Meta:Requests for deletion/Archives/2006

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2006, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Contents

Deleted[edit]

Articles[edit]

Untranslated messages[edit]

Previously tagged as speedy, with the comment "Pretty obsolete". Korg + + 12:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete: This article has no explanation on what it is about. It may be useful for the technies, but nearly useless for general readers, not to say it lacks proper presentation and structure.--Wai Wai 10:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Swift 00:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 06:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Test-WP/wen/Wendenkreuzzüge[edit]

This doesn't seem like legitimate content. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Clemson Triathlon[edit]

Not relevant to meta, IMHO. --Paginazero 16:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete This is not about any Wikimedia project. --Kernigh 00:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Snowdog 14:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this is not project related. Xaosflux 03:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Fifa World cup Germany 2006[edit]

Created and emptied by an anonymous user, not relevant to meta. --Paginazero 16:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete This is not about any Wikimedia project. --Kernigh 00:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Snowdog 14:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this is not project related. Xaosflux 03:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Movement Mod for HoI2[edit]

Not relevant to meta. Previously tagged as speedy. WhiteNight T | @ | C 23:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • 'Delete7 --Aphaia 07:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Should have remained a Speedy delete since it is a personal essay and not even something that can be moved to Wikipedia. --Pmsyyz 05:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Page is a soapbox for an opinion and cannot move to English Wikibooks. --Kernigh 00:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Snowdog 14:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this is not project related. Xaosflux 03:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

MUZMA[edit]

Closed as Delete. Essjay TalkContact 09:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Non-meta content --Walter 11:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Stub of encyclopedia article. --Kernigh 00:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not meta related. Xaosflux 19:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Snowdog 14:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

TWEN[edit]

Closed as Delete. Essjay TalkContact 09:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Not meta related. WhiteNight T | @ | C 00:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Stub of encyclopedia article. --Kernigh 00:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not meta related. Xaosflux 19:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Snowdog 14:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Mandarin High School[edit]

Closed as Delete. Essjay TalkContact 09:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Not meta related. --Mdangers 09:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Poor attempt at an encyclopedia article. --Kernigh 23:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Stong Delete not meta related. Xaosflux 19:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Snowdog 14:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

History of the Ninja[edit]

Closed as Delete. Essjay TalkContact 09:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Not meta related. --Mdangers 09:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete' --Kernigh 23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Snowdog 14:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not meta related. -- xaosflux Talk 04:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Why no channel 20 & 21[edit]

Closed as Delete. Essjay TalkContact 09:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Not meta related. --Mdangers 09:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --Kernigh 23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Snowdog 14:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The Bitter Medicine of a Sheeana Future[edit]

Closed as Delete. Essjay TalkContact 09:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Do not know what it is but it does not look it it belongs here --Walter 01:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --Aphaia 12:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is fiction set in the Dune universe. It seems that some editors never check what wiki this is before submitting. --Kernigh 05:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Snowdog 14:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Autograph collecting do's and dont's[edit]

Closed as Delete. Essjay TalkContact 03:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Autograph collecting do's and dont's. An orphaned page that has nothing to do with meta and is leading to off-topic press enquiries. Angela 02:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    Archive as historical page instead? +sj | Translate the Quarto |+ 19:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    Archive as historical page instead - Blockinblox 05:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, maybe it can be useful on en.wiki, as an appendix to en:Autograph. --M/ 12:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • archive as historical on meta'. I'm sure this could be useful somewhere, but as Wikipedia is explicitly not a how-to guide it isn't there. Would fit on Wikibooks or Wikisource? I don't know too much about what they take and don't take. Thryduulf 23:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete You mean, if I post something irrelevant to Meta, and no one notices it for three years, then we can keep it because it is now a "historical page"? Not only is this page irrelevant to Meta, it is also of poor quality. I have copied it to Wikibooks:en:Transwiki:Autograph collecting do's and dont's, in case someone at Wikibooks wants to write a how-to for it. --Kernigh 00:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I know, I know, it's old, someone put it in userspace or transwiki it somewhere or something, but it doesn't really belong here. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

XAT-ATx[edit]

Closed as Delete. Essjay TalkContact 03:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC) non-meta stuff, article --Walter 18:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Meta-Wiki is not an encyclopedia. --Kernigh 05:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Snowdog 14:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per all above. xaosflux Talk 02:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikipedia. I'm going to transwiki it.
    • I don't blame you for transwiki-ing it, since it certainly doesn't belong at meta (that's delete if we're keeping score), but I listed it for deletion there too per en:WP:MUSIC. Sorry. Chick Bowen 14:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

DOS Run Commands[edit]

Close as Delete. Essjay TalkContact 03:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC) This is a list of computer commands not related to the wiki. Xaosflux 03:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. villy ?? 21:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I moved it to Wikibooks:en:Transwiki:DOS Run Command. That should be "DOS Run Commands", but I forgot the final "s".--Kernigh 20:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Transwiki it to Wikipedia, improve it, and then delete it from Meta. w:User:Samuel 69105
  • Delete there is no reason to keep it here as it has nothing related to meta WhiteNight T | @ | C 02:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and please don't transwiki it to Wikipedia. It's how-to information, not encyclopedic information. Chick Bowen 15:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

DOCSIS 3.0[edit]

made by anon in one edit, no links to it. technical, see no conncection whit Wikimedia/Mediawiki --Walter 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. villy ?? 21:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. not meta related. xaosflux Talk 04:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Kernigh 19:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--Aphaia 06:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Кыргызтан, Әрәсә, Элст, Хальмг Таңһч, Кит, Моңһл, Хальмг[edit]

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 10:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Not meta related, created by anonymous User:203.240.254.231, probably by mistake. --Paginazero 07:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep: created for the Kalmykian Wikipedia --Taichi - (?!) 23:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't they be at the test wiki at Test-wp/xal then? Chick Bowen 15:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Probably better to move to that as a part of test wiki. --Aphaia 06:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. My vote is move to Test-wp/xal/?????????, Test-wp/xal/?????, Test-wp/xal/????, Test-wp/xal/?????? ???h?, Test-wp/xal/???, Test-wp/xal/???h?, Test-wp/xal/??????, respectively. Chick Bowen 00:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Strike that; they seem already to be there. Delete or redirect. Chick Bowen 00:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Concur with Chick Bowen. --Aphaia 06:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Page d'accueil de la wikipedia francaise[edit]

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 10:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Copy-and-paste of an old version of the French Wikipedia's main page. Useless, orphan and obsolete page. Korg + + 10:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - fr.wikipedia.org now uses editable templates behind their main page. (Note: I do not edit French-language wikis.) --Kernigh 23:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

WebSports Radio[edit]

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 10:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Non meta-related. Been sitting with a transwiki request tag for a month. xaosflux Talk 02:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete; would probably not survive at Wikipedia. Chick Bowen 16:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki, if necessary. --Aphaia 06:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

CGAP[edit]

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 20:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated with meta, orphan page. --M/ 15:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Already exists at Wikipedia in any case. Chick Bowen 20:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Note: Wikipedia has marked w:CGAP as a possible copyright violation. --Kernigh 16:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Dbl2010 06:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Aardman[edit]

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 02:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia-article --Walter 09:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • delete --Walter 09:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Homeodynamics[edit]

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 02:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Unrelated to meta, could it be useful somewhere else, at least cleaned and wikified? --M/ 22:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Dbl2010 05:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Jutur Jarlson[edit]

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 02:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC) No idea what it is. Does not look very wiki --Walter 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Korg + + 05:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Eriko Imai[edit]

And also Image:Eriko.jpg. Article, non-meta stuff. Waring given to user. --Walter 09:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you did not give the warning to the user! You put the warning on User:Bakaneko3; it should go on User talk:Bakaneko3. --Kernigh 07:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted --Walter 09:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Snowdog 15:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Pmsyyz 07:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

LanguageIs.php/old and LanguageIs.php/old2[edit]

I am cleaning/arranging LanguageXx.php pages, which they are not used on meta anymore. So these are old subpages of an obsolute Language page. So keeping just the main LanguageIs.php page should be enough for that warning purposes fir this language. --Dbl2010 06:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Shouldn't these be deleted by now? // Pathoschild (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, they've been listed for over 15 days. Jude(talk,contribs) 06:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal. Parameter Reader.[edit]

Appears to be the readme of a program called "par_reader". Does not appear to be at all related to MediaWiki or Wikimedia. Jude(talk,contribs) 07:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars Wiki[edit]

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 11:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ad, unnecessary proposal? (See talk page). Previously tagged as speedy. Korg + + 01:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or move to enwiki. --Aphaia 06:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising. See also #Wikipubs. Angela 08:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Dbl2010 06:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Refocus proposal on Portals rather than websites (cf w:Portal:Star Wars). Merge into the list of proposed projects, without the external link, to avoid recreation. Sj 09:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, as sj. -- user:zanimum
  • Delete, already exists at Wikicities. --Pmsyyz 07:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; not likely to every be a Wikimedia project, and already exists per Pmsyyz. // Pathoschild (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It already exists on Wikicities, there's no need for it here. Jude(talk,contribs) 06:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

LBlog[edit]

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 11:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

encyclopedic, non-meta article. oscar 02:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  • delete --oscar 02:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • move to Wikipedia --Piotrus 03:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • move to Wikipedia . Linuxbeak 17:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless there is some evidence it is important, then move to Wikipedia. - Taxman 20:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. // Pathoschild (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It doesn't belong on meta. Jude(talk,contribs) 06:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Quest[edit]

This is a hybrid of oddity and advertisement. I don't think I can say anything else about this one. -.- // Pathoschild (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Wikiversity/Archive[edit]

I've copied the content of this page into Talk:Wikiversity/Old - I don't know where the content had come from, but there is only one version of the page in the history, so it was obviously copied and pasted from somewhere else in the first place. It's not a big deal, but it's just reducing the amount of archived talk pages we have for Wikiversity. Cormaggio @ 10:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems best to just leave it where it was and delete the new page you created. One is worth keeping, but there's no pressing need to change the name. - Taxman 20:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, just to explain, Talk:Wikiversity/Old and Talk:Wikiversity/Archive existed already - I didn't create a new page or a new name, I've simply merged them. I want the one which had no history (ie which had itself been copied from somewhere else) to be deleted. Cormaggio @ 07:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; it's a simple housekeeping task, and doesn't really need much discussion. // Pathoschild (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Alphons[edit]

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 10:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC) non-meta article. oscar 14:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Doesn't belong here. Linuxbeak 18:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Taxman 20:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. // Pathoschild (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Mike Shaboigan[edit]

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 10:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC) non-meta article. oscar 14:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • move to Wikipedia. Linuxbeak 18:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless there's some verification of the claims made. If there is, only then move to Wikipedia. No sense in wasting time on two deletion discussions. - Taxman 20:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and don't move to Wikipedia since it's unverfiable. Possibly a hoax article. Angela 04:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Angela's reasoning. --Pmsyyz 09:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Angela. // Pathoschild (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

DarbarSahib[edit]

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 10:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC) just an image, non-meta. oscar 14:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Added the contents. how it looks now?

  • It looks fine, and is a good image, but it's still not appropriate. If the image is one you've taken then take it to commons and put a proper image license tag on it. That's what commons it for, not meta. And you should see there is already a really nice article on it at w:Harmandir Sahib. Delete. - Taxman 20:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nice image, but the article is encyclopedic and doesn't belong on meta. Jude(talk,contribs) 07:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikitopia[edit]

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 10:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Currently under deletion at en wikipedia and en wikibooks. The author is using meta to publish his own work. Others articles include:


  • Delete all Infinity0 21:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I am not using meta to publish my own work. I created an outline of a project which will be sincerely collaborative. It's a candidate for deletion at wikipedia because somebody flagged it as a suspect neologism. The discussions at wikibooks indicated that this project would be best at home on the Meta. I sincerely believe that this project will be right at home here, that it is not simply "original work." --Wikitopian 21:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You call this an anarcho-capitalist project. I don't think that sort of project is appropriate for a neutral website such as wikimedia. You say discussion at wikibooks? Really? Then why does the talk page not exist? Infinity0 21:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I will respect a concensus that this doesn't belong here if it doesn't belong here. You need to settle down and avoid flatly accusing me of deception when you haven't done your research. The conversation at wikibooks which I mentioned was under the deletion log, not in the talk page. It was suggested that I move the project to mediawiki. I'm not trying to "pull a fast one" and would appreciate it if you didn't make this a personal attack. Thanks. --Wikitopian 22:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, the person who made the suggestion did not know the project was anarcho-capitalist in nature, as you have only explicitly stated so on the talk page of anarcho-capitalism. Infinity0 22:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete now that creator has set up it's own home. - Taxman 20:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above. // Pathoschild (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. MaxSem 17:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Corporation SOS[edit]

Who forgot to close this? Closed as delete. MaxSem 10:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an essay about a rock band, which should be incorporated into any relevant Wikipedia article and deleted on Meta. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Pmsyyz 13:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Magnificent 5[edit]

This is an essay about a Wikipedian's teen rock band, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly meta-unrelated, delete. IMHO speedy deletetion should be considered, in clear cases like this. --Mdangers 22:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Mdangers. MaxSem 06:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not project related. xaosflux Talk 02:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Antifeminism rant[edit]

This seems to be discussion from Wikipedia:Talk:Feminism, moved to the Meta-Wiki because it was unwanted there. As a user on that page stated, "The meta is not a place to spout off on any subject you like, but exists to discuss Wikipedia related issue." // Pathoschild (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. It seems to be just some unwanted rubbish that was dumped here. The original material is presumably still in the history of the relevant talk page on en, and can be retrieved and userfied on that wiki by anyone who finds it of value. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, it is excerpts from the talk page moved to Meta to continue the discussion about what should not be allowed to happen in articles: the over-simplification of an article topic splitting into two opposing views, rather than collaborating to present both views within the article. The original events occurred in 2001, and for the next 3 years people added to the discussion on meta. Over-simplification is apparently still an issue on WP - Amgine / [1]] meta 06:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Benjamin Netanyahu On Terrorism[edit]

