. Celarnor 05:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
(still needed) JackSchmidt (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
'Keep if the user still wants it. See below for fuller explanation. Viridae 06:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not like we decided to delete it or anything, is it? Oh, wait, we did. I want to keep a copy of the original, long Daniel Brandt article in my userspace. OK by you? Guy (Help!) 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was no consensus, not delete. But yeah, personally, I wouldn't have any problem with the Daniel Brandt article sitting in your userspace if you were preparing it for re-entry to the mainspace. Celarnor 18:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh Guy, what a luvely straw man you just built. While' I'm sure you haven't missed it it should be pointed out that the brandt article was deleted after causing a hell of a lot of problems and about 17 separate deletion requests. This wasn't. So if someone wants to keep a copy of this around (its not as if it looks like the mainspace) so they can work on it at a later stage, why would we wannt to get in their way? Because[REDACTED] is all about the content isn't it? And it would be silly to delete someones project (however much it might languish while they are involved with other things), which will hopefully improve the content of the encyclopedia (remember that word - thats what we are here for Guy, content) at some point in the future, for silly reasons like laziness. Of course he might be lying to us and never intend to get around to using this - but since we have no way of knowing and the article is not harmful tehn we should of course allow him to keep it on the basis that it will be improved at a later stage. Viridae 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, we already know that your position is that deleted material can be kept forever in userspace. Or is that only the case when I advocate removing it? No, don't bother answering: there are only two possibilities, and one of them I would not believe from you, not at the moment anyway. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither. I advocate keeping harmless material that the user claims to be working on - or will work on. Thats what userfication is for... Viridae 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Userfication is not an end-run around deletion policy. This was not being worked on at all, and actually never really was: it's just been moved to userspace because of WP:ILIKEIT. Guy (Help!) 08:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete userspace is not an indefinite hosting ground for deleted content. Mr.Z-man 18:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. If you're still working on it, fine. Otherwise take it to your own web site please. howcheng {chat} 18:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Still working on it, but it is low priority. I need the history information (which remains in the database no matter how many times it is deleted, just not easily viewable by me) to finish it. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I'm a writer, and I love this page. I've bookmarked it. I come back to every several weeks or so for inspiration. For the sake of its usefulness, please keep it. Laser813 (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete - It's no more encylopedic than when we deleted it from mainspace, and indefinite storage of deleted material is not an acceptable use of userpages. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep and consider if it possibly would fit into mainspace under a less idiosyncratic title & some citations. But as is, I think a user could keep a list of clichés around in userspace, just as a user could keep a list of common logical fallacies or grammar mistakes or spelling errors--and there are many such lists. DGG (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep Jack said he'd even blank it if it was causing problems. Guess what, most of my sandbox pages contain at least some deleted content in their history. Guy and several other users seem to be missing the spirit behind the userpage policies that normally discourage this kind of stuff. It's not causing problems, so no reason to give people a pointless deadline. -- Ned Scott 04:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)