This seems to be a discussion from Wikipedia about an article that has since been deleted, probably predating the last loss of deleted revisions. This has nothing to do with the Foundation or any wiki, with the exception of one probably-deleted article. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk about Christianity[edit]

This is a discussion about Christianity, and has no relation to the Foundation or any wiki. We could archived somewhere on Wikipedia, perhaps w:Christianity. In any case, it doesn't belong on the Meta-Wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. MaxSem 17:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A definition of Philosophy[edit]

This is an essay about various philosophical fields, and has no relation whatsoever to the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. It may be historical, but it doesn't relate to Wikimedia. --Pmsyyz 13:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Stupid Republicans[edit]

This is a rant about biased media attention in the United States, and has nothing to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. There is plenty of external referenced material on this subject that can be used as a resource, and it seems to have only a glancing relevance to any Wikimedia projects. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Investigator as Philosopher[edit]

This is a essay which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. If it's notable, it should be moved to Wikisource before deletion. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Cow[edit]

Not project related, alerady on every other wiki. xaosflux Talk 02:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Sj 02:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Framework[edit]

Seems to be a definition only. en:Framework and wiktionary:Framework already exist. - brenneman 10:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Deleted. --Aphaia 09:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiBuchAktion[edit]

German, a book review or more likely just an outline of a book to be written. IMHO nonsense, author is looking for a place to publish/gather interested parties -> mentioning of the term "wiki". No meta relation, delete. --Mdangers 10:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Xbox[edit]

Spanish. Article about Microsofts Xbox. No meta relation, delete. --Mdangers 10:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ap. Miguel Ângelo[edit]

Spanish. A biography. No meta relation I can see, delete. --Mdangers 10:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Srw164[edit]

Bio, not meta related. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 19:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Media Bias[edit]

This is a general discussion about media bias which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Pre-automatic dictatorship[edit]

This is an encyclopedic page about a non-notable neologicism, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

An Anarchist's Creed[edit]

This is a manifesto of Anarchism moved to Meta because Wikipedia didn't want it. It has nothing to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What is reality[edit]

This is a collection of one user's opinions about reality, and has nothing to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Middle East Reconciliation[edit]

This is one post cut out of context urging participants of an edit war to discuss on an inexistant subpage. This not at all Meta-worthy content. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Peace treaty with Israel is a temporary measure[edit]

This is an essay about Israel-Palestinian politics which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Everything[edit]

This is a discussion that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The image that was included is redlinked, and without it, there really is no content. Naconkantari 21:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Drawbacks of Philosophical Understandings[edit]

This is an essay that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Pokus[edit]

Quite honestly, I have no idea what this is. It looks like a misplaced sandbox with random content copy and pasted from other pages. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

He is the one who laughed, and called foul jeers... Til Eulenspiegel 22:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Introducción[edit]

An article in Spanish about an MBA program run by a University. Is not related to Wikimedia. Jude(talk,contribs) 08:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Internet[edit]

Is a copy of the page w:fiu-vro:Internet. Does not belong on meta. Jude(talk,contribs) 08:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:20030713 091355 fruechte.jpg[edit]

This is not appropriate for Meta. It would be more appropriate for Commons or Wikipedia. // Pathoschild (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Don't move elsewhere if the source and license status remains unknown. Angela 14:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Pmsyyz 10:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if licensing is still undetermined, otherwise Transwiki. xaosflux Talk 02:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Code coverage howto[edit]

Doesn't look meta-related to me, but maybe it is? Just another star in the night T | @ | C 01:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. --Pmsyyz 10:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nominator. // Pathoschild (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Turkish pages?[edit]

  • Çolig -- a turkish page that may belong on tr.wikipedia.org. Sj 10:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Bingol and related pages (see template discussion below)

The Ohio University Marching 110[edit]

Should be moved to English Wikipedia. Informed creator via user talk page. --Pmsyyz 10:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Arteriitis temporalis Horton[edit]

Looks like some medical stuff (in Germen?) unrelated to meta. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 21:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed German, no proper article, though. Moving to de: would require total rewrite. delete --Mdangers 22:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Gigomma[edit]

I suspect that this article is covering some sort of computer game for the C64. I am quite sure it is in Italian. I am immensely sure it doesn't serve a purpose in meta. --Mdangers 22:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Incidentalist Manifesto[edit]

I fail to see the relation of this manifesto to meta. --Mdangers 22:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Player Connector[edit]

Unrelated to meta. Not sure if it should be transwikied. Originally speedied it myself, but maybe it is useful to someone... Just another star in the night T | @ | C 22:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, irrelevant advertisement. // Pathoschild (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not relevant. Korg + + 23:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertisement. Naconkantari 21:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Skjold "shield"[edit]

Looks like Swedish or so. Does not like it is Meta or Wikimedia related, have inforemd anon who created it. --Walter 13:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

List of annoying things[edit]

A list of annoying things, unrelated to the project. Naconkantari 02:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete--Suisui 09:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete-- pointlees Redux 02:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

A day in the life of an ordinary Canadian[edit]

This is a short story about life as a (very rich and media-awash) Canadian which has no relevance whatsoever to the Foundation or any wiki. There is no historical significance that I can see. // Pathoschild (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete--Suisui 09:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete-- Redux 02:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:It[edit]

These category titles are inconsistent—Category:IT also exists. I suggest eliminating this category and all categories that have just one letter capitalized and instead use the categories with both letters capitalized. Alternatively, Category:IT could be deleted and this one used, but we should be consistent. --Spangineer[en] [es] (háblame) 19:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Korg + + 23:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this spawn of "overhaul team" and other similar ones, like Category:Ja. --Aphaia 08:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete empty category. xaosflux Talk 01:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesse Pittsley[edit]

Short biography, not project related. xaosflux Talk 02:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Kappa Chapter of Phi Kappa Tau[edit]

Should be on en: if anywhere. Sj 02:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari 19:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not meta related. xaosflux Talk 02:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete maybe not even on en.wp, per [lack of] relevance. Redux 03:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 04:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity/Thinktank[edit]

Is a straightforward question about Wikiversity, which I have moved to Talk:Wikiversity. We don't need an infinite number of Wikiversity pages - there are already enough! Cormaggio @ 06:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding Users[edit]

This looks suspicious to me; created by an anon almost a year ago. --Spangineer[en] [es] (háblame) 02:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Virtualization SIG[edit]

I do not see relation to meta, seems to be HP internal stuff. delete. --Mdangers 10:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Anders[edit]

This article does not appear to have any meaningful or relevant content. I cannot identify the language to translate it and verify. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- The IP address who created it is registered in Norway (querry), so I'd say Norwegian. Other than that, I agree that there is no purpose in keeping this entry. Redux 05:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Bayle[edit]

This page was created by an anonymous user. The content was edited that one time only, at which point it was down; "The reasons are ... and ...". The content hasn't been updated in the roughly fifteen months since creation. // Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. xaosflux Talk 02:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete-- Agreed Redux 05:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sj 23:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Kernigh 01:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 14:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproyecto:Libertad de expresión en wikipedia[edit]

Seems to be just a furious logorrhea. villy 20:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete-- Indeed. Should be deleted. Redux 05:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete My guess is that this was a test page or sandbox. --Kernigh 01:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 14:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

IDXPROD msg overwrites user screen[edit]

I can't make head nor tails of this, it seems to be an account of some technical problem, let me know if this page belongs on meta, as I am just starting to edit it and don't fully understand it yet. (from Wikipedia) Prodego talk 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Project Code Format[edit]

This article does not seem relevant to the Wikimedia Foundation or any wiki. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ang.wikinews Héafodsíde[edit]

This article has absolutly the same content as Ang.wikinews Hēafodsīde. I've chosen Ang.wikinews Héafodsíde because there were more than one author. --Red Baron 20:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Spellchecking Wikipedia[edit]

I don't see the use of this page. It seems to be a discussion consisting of a user's question, a brief answer, and a thanks. The talk page consists of a link to Category:TechSoup Surveys. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Move to suitable talk page; perhaps Babel. Sj 23:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Leave for later expansion, or move to a talk page (but not Meta:Babel, because the goal of that page is to link to other talk pages). --Kernigh 01:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted and merged to Meta:Babel (which routinely hosts such discussion, and rarely links elsewhere). // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Oceanography[edit]

I really wanted to speedy, but i don't think it meets any of the criteria. I guess it could plausibly be merged into the project proposals, but it really isn't one. Best to delete. Tuf-Kat 07:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Kernigh 01:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 14:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- per nom. I've worked with Uwe Kils (the user who created this page) in the Kindness Campaign over at en. Most likely an honest mistake. Redux 04:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Test-wp/diq/cografya[edit]

This doesn't seem like legitimate content. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Test-wp:Seeltersk/Huuslook (Sempervivum)[edit]

This doesn't look like legitimate content, unless it's a particularly small sub-substub. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 20:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Anarşiye[edit]

Article in Turkish, seems not meta-related. MaxSem 20:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Blank Skanwiki pages[edit]

The following Skanwiki pages were blanked by Boivie when they moved the content to another page, but are still transcluded to Skanwiki/Utvalgte artikler/December, 2006. I'm not sure whether or not they're still useful.

// [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Meine erste Notiz[edit]

Somebody thought it's a userpage? MaxSem 20:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Klemen Kocjančič (Talk - Fast reply) 05:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the original anon contributor register him or her and move this to the new user page. --Aphaia 09:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Unless moved to someone's userpage, as Aphaia said. Redux 12:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Mistakes in textbooks in America[edit]

Not meta-related. MaxSem 07:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

NT permissions overview[edit]

Not meta-related, no point of emulating MSDN here. MaxSem 09:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Native American Affairs[edit]

Not meta-related ancient page. MaxSem 10:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Perl[edit]

Not needed on Meta. MaxSem 11:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Persuasion technology[edit]

Encyclopedic article, copied from WP. MaxSem 11:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Орлов Михаил Викторович[edit]

This orphan, unrelated to meta, (auto)biographic article is not present in russian language Wikipedia, and it doesn't appear in the list of deleted articles. Transwiki before deleting? --M/ 08:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, not meta-related. I don't think that this article will survive VfD on Russian WP too. MaxSem 16:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: deleted by Brion as "offtopic". So be it. MaxSem 09:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    Checking, yes. -- Omniplex (w:t) 02:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Evangeline Heaton[edit]

Funny bio of a future senator, delete. MaxSem 05:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Help:Study Guide for CFA Exam Level 1[edit]

Closed as delete, content copied from [2]. MaxSem 10:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Previously tagged as speedy, with the comment "irrelevant for Meta, wrong namespace". Korg + + 02:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. If En WB has the same content, it could be speedied. --Aphaia 08:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Does seem to be expendable. Redux 02:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can't see a use for this.Voice-of-All 23:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unneeded link page. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

日本語版ウィクショナリーの整備/見本/Template:Ja[edit]

No consensus reached - closed as keep by default. MaxSem 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a legitimate page? it looks rather short. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - This page is now wiktionary:ja:Template:ja. It is why this is so short, and this should keep as a record of ja.wikt. Kzhr 02:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    Could you explain why this page is needed on Meta, if it has been moved to Wiktionary? I don't understand what you mean by 'keep a record of ja.wikt'. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not needed here, superceded by {{#language:ja}}. MaxSem 09:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Truly historical page. Pathoschild, jawiktionary was once closed and meta hosted refugees. This page is a part of those exile and attempt to reconstruction. Not the page itself is important, but its history is important. For further information, see wiktionary-l of February 2005. --Aphaia 10:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    Please define the history; a blank page with no information attached (preferable using the standard header) is meaningless and can't be added to the historical project. I'm willing to do so research, but it'd help if you'd write down what you know first. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    I claimed 日本語版ウィクショナリーの整備 and its all subpages deserve since histories and diffs of their pages (you can see from "history" tab) indicate how the project had been developped in its very early stage. I don't expect you have a sympathy to those pages as deeply as the Japanese Wiktionary community members, but it is not meaningless for us. I ask you to retrieve your word on the above. Personally I feel disrespected and dishonored. You now declare our attempt to revive an endangered project and its relics "meaningless". --Aphaia 10:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    I apologize for any offense you may have taken over my personal opinion. I do not believe that anyone's efforts are meaningless; however, historical pages are essentially meaningless if the community is not aware of any meaning. The Meta-Wiki does not only belong to Japanese Wiktionarians, just as it does not only belong to English Wikipedians. Pages should not be kept simply because they mean something undefined to a tiny part of the community; on the other hand, I see no reason they can't be kept if their significance is explained for the rest of the community, and they are integrated into the Historical project. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    I think I explained on the above. If you are not satisfied, please read related wiktionary-l discussion, and some related pages. I don't expect you delete because my explanation is insufficient to you. Please try to understand the history of community before quesrtion. Meta pages does not only belong to English Wikipedians but we allowed to keep pages which are principally related to them and them alone. I don't understand and agree on that those pages created after lingual divisions need to be "grobal" attention and worthy to keep, but other language pagees not. --Aphaia 02:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

EditPage.php[edit]

Closed as delete, made dated soft redirect to SVN. MaxSem 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Outdated and useless. Korg + + 01:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. we already have the mediaWiki website with ALL of the PHP.Voice-of-All 23:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant and outdated. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, a search on google for "mediawiki source code" comes up with Category:MediaWiki source code, which is how I came across EditPage.php. There are other articles being requested for deletion / speed delete in that category, but no links to "the mediaWiki website with ALL of the PHP". Perhaps someone should add such a link? —Pengo 00:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've added links to the source now to the category. They'd probably fit better somewhere else like say MediaWiki source code if there were such an article. —Pengo 04:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    A {{dated soft redirect}} would be ideal. I'll add one if this discussion tends towards deletion. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Help:Wikitext basic embedable[edit]

Closed as delete. MaxSem 14:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for deletion:

--Wai Wai 21:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep This page doesn't hurt anything. You are not required to put effort into maintaining it. Simplicity is a good feature, I am appalled by the complexity of some of the other wikitext examples., also, "after all, This is Meta, not wikipedia!" AaronPeterson 20:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as it is redundant with Help:Editing and Help:Wikitext examples. Those pages could definitely be overhauled, but I don't think forking is the right way to go about it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant. This belongs at mediawiki.org anyway. --Swift 09:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant. Voice-of-All 02:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

KRIYA REIKI,Vishitao Reiki[edit]

Not relevant. --Aphaia 11:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • G7? MaxSem 11:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sample Research[edit]

Is this original research or something? It's not Meta-related and does not seem to fit Wikipedia's purpose too. MaxSem 10:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per criteria for speedy deletion G7 ("Pages clearly irrelevant to the Wikimedia Foundation, unless they have a known and definable historical context"). // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Swift 08:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - It does seem to be original research - it could possibly be transwikied to Wikiversity when that is set up (ie very soon). What about contacting the author, User:Slehar? Cormaggio @ 08:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've mentioned it on his talk page. I wouldn't get my hopes up, though — he hasn't been active on Meta since December 2005. --Swift 09:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Voice-of-All 02:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Move and merge - It is probably not original research. It seems to illustrate how scientific research should be implemented, how a research should be done in order to examine or prove the brain's capacity to process images. Some of the skills or methodology like "Perceptual Modeling" is not a new thing (see this and this). However the presentation and the structure makes it look like an essay rather than an encyclopedia. Some contents of this article might be helpful to some topics in Wikipedia but amendments and merges are required. --Wai Wai 10:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Feel free to contact me if you'd like to retrieve the content. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Namespace proposal[edit]

This is an excerpt from a user talk page concerning a proposal that doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. I propose it be archived back into the user talk page, or moved to the community discussion archives. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive back --Swift 00:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Moved and soft redirected. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

This is discussion related to International logo contest. I propose the content be merged and redirected into that page's discussion page. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Merged and soft redirected. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

ترجمه[edit]

Farsi version of Translation or its attempt ... no substantial content, and could be a deletion candidate.--Aphaia 18:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Unless Farsi translators restart translation of this page. --Aphaia 18:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Aphaia. --Swift 08:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipaedians who do not speak Chinese[edit]

deleted MaxSem 16:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

...but delete this one. +sj | help with translation |+ 06:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  1. Delete. I see no purpose or humo(u)r in this list. It is little more than a sandbox. - Tangotango 09:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Delete I cant see the purpose either. --Dbl2010 15:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Delete, no meaningful purpose. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Delete --Swift 16:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Delete, no meaningful purpose. --Tone 14:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Delete. — Timichal 08:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. delete Exclusive categories tend to become unwieldy because of the universality of negation operator. drini 14:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

ShoeBox demo[edit]

Seems to have no relation to Wikimedia projects. --Swift 08:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Not helpful to the projects. xaosflux Talk 04:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Xaosflux.Voice-of-All 18:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Tone 14:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • delete yes, no relationship. drini 14:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Eu/Itzulpen eskaerak[edit]

Closed as delete. MaxSem 08:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Seemed to be created by an anon as Eu(Basque) version of TR, but there is only one line and no update since then.

  • Delete: Unless Basque speaker(s) show interested to revive it, then it would be better to rename it as Itzulpen eskaerak according to our page naming convention. --Aphaia 10:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: I agree, it seems not much use and not going anywhere. --Dbl2010 15:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Richiesta di traduzioni[edit]

Closed as delete. MaxSem 08:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Italian version of TR, the anon editor who created seemed to misunderstand what was/is TR though. The page seems not to have been used since then.

  • Delete: Unless Italian speaker(s) show interested to revive it. --Aphaia 11:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Real last edit was on 31 August 2005, it seems they left it. --Dbl2010 01:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Chapters May 2005[edit]

Closed as delete. MaxSem 08:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a notion that should've been placed in the village pump. Is useless now. I don't see the historical value as the process went different at the end. (First real meeting was on sept 11th 2005, association set up in march '06) -- Effeietsanders 06:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. — Timichal 08:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)`
  • Delete.--Dbl2010 15:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

SQLscripts[edit]

Closed as delete. MaxSem 08:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Previously tagged as speedy, with the comment "Original author seems to have left this page, no context or description of any kind". This page seems unrelated to Meta or MediaWiki. Korg + + 17:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete. There is a vague description on the talk page. Seems the person wanted to document his installation of the MediaWiki software. If at all, this should belong on http://www.mediawiki.org/, but there simply isn't anything there to transwiki. --Swift 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete; doesn't seem to serve any purpose any more. Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Music:Lilypond example[edit]

Closed as delete. MaxSem 08:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just an image and a table around it with a play button, has no real links to it, seems to be replaced by Template:Music:Lilypond example. --Rory096 20:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • deleteTimichal 20:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- serves no purpose. Redux 20:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • delete --Dario ^_^ (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • delete --Dbl2010 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ditto, Slade 17:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

See Also[edit]

Useless in its current state. MaxSem 18:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- A Manual of Style or similar on the project namespace will (or should) contain instructions on the proper use of the "See Also" section in each particular project. We would have to do something different on Meta in order to make it worth keeping. Redux 20:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • delete --Dario ^_^ (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ditto, Slade 17:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 23:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Expecta[edit]

Speedily deleted as a broken redirect.Timichal 11:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

non sense redirect imho --Dario ^_^ (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete target article has been deleted. Dar-Ape 04:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ditto, Slade 17:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Wikipedian monarchs[edit]

Speedily deleted as offtopic/test.Timichal 11:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

non sense page --Dario ^_^ (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Plone[edit]

non sense page --dario vet (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedily deleted as non-sense by Timichal. --.anaconda 01:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

ProjectX[edit]

Closed as delete --Dbl2010 05:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Serves no purpose in its current state. Dmcdevit 08:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Dmcdevit. --Egg 22:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- not suitable for Meta. Redux 23:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ditto, Slade 17:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • delete --Dario ^_^ (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, incoherent and unsuitable for Meta. --Coredesat 07:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 23:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--Sir James Paul 00:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Disaster Recovery[edit]

No meaningful content for Meta, since it apears to be an encyclopedia article. Dmcdevit 19:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Dmcdevit. --Egg 22:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia (assuming topic is solid), then delete from Meta -- Assuming that it is serious research, we need to move it to Wikipedia. If Wikipedia already has this entry, then simply delete. Redux 23:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Wikipedia already has this entry. - Tangotango 09:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ditto, Slade 17:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • keep --Dario ^_^ (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not appropriate for Meta, and Wikipedia has an article on disaster recovery already. --Coredesat 07:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 23:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Sir James Paul 00:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delenda--Aphaia 14:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- If transwiki-ing... before moving the content to en:wp, maybe it should be checked for copyvio. ++Lar: t/c 01:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted.{admin} Pathoschild 02:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ams:[edit]

Closed as delete --Dbl2010 05:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense article in a made-up language. 90.240.59.7 22:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • delete --Dario ^_^ (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ditto; --Slade 00:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This appears to be bits and pieces of several Wikipedia articles in another language. Not sure which language, and the link on the page does not work. --Coredesat (en.wp) 07:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 23:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

PR/*[edit]

The following pages don't seem to have any usefulness, though I could be wrong; I've notified the contributor. They seem to be a forgotten part of Category:Press. There is no relevant content at PR.

{admin} Pathoschild 22:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all. I'm not sure how these could still be useful, as they're not linked from anywhere and have not seen any significant activity in as long as two years for some of them. The Washington Post and Red Herring pages are already mentioned on Responses to the press. --Coredesat (en.wp) 22:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Moved to User:Sj/PR and deleted. They have historical relevance, as records of old communication; not needed in the main articlespace. Thanks for helping keep meta clean and beautiful :) I believe there are some external links to the washpost page, so I left it as a redirect. +sj | help with translation |+ 01:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed, moved to the user namespace. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Internet and Virtual Reference[edit]

Off-topic. This serves no purpose here; it's someone's personal essay. Dmcdevit 07:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, Slade 12:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 17:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Meta isn't for personal essays unless they actually serve a purpose. --Coredesat (en.wp) 23:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedily deleted, Criterion for speedy deletion G7 (clearly irrelevant to the Wikimedia Foundation). —{admin} Pathoschild 02:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Eurodicautom[edit]

Appears to be advertising for an unrelated project. Dmcdevit 05:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Also its talk. --Aphaia 13:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Utcursch 14:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, definitely reads like an ad. --Coredesat (en.wp) 20:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Slade 00:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedily deleted, Criterion for speedy deletion G7 (clearly irrelevant to the Wikimedia Foundation). —{admin} Pathoschild 02:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Production Assistant duties[edit]

I don't know what this is about. It doesn't refer to any Wikimedia position (I think) and so is irrelevant to the project. Dmcdevit 05:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nominator. And this page is the only contribution of the author here. --Aphaia 14:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Already speedied by Anthere. Not sure if I can close already-deleted VFDs here, so I'll just add this note for now. --Coredesat (en.wp) 20:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed per Coredesat. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Academia pro Interlingua Wikimedians[edit]

This unwatched list was created in March 2006 and contains only one user. It does not seem to have any particular historical or social value. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Obsolete. —Pill δ 20:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I would suggest redirecting, but with only one user on the list, there's not much a point in that. --Coredesat (en.wp) 00:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom. --Dbl2010 07:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • delete --dario vet (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 00:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--Sir James Paul 01:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, empty and of no value.--Shanel 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Closed as delete --Dbl2010 06:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Association of Wikipedians who like Speedy Deletions but Majorly dislike Regular or Slow Deletions[edit]

This page is orphaned, unwatched, virtually unused, and I fail to see any usefulness or relevance. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per my argument on Academia pro Interlingua Wikimedians above (unused and unlikely to be used page). --Coredesat (en.wp) 02:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 12:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, group of one member is useless. -- Goldie ± (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unused--Shanel 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --dario vet (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • DeletePill δ 12:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Closed as delete --Dbl2010 04:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-French Wikipedians[edit]

A mini-essay with no relevance to the Wikimedia Foundation; I propose that it be moved to the author's user space. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete, xenophobic... --Slade 02:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, given how inflammatory this is, I wouldn't suggest userfying it at all. --Coredesat (en.wp) 02:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and suggest that Anti-American Wikimedians be deleted as well, same logic. Unless I'm missing the joke here? ++Lar: t/c 04:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously. --.anaconda 12:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the content of the page, there is no room for anti-<whatever>. -- Goldie ± (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't see any good of it. --Dbl2010 01:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, attack-page. --Nikolay Kolpakov 18:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, imflammatory.--Shanel 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • delete --dario vet (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Closed as delete --Dbl2010 04:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Upstanding Wikipedians Who Used To Be Vandals[edit]

A page for bragging about one's past exploits. It is unwatched, orphaned, uncategorized, virtually empty, and I see no usefulness, relevance, or historical significance. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, Slade 02:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I was going to RFD this myself earlier but never got around to it. --Coredesat (en.wp) 02:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 12:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps if there were more people in this category it would be arguably worthwhile (but even then a bit of a stretch)... I can see the merit in celebrating that people have come in from the cold, perhaps, but this probably is not the way. Delete ++Lar: t/c 12:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Dbl2010 01:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom.--Shanel 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --dario vet (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Closed as delete --Dbl2010 04:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Users in Defense of Userboxes and Individuality on Wikipedia, Userbox speedy deletions[edit]

Pages intended to bring a dispute about userboxes on the English Wikipedia to Meta. They are unwatched, orphaned, uncategorized, and I see no usefulness, relevance, or historical significance. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, that dispute seriously doesn't need to be on Meta. --Coredesat (en.wp) 02:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both --.anaconda 12:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for the former and Symbol support vote.svg Support for the latter (useless snippet from a deletion log)! All those groups, associations, etc. have to be treated under a common criteria.
    I can only say that the userboxes controversy is popping up here and there. At least it got rather inflamatory debate on bg.wp, although not so hot as after Kelly Martin's action. IM(nsh)O the debate has to be brought on Meta, all arguments to be sorted in order to be readable and understandable, and to come out with a recommendation across all WMF-projects (chances for consensus for a policy a negligibly slim). Actually I am not sure whether this avalance can be stopped, it had to be dealt with years before I joined WP. -- Goldie ± (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both, since these are likely to cause more harm than good, and are imported from another project for no potential community-building purpose (and oddly, still containing language like "object to rampant, mass unilateral deletion of Userboxes" which doesn't apply to Meta). Dmcdevit 23:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not meta related. --Dbl2010 01:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, disputes on the English Wikipedia are not relevant here.--Shanel 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --dario vet (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Closed as delete --Dbl2010 04:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Consequentialist Wikipedians[edit]

This list is ancient, unwatched, orphaned, uncategorized, virtually unused, and I see no usefulness, relevance, or historical significance. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --.anaconda 12:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Steel en:Steel 22:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Dbl2010 01:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; --Slade 03:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • delete --dario vet (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom--Shanel 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Closed as delete --Dbl2010 04:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Directory/Wikis[edit]

This nomination was successful and the page is deleted. Dmcdevit 09:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Subpages have been deleted as well. --.anaconda 00:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

These pages (see prefix index) seem to be far out of date and redundant with Special:Sitematrix. The information on the few created subpages only include such trivia as "unused", "Main page created 7 July 2005", and "Medium-sized Wiktionary", and is almost certainly far out of date as well. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all --.anaconda 12:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (all seems to be equal to 1 + 4 ;)) -- Goldie ± (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. -- Steel en:Steel 22:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. --Dbl2010 01:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all; --Slade 03:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all--Shanel 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --dario vet (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Trilobite 09:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-American Wikimedians & Anti-Anti-American users[edit]

(Nominating these as suggested above.) These pages have no relevance to the Wikimedia mission, and are only serve a divisive purpose. As well, I would point out that for a community that aims for the neutral point of view, partican pages like these are only counter-productive to community-building. Dmcdevit 13:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete everything named Anti-<something>, especially country/culture-based hatred. -- Goldie ± (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both per reasoning on the RFD for Anti-French Wikipedians. --Coredesat (en.wp) 23:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OMG. anti anti anti anti --Dbl2010 01:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both, obviously. --.anaconda 01:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; --Slade 03:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both.--Shanel 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --dario vet (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Trilobite 09:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Closed as delete --Dbl2010 16:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedians who do not support G.W. Bush's policy, Wikimedians who hold more polite opinions of George W. Bush, & Wikimedians who hold less polite opinions of Shrub[edit]

For the same reason as above, these pages are counterproductive to Wikimedia's mission, and are neither community-building nor relevant to any Wikimedia project. 13:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Divisive and not needed. ++Lar: t/c 17:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, not relevant at all. -- Goldie ± (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, possibly speedy delete all per CSD G7 as irrelevant to the Wikimedia Foundation. Also divisive. --Coredesat (en.wp) 00:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • (Speedy)delete Kjetil r 01:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Dbl2010 01:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all, obviously --.anaconda 01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all, Slade 17:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all--Shanel 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --dario vet (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Trilobite 09:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Closed as delete --Dbl2010 16:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Michael's pseudonyms[edit]

This page apparently lists usernames and IP addresses used by an AOL proxy server user. It has not been updated since June 2004, has no historical value, and may encourage vandal notoriety. Since AOL now sends XFF headers to the Wikimedia Foundation, AOL vandals are no longer an unusual problem. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Week delete unless English Wikipedians would like to keep it for historical interest. However I presume the linked more detailed page would be sufficient. --Aphaia 17:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no longer useful.--Shanel 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --dario vet (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Closed as delete --Dbl2010 19:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism vs Anti-Zionism[edit]

An English Wikipedia content dispute that has spilled over onto Meta. I don't see the relevance. Dmcdevit 09:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Irrelevant to Meta. --Coredesat (en.wp) 00:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 00:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, irrelevant to Meta.--Shanel 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Slade 02:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Closed as delete --Dbl2010 19:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by politics[edit]

Sorry for the mass nomination, but I think it makes sense here. This is the list of all politically explicit lists of Wikimedians, which should be deleted, per #Wikimedians who do not support G.W. Bush's policy, Wikimedians who hold more polite opinions of George W. Bush, & Wikimedians who hold less polite opinions of Shrub above, as being divisive and irrelevant to Wikimedia, and not related to any project's community-building. these are only the politically partisan lists. Dmcdevit 18:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, no relevance to the Wikimedia Foundation. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dcmdevit (read: delete all) --.anaconda 02:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, delete all. Politically partisan lists do not help any of the projects, nor are they relevant to Meta or the Wikimedia Foundation. --Coredesat (en.wp) 19:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all... except mine. :) (KIDDING... All of them should go) ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ditto, Slade 02:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all except Antivegetarian Wikimedians, which is actually humorous, not political. MaxSem 17:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Closed as delete except Antivegetarian Wikimedians. I assume voters didn't see that and considered as another political one. IF this is not the case, it can be deleted too. --Dbl2010 19:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Список стран ООН[edit]

The following discussion is closed: transwikied, made soft redirect

91.76.11.4 18:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a reason for deletion. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the page clearly states it is for bot-use on ru.wp! Not serving any useful purpose on Meta. -- Goldie ± (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Based on comment above. --Sir James Paul 11:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --dario vet (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - according to the author, the page has already been copied onto ru.wiki [3]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 02:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not useful here. Nishkid64 23:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete aside from the fact I can't read it, the red links at the bottom are hideous. --Majorly 12:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That is not a reason to delete it, otherwise this page would be full of deletion requests by non-English speakers! --HappyDog 14:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Aside from the fact... I thought the red links looked bad. And the fact it was already on ru-wiki. --Majorly 18:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Closed as delete. Content was transwikied to ru:, the page turned into soft redirect. MaxSem 08:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Category:Fiu-vro[edit]

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 11:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Unused, maybe a test? Delete --???????????? (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 05:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Abstain It was used for sorting fiu-vro articles when a test wiki was run on meta. I am not a zealous supporter, but reluctant to delete lang categories from meta. --Aphaia 11:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Kannada[edit]

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 11:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's irrelevant, and unused --???????????? (Reply|Spam Me!<strong>*|RfS) 05:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete in case it'll be changed to KA; Kannada is one of Wikipedia languages (ka). --Aphaia 07:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Religion[edit]

This category contains two pages, each of which is also categorised to another category (respectively Lists of Wikipedians and Humour). I don't see the usefulness of this category itself. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 17:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Matemàtica[edit]

Orphaned and empty category. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 17:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:MediaWikia maintenance[edit]

Orphaned, only contains one article. This would probably be best merged into Category:System admin handbook. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 17:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Jv, Category:GRC[edit]

Orphaned and empty categories. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Version 1.6[edit]

I don't really see the point of this; there's no such category for version 1.5 or 1.7, for example. The category is also currently orphaned with no incoming links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - if deleted kill also w:Category:Version 1.6. While the three listed help pages are all soft redirects to Meta (where the example templates work) they're not the only soft-redirected help pages. -- Omniplex (w:t) 04:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You should ask English Wikipedia to delete that category; we cannot handle that here on Meta. --Kernigh 01:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • It will be a case of {{db-author}} ;-) -- Omniplex (w:t) 12:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Kernigh 01:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:WikiDrops[edit]

This category apparently serves to categorise 1 page linking to a so-named tool. It is currently orphaned with no incoming links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians in Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

This category is empty and orphaned with no incoming links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who speak Dhivehi (Mahl)[edit]

This category is orphaned and redundant with Category:User dv. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories Географиа, Помощь, 9. мај 2005., Хальмг Таңһч, Әрәсә[edit]

These categories are all orphaned. I can't understand the language they are written in, so I can't decide whether or not they're useful, and where to categorise them if so. Any help translating these would be appreciated. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. means "Geography" in Kalmykian.
  2. MediaWiki help in Russian.
  3. "May, 9 2005" in Serbian (looks like articles for sr.wikinews).
  4. "Kalmykia" in Kalmyk.
  5. "Russia" in Kalmyk.
Del empty cats, ask serbs if they still need their news, punish everyone who could even think about deleting Russian help. Bwa-ha-ha! ;) MaxSem 21:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:BE, Category:CO[edit]

These categories are all unused. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Kernigh 01:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // 02:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:EasyTimeline Examples[edit]

This category is unused. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Kernigh 01:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // 02:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Chośebuz[edit]

This category is unused. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Kernigh 01:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // 02:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Awstria[edit]

This category is unused. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Kernigh 01:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // 02:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Manga[edit]

This category is orphaned and unused, with no incoming links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Aphaia 09:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Kernigh 01:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // 02:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Města Ruskeje[edit]

This category is orphaned and unused, with no incoming links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Kernigh 01:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // 02:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Město Nimskij[edit]

This category is orphaned and unused, with no incoming links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Kernigh 01:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // 02:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Ruska[edit]

This category is orphaned and unused, with no incoming links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Kernigh 01:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // 02:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:TechSoup Surveys[edit]

This category is apparently related to Techsoup.org, not the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its wikis. It is orphaned and unused, with no incoming links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Kernigh 01:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // 02:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Toːnin[edit]

This category is unused with no incoming links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Kernigh 01:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // 02:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:View[edit]

This category is orphaned, unused, with no incoming links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Kernigh 01:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // 02:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Checkme of foreign language[edit]

This one should have been deleted with {{foreign}} but wasn't. Ambush Commander 21:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Aphaia 11:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // 02:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

Template:Money[edit]

Do we really need this kind of fair use on Meta? I can imagine a reason to use the logos of a companies that collaborate with Wikimedia. Probably covers of some books related to WP are justifiable too. But money... What for? MaxSem 21:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Ang.wikinews Héafodsíderún[edit]

Unused, has the same content as Ang.wikinews Hēafodsīde. --Red Baron 20:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Sj 23:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Kernigh 01:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- per nom. Redux 00:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Foreign[edit]

See note. In addition, according to deletion policy, they are submitted to RfD, and there are very small numbers of documents none can read, I am not sure if we need such a template. --Aphaia 04:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

    • Keep; this is a viable alternative to listing a potentially good page for deletion. // Pathoschild (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep. Template could be applied to Çewlıg / Bingol, which appears to be about the city of m:Bingol and would therefore not be relevant to meta. The template is useful, though it could be reworded. Jude(talk,contribs) 06:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Struck my keep, change to Delete as per Anthere and Angela's valid concerns. Jude(talk,contribs) 14:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You say could? このテンプレートをどうしてもこのままつかうというなら、私は全部の英語ページにこれをはりますよ。私には外国語なんだから正当な使い方でしょ? --Aphaia 09:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
        • The wording of it is easily fixed. This is a wiki. The implication that the template will be placed on any page the editor desires assumes bad faith. すみません。日本語はわかりません。 Jude(talk,contribs) 12:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep English is the most widely used language here, like it or not. So this template is very useful.--Shanel 12:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment one thing that could be useful here is to translate this into non-english languages and that link that somehow from the main english one for "foreign" editors. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 13:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Category:Checkme of foreign language
    • Unless renamed in a decent non-biased version, this template should go. Meta is not english. Foreign is english for many editors on meta. Anthere 13:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Meta is very much not only for English content. I can see this be misused and placed all over English pages in protest if it isn't quickly removed. Angela 14:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No language is foreign to meta. There's a much simpler way to avoid listing potentially good pages for deletion: don't list them. -- Tim Starling 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I created the template, I basically came across some pages in really obscure languages (like Basque) and was puzzling over whether or not they were relevant to meta. I decided that this was a different checkme. I forgot that Meta is multilingual. My apologies. At the very least a rename is in order. However, I don't agree with the spirit of Tim Starling's comment that the best way to avoid listing potentially listing good pages for deletion is to not list them. That implies that most foreign language pages are good. They aren't. Keke be Kerzıki ra, for instance, would seem, from the translation and the layout, to be totally unrelated to meta. It isn't: it's probably meant to be part of the Zazaki wiki User:Mirzali is pushing for. It seems to me, then, it should be renamed and categorized accordingly. Foreign is the wrong way to put it, but building multilingual infrastructure is difficult! :-) I think this template helps. Ambush Commander 20:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per request. - Amgine / [4]] meta 23:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Incubator redirect[edit]

This template is redundant with {{subst:dated soft redirect}} (which places {{soft redirect}}), which also categorises the page to the appropriate dated Soft redirects subcategory. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't delete now - it informs about exact destiny of page, contrary to more general {{dated soft redirect}}. However, it sure should be deleted after a couple of months. MaxSem 20:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    {{dated soft redirect}} does as well; the equivalent would be {{subst:dated soft redirect|url=pagename on the Wikimedia incubator}}. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 20:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    The problem is that soft redirect requires url, and does not say that page is moved to Incubator, it only mentions new URL. MaxSem 20:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    "The text of this page has been moved to "PageName" on the Wikimedia Incubator." Doesn't that say so? // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This template is now useless, since all Test-wp pages have been deleted. Korg + + 07:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Moved to mediawiki[edit]

This specific soft redirect template is redundant with the more standardised {{subst:dated soft redirect}}, which also places the page in the appropriate dated category. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Hacker toc[edit]

template:Hacker toc (edittalklinkshistory) was used for the former (planned) 5th part of the handbook. There were never more than two real help pages in this part, I've added them to the 4th part (system admin handbook). The template is unused and categorized as looks useless for some weeks. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omniplex (talk • contribs) . -- Omniplex (w:t) 00:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:DIRMARK[edit]

template:DIRMARK (edittalklinkshistory) is a slightly different predecessor of magic word

  1. REDIRECT Template:Xpdn !=
  2. REDIRECT Template:Xpdn. The UTF-8 is what we see behind tidy, compare mediazilla:6219. -- Omniplex (w:t) 00:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:WikiCache[edit]

For what? Anyway such a large template for causion might not be helpful for any purpose, if it contains something significant. --Aphaia 04:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari 04:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Agreed. Redux 02:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Voice-of-All 01:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Deleted. Korg + + 04:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Disputed[edit]

For what, here? Meta is a discussion place and it is redundant for those pages to warn in this manner. On the other hand, it is unthinkable our policy which goes live but have a discussion for revision would have such a template. --Aphaia 04:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari 04:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- per Aphaia's rationale. Redux 02:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. this is not an encyclopedia.Voice-of-All 23:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Deleted. Korg + + 04:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:AoVWPb[edit]

Closed as delete. MaxSem 17:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Previously tagged as speedy, with the comment: "Replaced. Not used anymore." Korg + + 14:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete.Yes I replaced it with new and more advanced template with better name. Template:Admin data. And it was used only on 1 page. --Dbl2010 19:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Dbl2010. --Aphaia 09:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Image:Untitled-1.gif[edit]

Logo for WrestleMania that has nothing to do with meta. Jude(talk,contribs) 07:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, especially from a redlinked user who uploaded it with the summary "asdasdd". // Pathoschild (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Unused images[edit]

These are not used anywhere. If they are needed because they are linked to, they should be tagged with {{not orphan|[[pages]], [[linking]], [[to it]]}}. If they are historical, they should be used and documented at Meta:Historical. These should only be listed a few at a time so that RFD isn't overwhelmed.

Keep for all files which are not images actually. The reason I stated on an EXCEL file. It could be appliable for other similar files. --Aphaia 09:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Category sort example.png[edit]
45px This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Greek problem screenshot.png[edit]
45px This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Firefox 0.8 error-kirbymeister.jpg[edit]
45px This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
WP0001.jpg[edit]
45px This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Screenshot-cosimo.jpg[edit]
45px This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Poem-bug.gif[edit]
45px This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. It looks blank to me, and is redundant with Poem-bug.png. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Poem-bug.png[edit]
45px This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
BlankfazescreenshotBlueboxskin.jpg[edit]
45px This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. It is redundant with BlankfazescreenshotBlueboxskin.PNG, which is used. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
ComJimmy.gif[edit]
45px This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Beer.gif[edit]
Image:Beer.gif This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Goings-on jt.png[edit]
45px This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Articlesizes-de.png[edit]

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nohat-logo-X-id updated.png.jpeg[edit]
45px This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Nica-acceptance.jpg[edit]
45px This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Ln1.gif[edit]
45px This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. This appears to be one user's upload test. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
SergeAlard.jpg[edit]
45px This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
EricRaymond-flipped.jpg[edit]
45px This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. Furthermore, it has been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons as EricRaymond-flipped.jpg. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia-Ecke.jpg[edit]
45px This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia-Ecke-Umfeld1.jpg[edit]
45px This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Image:Hindustaninaam.png, Image:HindustaniNames.PNG, Image:Hindustani.PNG[edit]

Please delete these three images (above). I created them and they did not suit the page I was working on and are incorrect versions. The one that works is now called Image:Hindustaninames.png and is being used on the Wikipedia Encyclopedia Hindustani page. Thank you.

PayPal2004.pdf[edit]

This is an unused image from Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Acording to reply from its uplader, this file is already moved to foundation or there is no need anymore. --Dbl2010 01:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hardware costs.pdf[edit]

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Acording to reply from its uplader, this file is already moved to foundation or there is no need anymore. --Dbl2010 01:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hardware costs.sxc[edit]

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Acording to reply from its uplader, this file is already moved to foundation or there is no need anymore. --Dbl2010 01:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
WikimediaPayPalHistory2004.xls[edit]

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep It is no image, but an MS-EXCEL file. It was placed under Image-namespace only due to technical restrictions. If it is linked, then it is possible to be linked as a page or image but by its URL, and for the latter case MediaWiki give no way to detect it. All "images but not images at all" type files should be kept unless there is a way to detect if their URL is linked or not. --Aphaia 11:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment so maybe it is a good idea to put this kind of files under a category or something, so it will not come again. --Dbl2010 20:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Btw, Acording to reply from its uplader, this file is already moved to foundation or there is no need anymore. --Dbl2010 01:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
JA-warnings-2004-09-04.zip[edit]

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete one of warnfiles already updated. We needn't to keep it, perhaps. --Aphaia 09:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Image:Wolfhart.jpg, Image:Models.jpg[edit]

No source, no licence, self promotion. Might be for Wikipedia, not Meta. Yann 10:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete both. --Aphaia 00:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedily deleted, Criterion for speedy deletion G7 (clearly irrelevant to the Wikimedia Foundation). —{admin} Pathoschild 01:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Unused images[edit]

These are not used anywhere. If they are needed because they are linked to, they should be tagged with {{not orphan|[[pages]], [[linking]], [[to it]]}}. If they are historical, they should be used and documented at Meta:Historical. These should only be listed a few at a time so that RFD isn't overwhelmed.

  • Keep for all files which are not images actually. The reason I stated on an EXCEL file. It could be appliable for other similar files. --Aphaia 09:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    This argument is largely invalidated by the new ability to restore images. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Holopedia4-s.png[edit]

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, or move to min-nan wiki. Sj 23:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    Deleted. If you'd like to move it elsewhere, feel free to contact me and I'll retrieve the image for you. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Wiki-minnan.png[edit]

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, or move to min-nan wiki. Sj 23:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    Deleted. If you'd like to move it elsewhere, feel free to contact me and I'll retrieve the image for you. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Is.warnfiles-2004-07-21.tar.gz[edit]

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiki language data.xls[edit]

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Imagenotag en fr.zip.ogg[edit]

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

JA-warnings-2004-07-31.tgz[edit]

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • (delete)I'm uploader of this file and it doesnt need any more.--Suisui 02:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    Deleted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Chamada publica MCT FINEP Acao transversal modernizacao instituto.pdf[edit]

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nohat-logo-X-nn.png[edit]
45px This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Not my own opinion (I'm rather abstain) but in the former discussion around unused images, we reached to an agreement "no logo image should be deleted". --Aphaia 09:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - sounds like a logo for NL. The other logo (some sections above) claiming to be ...-png.jpeg is a PNG for Indonesia. -- Omniplex (w:t) 03:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The logo is an early version Nynorsk Wikipedia's logo. It could be deleted without a problem. Jon Harald Søby 09:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Gator16red\x5b1\x5d.jpg[edit]

Unused image from the pre-historical times, seems to be copyrighted. MaxSem 10:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ow hell, deleted as per {{no source}}. MaxSem 16:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wikipedia.png[edit]

This image isn't used almost except Translation requests page ... and there the proper and official Wikipedia logo is supposed to use, not this version. It changed a look & feel of pages and causes a trouble on translation. --Aphaia 19:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete. I suppose it has little use, and can be confusing.Voice-of-All 22:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- per Aphaia and VoA: we should keep it as simple as possible whenever we can. Redux 18:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rename, interesting past logo design. --Pmsyyz 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rename. Why should we delete the part of history? -- mzlla 15:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems out of place here. Perhaps move to Wikipedia? --Kingboyk 14:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
rename :) --Dario ^_^ (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rename. +sj | help with translation |+ 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
So, discussion is now closed. The consensus is "keep and rename". However there is technical difficulties; images cannot be moved as other pages. So the interest to keep "a part of history" may not be fully satisfied. We can save it and uploaded under a different title, and delete the original in purpose of renaming; at that time the history of the original one will be however simply lost.
I am not sure if it is your aim and moreover I am not sure my environment fits to deal with it properly (specially keep the original image resolution). So I would like to leave it for sysops who finds a neat solution. Good luck; --Aphaia 10:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
What I have seen done on Commons and elsewhere is to paste a copy of the history of the old image (showing the users and dates) into the description of the new image. Alternatively, there are rumors that image renaming is coming "real soon now"... would it be worth waiting a bit? Hope that helps.++Lar: t/c 02:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Unused images[edit]

The following files are unused, orphaned, and with no incoming links. Files that are useful should be categorized and linked to; please don't claim vague usefulness unless you can suggest where it is useful. (To keep discussion neat, please place comments under the appropriate header, general discussion just under this paragraph, and comments about a specific image under that image's bullet. Thanks.) —{admin} Pathoschild 02:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted and uploaded with meaningful history to commons:Image:Wikipedia schema.png. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Unused test files[edit]

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Unused logos[edit]

Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Unused photographs[edit]
Unused miscellaneous files[edit]

Deleted the remaining pages. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Other[edit]

User:KUUFWorship[edit]

Closed as delete. Essjay TalkContact 10:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC) personal agenda which has nothing to do with meta. oscar 02:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  • delete --oscar 02:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • talk to user -- before deleting. they spent some time figuring out wiki syntax to get all of that to work... Sj 06:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • let's wait a little for a reply then? oscar 13:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The user has been adding irrelevant content on other wikis as well. Angela 05:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • How about just blanking? If he denies, so deletion makes much a sense. --Aphaia 05:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

LanguageXX pages All of them[edit]

These all Language pages are obsolute since 2 years ago or so. For forwarding to right direction, these pages have been kept until now. But I guess they are not needed anymore. It will be a nice cleanup for meta. --Dbl2010 21:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete; agreed. Sj 23:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I deleted all 210 pages, talk pages, subpages, and redirects. The 120 incoming links have all been updated or removed. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Obsolete Hilfeumleitung[edit]

A collection of redirects from Help to German help pages in namespace 100 = Hilfe. For the 43 listed obsolete redirects 41 have no backlink at all. Two have only a single irrelevant backlink, the one I recall is Help:Installieren. -- Omniplex (w:t) 11:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Reinserted after it was delisted under "groups", maybe because the title Category:Obsolete Hilfeumleitung was misleading:
Of course the category doesn't exist as long as nobody creates it, but the 43 unused stoneage redirects from Help to Hilfe exist, disturbing Special:Allpages for the Help namespace. -- Omniplex (w:t) 22:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The 43 redirects were killed using the WM:DP speedy procedure. -- Omniplex (w:t) 07:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WMF Resolution 20051204: Travel expenses[edit]

Merged into the budget, no content. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Page footers[edit]

An old orphaned page with content moved to Wikipedia long ago. MaxSem 18:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Klemen Kocjančič (Talk - Fast reply) 05:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or use "dated soft redirect" if dated promises some kind of expiration. -- Omniplex (w:t) 01:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete -- It's only a message informing that the content has been moved to Wikipedia. Redux 15:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.Voice-of-All 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

This page only contains an image, and has no incoming wikilinks. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, created in 2003 and no incoming links since then. MaxSem 19:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, image says "3rd place in logo contest". -- Omniplex (w:t) 01:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Serves no purpose. Redux 15:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- does nothing.Voice-of-All 00:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Presentations of Wikimedia projects[edit]

Old page, redundant with the Complete list of Wikimedia projects. MaxSem 11:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Procrastinating Wikipedians[edit]

What's the purpose? MaxSem 07:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete -- "Purpose" seems to be to make a joke. Redux 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari 04:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll delete it shortly - I've just got to recategorise 5000 articles from 'Category:2006 (film)' to 'Category:2006 in film'. I might watch Big Brother for a bit first though. Anyway, I'm sure someone will get round to it sooner or later. --HappyDog 23:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, parody of lists of Wikipedians :) Korg + + 02:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe if it had content...but it doesn not.Voice-of-All 00:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Jason Gastrich[edit]

Closed as delete

User page of someone who is not a contributor to meta - his sole contributions here are his userpages, userpages of his IP and attempting to find support at AIW for deletion discussions on en.wikipedia. The user page's only purpose is self-promotion and has nothing that helps to advance Meta or any other Wikimedia project. The user happens to be indefinitely banned from enWiki, but after discussion with User:Amgine I understand this isn't really relevant to Meta. I would still say that I'm fairly sure Meta isn't a free web host, so "it's a userpage" isn't sufficient reason for keeping if the userpage doesn't belong to a contributor and doesn't have anything to do with the project. Delete. --Samuel Blanning 18:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Incidentally, on reading Meta:Deletion policy I would have thought that this would fall under "Pages clearly irrelevant to the Wikimedia Foundation", which is under 'General' rather than 'Articles', so I don't see why it shouldn't apply to userpages. --Samuel Blanning 18:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • a group of users, upset with this person's misbehaviour on en.wp, are stalking the user's pages on multiple WMF project. User's page does not differ in content from thousands of other WP users, or violate user page guidelines on Meta. Deletion request appears to be vindictive and personally motivated. - Amgine / m | n 19:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    You're acting as if their intentions are bad. I wasn't involved, but it seems Gastrich has rightfully earned a ban for going out of his way to disrupt the community. Part of that seems to be efforts to promote his own websites. It seems to me that if you go that far to cause trouble repeatedly you lose the right to be judged as if you've done nothing. This 'well it wasn't done here' seems a little odd in the sense that we're all one foundation working for the same greater good. - Taxman 21:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you, Taxman. I'm very surprised that legitimate, long-standing contributors to Wikimedia projects are being accused of "stalking" and have been threatened with blocks to defend someone who has been banned from the only Wikimedia project on which he had a significant presence, and has never used Meta specifically for anything but creating a userpage and disrupting another Mediawiki project by attempting to swing a discussion by canvassing for "votes".
    Operating under the temporary presumption that I am not going to be blocked after all for commenting on this matter, the French page has a section which rules out webhosting and similar issues as does the English one. The userpage is not in compliance with either guideline. JoshuaZ 22:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    [Re: Samuel Blanning 21:57 2006-09-19] There is no need to prove that the userpage complies with any guideline; it is quite enough that it does not violate any applicable guideline. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 22:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    According to all that this wiki currently has on userpages on this wiki, the English and French pages are specifically named as pages that should be looked to for guidance on the suitability of userpages. I don't see how it could be possibly be clearer - unless, of course, Meta had an explicit policy on userpages, which it shouldn't need. Meta is a relatively small wiki, with relatively few userpages, and common sense and the guidance of what happens on other Wikimedia projects should be enough. That is what user page itself implies. The English Wikipedia page says "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian". I can't quote a language I don't speak well enough, but the French page certainly has the same thrust. This page is not about Jason Gastrich as a Metian (or whatever the term is); he isn't one, so that would be very difficult. This page is about Jason Gastrich. --Samuel Blanning 23:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    User page is a descriptive page, much like Administrator or MediaWiki, and not policy. Although decisions on small projects are often based on common sense, it doesn't seem to apply here; only one of three active Meta users in the discussion thus far have favoured deletion (Naconkantari favoured deletion, Amgine and myself have not spoken either way). I don't oppose deletion; I may yet argue either way. However, any discussion should be centered on Meta alone. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    "Although decisions on small projects are often based on common sense, it doesn't seem to apply here". No further questions, your honour. --Samuel Blanning 12:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    Your sarcasm is misplaced and your misunderstanding apparently deliberate. Common sense must be common, which is not the case given that "only one of three active Meta users in the discussion thus far have favoured deletion". As of now, only one of four active Meta users have favoured deletion— any 'common sense' thus derived seems to be neutral or favour keeping. Perhaps you should put aside flippancy to discuss with the Meta community. // Pathoschild 16:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    This meta only, everyone else go play elsewhere your comments aren't welcome here is very strange. We're all working on the same projects, and every editor in good standing should be heard exactly the same way. Everyone who has made good contributions has earned the right to be heard and not dismissed. Meta is just that and is here to serve the projects, not be a separate fiefdom. - Taxman 17:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    It's been pointed out to me that Meta's page on userpages says that en:Wikipedia:Userpage and fr:Aide:Page Utilisateur should be read "for more information about appropriate content". If Amgine is done casting aspersions on my good faith, perhaps he can explain which guideline User:Jason Gastrich complies with, because it definitely doesn't meet the English page. I admit however that my French isn't good enough to fully understand the French one. --Samuel Blanning 21:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Taxman: Here is the reason it is being considered not in good faith - please note the dates and anon IPs:
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=316950&oldid=274799
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=343027&oldid=342380
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=347376&oldid=347158
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=348665&oldid=348104
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=349268&oldid=349256
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=349406&oldid=349348
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=349412&oldid=349408
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=354740&oldid=353414
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=357606&oldid=356234
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=363328&oldid=361456
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=366550&oldid=366225
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=366813&oldid=366807
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=367101&oldid=366820
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=436014&oldid=367273 [4 separate edits which defaced then blanked the page]
    • //meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jason_Gastrich&diff=436515&oldid=436403 [Speedy tag, which it clearly is not]
    As you can see, people have been attacking this user page for 6 months. It is difficult to keep in mind good faith, but as I have stated here I do assume the people involved in doing so are acting in good faith. Their actions have not been within the bounds of appropriate edits on Meta, however.

    So far as has been brought up in this discussion, there is no basis in policy for deleting this user page. It would very handily win a request for undeletion, imo. It would greatly help the cause of those opposed to Mr Gastrich's continued presence in Wikimedia projects if they addressed how this page is itself deserving of deletion, rather than attempting to force their will via vote-stacking. Please keep in mind that while en.wp is a great project, decisions made on and about that project do not have any specific influence on Meta other than showing what en.wp has decided regarding this user. - Amgine / m | n 04:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    I find your lack of faith disturbing young Skywalker. I'm continually amazed that you would focus on this user being "attacked" and other users coming in response to legitimate concerns being "vote stacking". Even if there was vote stacking, if there was anyone from en.wiki that thinks this user wasn't problematic they could come here too. I find it amazing that we basically have a longstanding good contributor that has gotten blocked for leaving a message on Aphaia's talk page while you're defending one of the worst detractors from what we are trying to accomplish that we've ever had. Even if that wasn't why Aphaia blocked him is still looks bad since he's disagreed with her here and he can no longer participate in this discussion. But if common sense isn't enough and you want policy then fine. Even if you discard what we're here for and the guidelines in User page, then the page's deletion is perfectly covered by the deletion policy's criteria for speedy deletion 'General' number 7. And before you say but that applies to all userpages, I agree. And if any userpages including my own are not suited towards building free content then there's no problem deleting them. - Taxman 16:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    Also note that even if out of process attempts to deal with this situation have occured before or attempts where the users in question did not explain well why they were removing material from Gastrich's page, that has zero relevance to whether the page should actually exist on Meta. Either Jason's page meets criteria for a Meta user page or it doesn't. Either we should let Jason use Meta as a free webhost or we shouldn't. I think the answers to these questions are clearly "yes" and "no" respectively. JoshuaZ 03:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. User has one edit outside of userspace and userpage is not related to Meta. Naconkantari 21:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll post a moderate opinion and say Remove the links at the bottom of the page. Especially the one to LBU which isn't to LBU at all. Uncle Davey 22:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    As for the rest of the debate consider - his only contribution outside his sockpuppet Ruth Ginsling (talk) and his page has been to recruit inclusionists, and that's strictly forbidden under the terms of his Wikipedia ban. Uncle Davey 22:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Penalising a user for violating another project's rules sets a dangerous precedent. Rules on other projects are not necessarily rules on this project, and whatever circumstances or motivations pushed someone into bad faith on the one may not exist on the other. Any deletion in this case should comply with Meta's policies, or after discussion centered on Meta. Note that User page is a descriptive page (much like Administrator or MediaWiki) and not a policy.

    This userpage should not be deleted for behaviour outside Meta or for violating policy that does not apply to Meta. If necessary, feel free to propose a local policy on userpages, and existing userpages (including this one) can be adjusted to conform. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 22:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    We're not attempting to penalise a user for violating another project's rules (and describing his actions as such, or as "misbehaviour", is a fabulous understatement - Jason Gastrich has indisputably caused more disruption to the largest and most high-visibility Wikimedia project than anyone else during my time there). We're attempting to delete a page that the Wikimedia Foundation has no interest in hosting. --Samuel Blanning 23:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    That isn't an entirely clear statement. The Wikimedia Foundation has no interest in hosting either User:Samuel Blanning or user:Pathoschild, but I'd certainly oppose deleting either of those. The question is whether it is against the interests of the community, of the project, or of the Foundation to host them. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    We can have users blocked or banned on one project and contributing to another. This does not mean we need to be blind about a user's past behavior on those projects. Jason's behavior on the English Wikipedia and on various internet fora are more than sufficient to see that he has no interest but his own self-promotion, is not a productive Wikimedian and will never be a productive Wikimedian. The page he has up now is for self-promotion and self-promotion only and there is no chance that he will ever be useful on Meta. Just because projects are separate doesn't mean we cannot use information from them to guide our actions. JoshuaZ 00:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    There's nothing inherently wrong with self-promotion; most users participating in this discussion have lengthy content about themselves on their userpages. Usenetpostsdotcom has a prominent link to his website both on his userpage and in his username, and has no contributions beyond harassing this user (which led to his brief block). If the problem is self-promotion, what is the line between Jason Gastrich and the users participating in this discussion? If not, is it whether or not users not contributing to the project should have userpages, and what is the line between Jason Gastrich and Usenetpostsdotcom, both of which exclusively edit Jason Gastrich-related pages?

    None of these questions have been been answered or any precedent set on Meta that I'm immediately aware of (with the exception of blatant vandal userpages). I'm hoping the two weeks of this discussion will be enough for many editors (both active and visiting) to note their opinion so that we can answer these questions. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 06:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    If you're thinking the problem is just self promotion then you're not looking into it. This case is not far off from saying Willy on Wheels has an account on Meta and your response amounts to since he hasn't vandalized here yet, no worries. - Taxman 12:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    I see nothing inherently wrong with a good-faith account named after a trite vandal meme (assuming they managed to slip through without being blocked on sight). If they ever did vandalise, they'd be promptly blocked and their pages deleted. // Pathoschild 16:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    If it was a good faith account I'd consider agreeing with you. - Taxman 17:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    PS, that wasn't meant to be as rude as it may have come out. It was meant to be more literal than in your face. Just meant I'd consider the issue of not worrying about an account named after a vandal meme. Sorry if that came out badly. - Taxman 16:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Meta is the collaboration place for all Wikimedia project and related production including MediaWiki. There are many users whose only edit is their user page on this project, and it gives meta no harm. Unless an user is banned from the entire Wikimedia project, he or she has a good reason to have his or her user page on meta. We allowed once a user whose edits are obviously limited to only his user page to continue editing until his edits took over meta RC and thus untorelable for some other users, and bothered their activities. This case is different from that apparently; a user whose edits per day is only one or two bothers no other. In my opinion, those who try to use meta admin as their personal tool to satisfy their personal vengence is more harmful for coordnation both on the community layer and the foundation layer. --Aphaia 07:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    I think what people are saying is that due to the egregiousness of the user's actions that they probably should be banned from all Wikimedia projects. At the very least, considering the clear intent to cause harm and actual harm caused, he shouldn't be treated like an innocent. - Taxman 12:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    Is there clear intent to harm Meta or, through the editing of his Meta page, harm other projects? If so, please provide links or other evidence demonstrating this. Any deletion otherwise is punitive rather than preventative, which goes against the spirit of most projects' policies. // Pathoschild 16:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    No it isn't Pathos. You are missing a serious point- Gastrich has no intention to contribute to Meta and is simply using the page for self-promotion. This should be clear from the nature of the page and his past actions. Thus an intent to harm is irrelevant - he cannot use Wikimedia resources as a free webhost. Period. Even if your comment about an intent to harm were necessary he has already demonstrated it. His first action on Meta was to attempt to votestack on .en [5] and he has already engaged in sockpuppeting here using User:Ruth Ginsling. Again let me emphasize that although there is ample evidence of intent to harm that isn't what is most relevant, the use of Meta as a webhost for his self-promotion is. JoshuaZ 16:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    Please see (quoted below) the hate-filled trash Gastrich posted about wiki on his personal blog that is linked on his user page. Arbusto 00:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I promise to be a productive and rule-abiding editor on Meta. Thanks to those who have posted even-handed and rule-abiding comments. Thanks, Jason Gastrich 18:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    Is Ruth Ginsling your sock puppet? Arbusto 00:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    You're welcome, but you need to come clean about Ruth Ginsling. Uncle Davey 06:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    I guess I'd be curious as to how participation at this site is any less being "unequally yoked" than it was at Wikipedia. I think that this is good cause to question motive, along with the other causes. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.207.57.81 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per nom. The user page is solely to promote himself. He has made NO EDITS for any articles. As the userpage guidelines says "Details about yourself generally should not go in the main namespace, which is reserved for encyclopedic content." This is a violation of that policy. Also keep in mind Uncle Davey has often supported Gastrich, and he makes a good point. Arbusto 23:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Arbusto, that was not the real Uncle Davey. Someone stole my ID on here, and you are taking your ammo now from someone who is, I'm sorry to say, a bad faith fraud. Theox 20:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, crossed out based on Josh's findings. Arbusto 02:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The users who wish to keep this self-promotion should know what Gastrich has written about wikipedia on his website. This page (note the index page is linked on his user page) [ url changed to jcsm.REMOVE-THIS.org because of the spam filter. --83.253.36.136 23:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC) ] claims the

    unbelievers wanted sensational, ridiculous, unencyclopedic, and in many cases incorrect information included and some others and I insisted on including the truth and excluding that nonsense. This opposition met us head on and I was eventually banned for one year. I don't see myself returning to Wikipedia because I have shaken the dust from my shoes. In fact, we even decided to end the Wiki4Christ.com web site that was sending Christians to Wikipedia. It is an awful place for Christians who sincerely want the truth fairly represented.

    Is it acceptable for a wikipedia user page to link to a page and a user who claims Wikipedia is an "awful place for Christians"? Arbusto 00:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

    This is serious. In this google post a few hours ago[6] Gastrich is attacking a user for removing Gastrich's spam.[7] Note in the google post he even revealed someone's real name, another breach of wikipedia policy. Arbusto 01:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    Actually attempting to reveal the True Names of Wikimedians is a general foundational issue. It is unacceptable on any project and in so far as it has foundation implications should be treated roughly equally everywhere. In any event, this is yet more evidence that Jason has no interest in helping Meta or any other Wikimedia project. He simply cares about us as a vehichle for self-promotion. JoshuaZ 01:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    Personal attacks and off-wiki harassment is an extremely serious offence. I suggest community ban. MaxSem 06:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    Gastrich has no reservations about personal attack and off-wiki harassment. - 72.207.57.81 03:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, of course. His only "contribution" to a Foundation project is at en, where he is banned and has just had a request to return soundly rejected. He has no business here and we don't provide free web hosting. --Kingboyk 00:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is just too much. I've not seen any evidence the user is here for anything but disruption. Promoting personal views is not what we are here for. - Taxman 17:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    Can you please point to any disruption this user has engaged in on Meta? - Amgine / m | n 04:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    I liken this (pardon the exaggeration to make the point) to someone who has shot 12 people in Canada, but since they haven't shot anyone in the UN building we should let them inside with a gun because well, they haven't shot anyone here. Most of the response is above though. - Taxman 16:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a personal attack (follow the link that thisuser added). Arbusto 16:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Taxman, Samuel Blanning and JoshuaZ. --Richardshusr 17:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I request a check user for Richardshusr, 72.207.57.81, and Gastrich. Arbusto 18:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    Am I missing something? I'm not sure about the IP, because I don't quite understand the point he was making with that link, but Richard seems to be taking the opposite position to Gastrich. --Samuel Blanning 00:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    The point of the link provided, assuming you are referring to my comment, is that Gastrich, during the time that he was subject to comment and arbitration, decided that he needed to leave Wikipedia because cooperation with the community "unequally yoked" him with "unbelievers." That, of course, automatically disqualifies him from any attempt at concensus-building. Forgetting for the moment that he never left and, instead, inundated Wikipedia with what looks like a record number of sock-puppets, that kind of talk also makes it clear that Gastrich has no intention of cooperating with "unbelievers" when it comes to "Christian" encyclopedia entries--not ever. 72.207.57.81 03:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry about listing Richard-- Sam, email me from my wikipedia account. But I would like some IPs checked.[8] Note the personal attack in that diff. Arbusto 01:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    216.217.248.84 is almost certainly Gastrich, maybe posting through a proxy. His reference in the "Ginsling" page to his stolen-domain-name group cinched it for me. 72.207.57.81 is yours truly, WarriorScribe, from Wikipedia. I don't have an account here, which is why I haven't rendered a "vote" on the deletion of Gastrich's page; and I think it would be quite unseemly for me to register an account just to do that, so I'll abstain. And Gastrich's comments about integrity aside, I don't think that the "Uncle Davey" here is the real Uncle Davey, as odd as that phrase may sound. - 72.207.57.81 03:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's no surprise that "Uncle Davey" seems to have made an appearance and, oddly enough, he seems to think that elements that apply to one part of the wiki should apply to all. His comments are with respect to the login, but if we extend that, logically, then he should be in support of banning Gastrich from Wikimedia, if he is to be consistent, at all. 72.207.57.81 18:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Having posted what I have posted, and understanding that none of it counts because I'm not registered, I've put all of this into perspective (for me). There's been a personal tragedy with which I have to deal that occurred on Wednesday, and it's reminded me just how little all of this really matters in the great scheme of things. If I'm allowed a "vote," I'd "vote:"

*Keep, under provision. Gastrich's behavior has warranted scrutiny across the Wikipedia Universe, and if he's being scrutinized more closely than he likes, he has no one to blame but himself. That Gastrich never takes responsibility for his behavior is relevant, but not enough to warrant removal of the user page, in my view. I'm persuaded by the arguments of the participants in this part of the project that Gastrich has done very little here, if anything, to warrant removal. I am also persuaded by the arguments of the opposition that Gastrich is abusing the privilege of having a user page and has created yet another platform for his self-promotion, and it is clear that this is not the intended purpose of Wiki user pages. The provision that I would suggest, therefore, is that the user page be brought in line with what is normally understood to be a user page, that is, name, general location, hobbies, interests, and so on. Remove the obvious advertising or, at the very least, limit it to a single URL. (Believe me, there's enough inter-advertising on Gastrich's main page that he certainly wouldn't suffer much by the removal of what are really somewhat redundant links to pages all over his domains.) I would also suggest a sort of "probation." Gastrich has already created one sock-puppet and has posted anonymously under an IP address at least once. There may be more of which we are yet unaware, and given the behaviors exhibited in so many other places, but especially Wikipedia, I would suggest that some level of mentorship or supervision be implemented to ensure, as much as possible, no repeat of those behaviors and consequences (the latter of which Gastrich has admitted do not influence him). If Gastrich is willing to live under those kinds of conditions in an effort to demonstrate good will and honest intent, that will work very much in his favor, and will demonstrate that, indeed, all he wants to do is contribute, though we should always remember that he has repeatedly written that such participation is an unequal yoking of believers and non-believers. Then again, should Gastrich reject these kinds of suggestions, that would be evidence that those of us suspicious of his motives are correct, and that Gastrich's only desire with respect to Wikimedia is self-promotion and the promotion of his particular POV. Failure to abide by provisions means my vote is delete. That's my take on it, for whatever it's worth; and I will now leave it to be hashed out by the rest of the community. 72.207.57.81 19:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Gastrich clearly has no interests other than his own in mind. 72.207.57.81 14:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not a user page as intended to serve the project. --M/ 20:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd like the Deletion tag removed from my user page. I don't believe user pages can be treated like articles and therefore, while the community's input is important, I do not believe a Deletion tag or a discussion about its deletion is appropriate. I know of no precedent for this sort of action and as far as Meta Wikipedia goes, I'm an innocent man. --Jason Gastrich 04:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Jason repeating something more times doesn't somehow make it more true or more relevant. As Taxman and others observed above a) you aren't innocent since Meta is for coordinating wikimedia projects and the only interaction you have had with any Wikimedia project is to grossly disrupt .en and b) innocence isn't even an issue here because you are using the userpage in question for self-promotion as a personal webpage which is completely unacceptable. Wikimedia is not a free webhost and you cannot use your userpage as such. (Oh and for being innoccent here, is Ruth Ginsling your sock? Removing the question from your talk page doesn't make it go away) JoshuaZ 04:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Gastrich's continued off-wiki attacks on other editors is evidence enough that he has no intention of contributing in any form other than one that pushes his own particular point of view. This is not an "innocent man." 72.207.57.81 14:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Irrelevant to the project. --Swift 15:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Meta is not a free web-hosting service.—Nat Krause 15:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Look at this edit, I asked him if he was using sock puppet and he told me not to post on his talk page. In these edit he wiped his talk page clean [9][10], another violation of rules. ((Note edit summary: "You haven't been redeemed. Please stop the harassment or I'll get an admin.") Arbusto 16:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ban him immediately he just revealed a user's name, address and phone number.(Contact me on the talk if you need proof.)Arbusto 20:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Nothing new about that [11][12]
      • Comment The notion of having an editor on any Wiki project who is actively going out of their way to reveal the True Names of people on other projects is simply ridiculos. How much longer is this going to go on? JoshuaZ 21:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment What we can read here is probably exactly the sort of thing Gastrich expected when he publicized another editor's address and phone number.
  • Delete I definitely know that none of the projects of WMF have a goal which allows people to use any of the pages only for their personal needs. I believe this user page content is far beyond than expressing himself to the WMF community and his contribution history supports that he is not in any collaboration with Meta community so I strongly believe that he uses Meta as a free web-hosting service.--Dbl2010 16:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. For god's sake, this guy has NO INTENTION of ever contributing here. As far as I can tell, this is free webhosting. He absolutely should have been banned from Wikimedia projects from a long time ago, and you're worried about precedent? This is doing nothing here but potentially glorifying a very problem user I was (mildly) involved with months ago. C'mon. Grandmasterka 05:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The "there's no precedent" complaint is a bad argument, anyway, if only because a precedent has to start with that first decision, to set a precedent to begin with.
    Thus the discussion. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 13:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. And LO, in the month of September (maybe October) in the 2006th year the Admins did add to all relevant policies that Metawiki will not permit currently banned users (or even users on probation from ANY Wiki) to edit Meta, let alone have user pages. As a coordinator among projects it is useful and logical to create and enforce such measures to ensure the integrity of Meta. The assumption of good faith for Meta is beyond me; as Meta should be about users from other projects coming here to help out. Banned users cannot (assuming they don't have multiple active accounts on different projects) meet that criteria. - RoyBoy 15:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Discussion closed

The outcome of this discussion was delete. MaxSem 18:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for comments/Cswiki issues 2[edit]

A useless page with a lot of undesirable personal data. -- Zacheus 21:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep No undesirable personal data on this page. Username is not personal data. Cinik 21:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    It is, in case it is a real name. -- Zacheus 06:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The page documents an important part of history of the Czech Wikipedia; also, I don't see any personal data. — Timichal 22:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    Which documentation do you have in mind? -- Zacheus 06:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • keep --Dario ^_^ (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    Why? -- Zacheus 06:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Cinik Naconkantari 22:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. V. Z. is trying to delete his history from the Internet and hide behind nicknames from now on. But first: it is a relevant part of cswiki history and therefore should be kept for reference. Second: He continues in disruptive behavior on cswiki by creating sockpuppets to avoid his longtime ban. So much the more, the history should be kept. --Egg 20:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Egg is a known troll: "Od té doby se tu obdobně snaží projevovat pár lidí, kteří se však sami pohřbívají určitou nevyrovnaností či jednáním typu Eggovo trollování." (KláraK) And the same way he behaves here: He spoils my privacy as he wrote here my real name and real surname, although he has no right for doing that and I enjoyed Right to Vanish. -- Zacheus 20:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    Egg bans his friends for rejecting frauds: "@Nolanus: Ještě že nechodíš na IRC jako já. Zjistil bys, že odměnou za odmítání podvodů je tam ban (Egg se vyznamenal). Zajímalo, kdy mne zabanují i tady. Cinik 17:36, 18. 11. 2006 (UTC)". Egg systematically assaults and insults others. ("Ve skutečnosti mne Egg po zahájení ŽoKu na IRC systematicky napadal a urážel. Ale to asi není důležité, že. Cinik 18:17, 18. 11. 2006 (UTC)"). Egg intentionally provokes and takes his own provocation as very funny, behaves arrogantly, awkwardly tergiversates when he commits a mistake ("Úmyslně provokuješ a považuješ to zřejmě za velmi vtipné, chováš se arogantně, trapně se vytáčíš, když uděláš chybu." --Nolanus ✉ 17:19, 20. 11. 2006 (UTC)) -- Zacheus 22:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Egg acts off-wiki in bad faith with insulting comments. -- Zacheus 15:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - there are no good reasons to remove. -- mzlla 21:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Reason is, the page is useless. Why do you think the opposite? -- Zacheus 20:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: According to a check performed by Datrio, Zacheus is a sockpuppet of User:V. Z., whose username appears on the page. — Timichal 11:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Can anybody tell me by what right I was checked? If Timichal is right, Datrio should be immediately desysopped. -- Zacheus 16:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Zacheus, you try to suppress information about your behaviour, and you ask that a steward should lose his status because he discovered that you creates sockpuppet(s)? You are joking, I hope? Or you want to be blocked? Yann 18:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Yann, can you read Czech? At your page (Yann) you claim you cannot. So I sum up the page about which we vote: Che proposed absurd proposal in Czech. I refused in English, Liso proposed another place, Che agreed. My enemy Wikimol supported first absurd proposal and my friend Tom as well. This is everything. What is this page good for? I asked and nobody answered. We don't vote about my behaviour. I don't deny any sockpuppet, but Datrio has no right to check it. I never use any sockpuppet in voting or creating false amount of support. I hope that privacy here is not a joke and Right to Vanish is not a blockable offence. -- Zacheus 20:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yann, Zacheus (or V. Z.) has been blocked already on more projects here for disturbing the community; there are some more dozens of sock puppets known (see here, here or here); in the past he spended some more dozens of pages like this to attack the czech Wikipedia and its users, to attack Meta, to attack admins of en.wiki (you remember: they ought to be fascists, as V. Z. stated), etc. I do not understand why to disuce here about this problem. -jkb- 18:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I seek protection against -jkb-'s lies. He harassed me and stalked me. I asked him to stop his disruptive behaviour, but it seems to me he voluntary won't stop. What can I do? Can anybody tell Mr. -jkb- that he is not allowed to make false accusations about anybody and reveal his or her identity? -- Zacheus 20:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
V. Z. is the name you used as a username and the user that was banned by the Czech Arbitration Committee. You may exercise your right to vanish, but only if you actually vanish, rather than continuing to be a disruption to multiple projects, as evidenced by your continued personal attacks right here. Dmcdevit 08:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I replied to you at User talk:Dmcdevit#Personal Attacks. -- Zacheus 09:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Meta community decided to Keep it by consensus. This discussion closed. --Aphaia 12:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Inventor[edit]

Self promotion, user has no edits beside his home page. Meta is not for posting resume and biodata. Yann 11:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete It is self promotion.--Sir James Paul 23:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, --Slade 02:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • strong delete --dario vet (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 00:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, even speedy. Also his two uploads. One of his edit suggests he was banned from German Wikipedia. ("excluded")--Aphaia 00:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Coredesat (en.wp) 23:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Dbl2010 01:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom--Shanel 06:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Closed as delete --Dbl2010 06:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Kept[edit]

Articles[edit]

Please do not edit this page[edit]

Closed as Keep. Essjay TalkContact 09:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Patent nonsense. --Aphaia 07:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep This is an essay about wiki pages, and also a demonstration of the technique that the essay proposes. --Kernigh 00:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Blockinblox 22:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

How to Destroy Wikipedia[edit]

Was an essay, now is just an old talk page. Not much reason to keep it around except for historical bickering. In that case there's got to be a better place. - Taxman 00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's clear people are interested in the historic conversations. Thus it's probably not prudent to delete just now. So I withdraw my delete vote, but I'll leave the conversation now that it has begun. But clearly we need more discussion on what to do with these essays. I don't think this is that valuable to our projects, but I'm more than fine with creating a way to make it much more clear what are the historical items. - Taxman 18:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; user disputes are not of historical interest. // Pathoschild (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Pathoschild. Jude(talk,contribs) 06:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; this is not a user dispute - this is a discussion on leadership of Wikipedia, from when Larry Sanger was still around, and still of interest to sociologists/researchers like me. Also links to other pages, like How to build Wikipedia and Responses to How to Destroy Wikipedia. Has been cited on wikiEN-l mailing list in the last year. There's no other place for it, Meta is for this kind of thing. Maybe move it (to a history section or something), but please do not delete. Cormaggio @ 08:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • This is, from my perspective, a user dispute. Larry Sanger is certainly notable, but that doesn't mean that every discussion he participates in his notable. if we wish to keep it, perhaps this would be best merged into a historical archive organised by topic. Users could then easily read from one topic to the next, getting a better view of the whole picture. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • So why not just group all these articles by categories so people can know what they are and also find them easily? If you like, they could be tagged thus at the top, just like w:en:Wikipedia:Who, Why?. I still say we keep; if you propose to move or merge articles, then do so, but not delete. Cormaggio @ 10:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I love to see old things. --Aphaia 09:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Aphaia. Oh, I do agree. :) aegis maelstrom d 10:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this is an historical page (the fights between Larry Sanger and The Cunctator. Do NOT delete such pages please Anthere 13:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meta is for personal essays. This is the better place. -- Tim Starling 13:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Proposed compromise: move to the user namespace and keep the redirect. Angela 13:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If this has historical context, I propose it be speedy kept. All users who are aware of the historical context, please help document it using the note parameter of the {{header}} template. // Pathoschild (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; history. Dan100 15:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep personal Wikimedia-related essay. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy kept; the discussion is clearly in favour of keeping, and the user withdrew his deletion nomination. // Pathoschild (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Value systems[edit]

This is an ancient request for commentary that was never used. // Pathoschild (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. It might be of historical interest if there was discussion relating to it, but there isn't. Jude(talk,contribs) 06:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's nice to see that some Hubley material from the 24 era survived the purges. -- Tim Starling 14:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Jeee, thanks Tim. Nearly missed that one... Keep of course. Plus, it links together some of the most important 24's articles together, worse cases and best cases. There was discussion about these ones. Just not HERE :-) Anthere 14:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no good reason for deletion. While I agree with the principle that Meta could benefit Wikimedia projects better if it were organised better, this doesn't need to involve trashing older material that isn't actually damaging. Even if some material may have little apparent use, its survival on the relatively quiet meta provides a window into the earlier history of the project. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep comments above. - Amgine / [13]] meta 16:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tony. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy kept, as nominator. // Pathoschild (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Language names gender[edit]

Same reason as Genders of languages: This article is apparently a multilingual grammer how-to. It has no relation that I can see with the Wikimedia Foundation, and there are no significant incoming links. Wikipedia has a far more complete text at Grammatical gender. This should deleted or, at the least, transwikied to Wiktionary. Pathoschild (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Related to all Wiktionary projects, hence it makes a sense to keep it here on meta, not a particular Wiktionary or on every Wiktionary (the latter is a waste of time to transwiki and database redundancy) --Aphaia 05:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Meta is not a grammar how-to. Jude(talk,contribs) 05:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Til Eulenspiegel 22:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Previous comment. - Amgine / [14]] meta 16:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Actively being used to facilitate work on Wikimedia projects. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy kept as nominator. // Pathoschild (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Reflexions sur la bioethique pensées[edit]

EN: This is an essay about the ethical implications of biotechnology with a particular focus on cloning. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Meta.
FR: Ceci est un essai au sujet des implications morales de la biotechnologie avec une attention particulier sur le clonage. Ceci n'a rien à faire avec le Meta-Wiki.
// Pathoschild (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Essay is completely irrelevant to meta. Jude(talk,contribs) 06:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this is an historical page from papotages. If you really want to delete it, please move it to make it a subpage from my user space. I'll host it. Anthere
  • Keep. While it would be inappropriate to accept such unrelated essays from mature Wikipedias (as fr surely is now), such early efforts as this provide a glimpse of uses to which Wikipedias were put in their earlier days. It's not doing any harm; let it be. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep After hearing it submitted by Papotages, I strongly concur with Anthere. --Aphaia 06:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep One of the missions of Meta was/is to serve as an outlet for POV essays which are inappropriate for an NPOV project. - Amgine / [15]] meta 16:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy kept as nominator. // Pathoschild (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

How to deal with Poles[edit]

Racist, no underlying humour, certainly not the official Wikimedia stance on things, yet it may easily be interpreted as so. -- user:zanimum

  • Delete. Offensive, and no pretense of humor. Sarge Baldy 07:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Already proposed to deletion in 2004 ([16]). I find it funny though I agree it is racist and offensive. I don't know ... villy 11:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC). Delete. Heck, you're right Zaninum. villy 20:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: If this vote doesn't pass, I'm making "How to deal with Muslims", in order to test the boundries of taste. Zanimum 22:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
JFYI: The article was mainly written by Poles, so please consider to convert to islam before writing it :-) --Avatar 16:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Pmsyyz 03:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • delete -- oscar 12:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this site is very popular among Polish Wikipedians at enwiki, I'm a Pole and I find it very funny - it's hardly to find a Pole who'd feel being offend cause of it :) D_T_G 22:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - The page is symptomatic of the paranoia and the persecution complex so strongly ingrained amongst a hard core group of Polish wikipedia users. It also seems to be implying that accusations of "nationalism" are based only on prejudice against a nationality, when in actual fact accusations of nationalist bias are usually the result of an actual nationalist bias; it hence encourages POV behaviour, because its readers will never actually believe they're being POV. - Calgacus 22:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, as a matter of fact your talk looks like nationalism/culture biased for me... Being honest: you insult a large group of people even not knowing what you are talking about. Even on this talk page you try to enforce your prejudices. You show ignorantness and bad will. Great argumentation... aegis maelstrom δ 12:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Funny, and true in at least a few cases. I don't see how it can be viewed as racist or offensive - certainly I know not of a single Polish -pedian who thinks it is so; in fact it is linked mostly from Polish -pedian userpages (mostly on Wikipedia).--Piotrus 03:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's interesting that - if I'm not wrong - many politically correct non-Poles like to delete it, whereas most Poles find it pretty funny. --Avatar 16:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - since I wouldn't have any problem with How to deal with Germans ;-). --Tolanor 16:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Please send your draft with two carbon copies to the German-Article-Beauftragter in the next 24 hours. You will receive the notification by mail in the next 4 weeks till receipt. Guten Tag. --Avatar 16:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Again? Every once in a while someone from a country where political correctness is an integral part of the culture comes in and proposes it for deletion. Strangely enough, it's mostly Poles themselves to vote in favour of that article... Not only is its content funny, but its history is even more laughable. Don't you think? Halibutt 21:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This was written by a Pole (ekhem) and is extremely popular amongst Poles. It is not as much directed against Poles, as against the behaviour of some of the non-Polish wikipedians (including one of wikipedians who wants to delete it, because probably it too precisely describe his behaviour) szopen 150.254.130.180 12:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Can this be moved to that user's talk page? Then it is there opinion, and doesn't look like it is supported by Wikimedia. Also, readers don't know this is a self-parody just by seeing it. Finally search Google for "poles unpleasant", "poles irritating", "deal with poles", "poles deal", and the page is always at least fifth ranked, usually second. Thus, people searching for hate literature would find this page without effort. Actually "Poles racist" brings up this AfD discussion. -- Zanimum 15:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Move to user space. It looks too official. I don't have any stance on the rest of it, but we wouldn't accept "how to deal with X" for many values of X no matter who it was written by. You know which ones I mean. - Taxman 20:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Is Meta official? As far as I know, meta was always considered far less "official" than wikipedia, and the articles were never supposed to look like encyclopedia. For example: How to win an argument, Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles, or There Is No Cabal. Now, why you should single out this article for deletion? None of the original reasons given holds. 150.254.30.35 06:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Meta is the place to coordinate all the Wikimedia projects, thus it's articles should pertain to that. User essays and so forth should be moved to user pages. We have all kinds of crap on meta at the moment that don't help any of our projects. Keep the thing if you really want it, just on the creator's or someone else's user page. Then there's no harm either way. - Taxman 14:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
To taxman, "User essays and so forth should be moved to user pages. " is your opinion, I think, but meta:About seems to me clearly include those user essays. And this page shows one aspect of our project ironically and humorously. Aph.
Well, Mr Taxman, you cannot forbid anybody to keep the thing... :P And, funnily, this article is about coordination and cooperation. Sorry to say that, but if you were less self-centered you would understand what is the purpose of it. aegis maelstrom δ 10:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I do understand that there are cultural issues going on here, and I do hope it's just language barrier, but your post seems needlessly aggressive towards me. I don't have the power to forbid anything, I'm jsut stating my opinion on what I believe would be better. But on review, a lot of people do like this, so deleting it is not the best option, but I still think it would be better elsewhere. - Taxman 18:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry if I sounded offensive to you but I am just pretty tired with working out for at least 2nd time why this article should be kept. On the contrary to your point, I (and IMHO many other Wikimedians) in fact consider this essay as a vital part of both Wikiprojects history and coordination policies (not to mention artistic comedy value :) ). The article has been written to avoid some unnecessary arguments and show and decrease some bias in possibly elegant and cultural way. If only we want to create something it's better to laugh together than fight each other. And the ones with no sense of humour should be left forgotten... :) Tony Sidaway below has a nice point here. :) Best regards, aegis maelstrom δ 19:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it is our asset. --Aphaia 04:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Polish keep from me, funny and unfortunately quite true. Roo72 07:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As 100% Pole - keep it and translate to Polish (rule #3) Julo 08:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep! Let's stop this paranoia. It's Polish sense of humour. I don't know why laughing at self should be banned and some cultural standards considered better than others. aegis maelstrom δ 10:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am quite sure there are Polish people who would find this offensive, and Wikimedia is not in the offending game. Dan100 14:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well, it's nice that you think about Poles - but have you actually asked any of them or you are just pretty sure? :) How well do you know Polish culture? And are you conscious of origins of this article? aegis maelstrom δ 16:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A little gem that actually expects the reader to engage brain prior to reading. For those who aren't yet clued in, think en:Miss Manners, then twist 180 degrees or so. Compare to this famous Usenet etiquette guide, which comes with the helpful preamble: "NOTE: this is intended to be satirical. If you do not recognize it as such, consult a doctor or professional comedian," before going on to give the reader all manner of bogus advice illustrating common faux-pas. For example:
    Q: Somebody just posted that Roman Polanski directed Star Wars. What should I do? - smartaleck@some.site
    A: Post the correct answer at once! We can't have people go on believing that! Very good of you to spot this. You'll probably be the only one to make the correction, so post as soon as you can. No time to lose, so certainly don't wait a day, or check to see if somebody else has made the correction.
  • Those of us with the ability to detect that rare substance, Clue, will find How to deal with Poles useful. Those who are not may at least think twice before attempting to deal with Poles. Which I am sure will all of us very much happier.
  • Definite keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep! --Inspector Creep 17:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm Polish. This is one of these things where you chuckle and say it's funny because it's true. --Qviri (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, we Poles like such kind of jokes :) --WarX 20:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep - old page and if even Poles have no problem with it ... --Walter 17:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — for at least the third time. Matt Crypto 18:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment— Since many users noted that the article was repeatedly brought up for deletion, I've created {{deletion requests}} and added it to the talk page to notify future editors. There were two previous requests, one in June 2006 (keep, 9/1/1) and one in November 2004 (keep, 7/1/0). // Pathoschild (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep longstanding humor page that the Poles themselves seem to find funniest of all. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oiquimedian[edit]

Redirected to Wikimedian. Essjay TalkContact 12:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Redundant, bad name. 134.10.12.12 05:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (actually en:User:JesseW/not logged in)

  • Neutral. I can understand the redundant arguement, but I think it might be valid. Linuxbeak 00:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Uselessly redundant with Wikimedian. - Taxman 20:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikimedian. Jude(talk,contribs) 06:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikimedian. Not a "bad name", just an attempt of an Occitan version. Korg + + 23:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikisuicide[edit]

This is a one-line substub about a neologism not in popular use; it returns a grand total of 120 Google results. // Pathoschild (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Jude(talk,contribs) 06:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. What are you talking about google results for? Meta is the place where we coin neologisms and discuss new concepts. This isn't an encyclopedia, you know. -- Tim Starling 14:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I just can't see its value in any way. Dan100 15:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Til Eulenspiegel 22:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has potential for expansion; this is where stuff like this should go. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep & expand. This is not 'pedia! MaxSem 17:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy kept as nominator, since there's a clear consensus to keep the page. // Pathoschild (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ethics vs. Morals[edit]

This is a discussion that was transwikied from Wikipedia because it didn't belong there. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • This is an historical page from user 24. Please keep it. Anthere
  • This is an historical page from user 24. Please delete it. Angela 14:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Or, perhaps as a compromise, we could merge all his nonsense into one place rather than having it all over meta? Angela 14:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • By the very fact you say this... you admit it is actually an important page, because it is one we both care about. Me to keep it. You to delete it. Something we both have been trying to do for basically 3 years now :-) Your argument "it being all over the place" would be fair, if it was really all over the place. 24 pages which survived must be less than 15 I guess. How many pages are they on meta ? I think we can keep these 15 pages, they do not deface the place. Imho. Anthere 14:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
        • You may have a point... but it's not really the page itself that has historical value. Angela 14:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as for the other Hubley essays. -- Tim Starling 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm beginning to merge move all historically important pages to Meta:Historical, assuming there is some consensus to do so once we've begun documenting these. Since you're apparently aware of the context, please help document it in the notes parameter of the {{header}} template. // Pathoschild (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not convinced merging all the historical pages together makes sense. Merging the 142 stuff does, but you don't want that randomly mixed in with Cunctator vs. Sanger stuff or whatever else is about to come up for deletion. Angela 14:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't merge, create a category. That's what categories are for. If you merge then you lose the history, which is kind of the whole point of having a historical page. -- Tim Starling 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple View of Ethics and Morals[edit]

This is a hybrid essay/encyclopedic-article that has nothing to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-Wikimedia essay. Jude(talk,contribs) 06:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This page was an historical page. Actually, for a while, it was also an encyclopedic article. In memory of 24 :-) Anthere 13:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah Anthere, someone to share a sense of nostalgia with. Yes, keep the 24 essays. Sorry Angela. -- Tim Starling 14:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. In memory of 24 :-) Non-useful page from a banned troll. Not valuable, even for historical purposes. Angela 14:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Drivel. Dan100 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it's interesting (even though it's not Wikipedia standard), and could be useful - and I'm not even aware of the historical context. Cormaggio @ 22:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This essay is a very good example of early Wikipedia style. It's part of Wikipedia's history and doesn't conflict with any of WikiMedia's goals that I'm aware of. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep comment above. - Amgine / [17]] meta 16:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy kept as nominator. // Pathoschild (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikinoia[edit]

This is a page about a neologism with only 263 Google results. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? There are lots of wiki-related neologisms on meta. I think they belong here. Angela 14:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This isn't an encyclopedia, there are no notability criteria. Google hits are irrelevant. -- Tim Starling 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly good little essay on a common phenomenon in Wikipedia culture. And to expand on what Tim says, neologisms are perfectly fine here. And opinionated essays in main namespace. This space is for our reference and our use, whichever WikiMedia project we work on. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Korg + + 23:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy kept as nominator. // Pathoschild (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Genders of languages[edit]

Closed as keep. Essjay TalkContact 01:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Semi-encyclopedic article about grammatical gender. Not relevant to Meta. Jude(talk,contribs) 05:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete; this article is apparently a multilingual grammer how-to. It has no relation that I can see with the Wikimedia Foundation, and there are no significant incoming links. Wikipedia has a far more complete text at Grammatical gender. This should deleted or, at the least, transwikied to Wiktionary. // Pathoschild (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Related to all Wiktionary projects, hence it makes a sense to keep it here on meta, not a particular Wiktionary or on every Wiktionary (the latter is a waste of time to transwiki and database redundancy) --Aphaia 05:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • How is this related to all projects? Users are expected to learn grammer in school; should we have a comprehensive page on Meta about homonyms and common spelling errors? // Pathoschild (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It was created for quick reminder for Wiktionarians by Wiktionarians. For this purpose, consumed & huge page serves us not well. I am genuinly curious how you can verdict it unrelevant, because I don't know you at least on wiktionary-l & #wiktionary, hence not involved to its activity. Not criticism, but question. --Aphaia 05:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not an active Wiktionarian, but this isn't Wiktionary. From what you've said, I deduce that it's placed on Meta for access by all language Wiktionaries. I don't think that's appropriate for Meta, though, since it's of interest to only one Project. Perhaps it could be moved to one Wiktionary and linked to; the page would then also benefit from attention from the general Wiktionary community, instead of languishing here. // Pathoschild (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
          • That is the point we have a different opinion perhaps. I don't think it is appropriate to move it to ONE local project. What is wrong to use meta for coordination to several local project? So you may want to delete Wikiquote also? How about "restruction of Japanese Wiktionary"? Thought? --Aphaia 05:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Wikiquote is about Wikiquote, which is within the scope of Meta, "a website about the Wikimedia Foundation's projects". On the other hand, I honestly don't understand how Genders of languages is used to coordinate Wiktionaries. It is a quick guide to grammar rules relevant to one project. // Pathoschild (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep--Til Eulenspiegel 22:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Meta serves as a central collaboration point for multiple language projects, as well as coordination of translation efforts. - Amgine / [18]] meta 15:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Actively being used to facilitate work on Wikimedia projects. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A pome of sorts in narrative style...[edit]

This is a essay which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. If it's notable, it should be moved to Wikisource before deletion. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Move to user namespace. Angela 14:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Science Hypertextbook project[edit]

This is a page about a non-Wikimedia wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep (or move to user namespace). Interesting historically due to its relation with Wikibooks. Angela 14:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for historical value. Dan100 15:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The Vision of Knowledge[edit]

This is an excerpt from Reflections on Life after Life by Raymond A. Moody. Besides having nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki, I'm uncertain about the legal implications of the excerpt. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Move to user namespace (or possibly keep) since visions of knowledge do have some relevance to an encyclopedia. Angela 14:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikianarchism[edit]

This is a two-line definition substub; unless vastly expanded, this doesn't contribute anything that isn't obvious from the term. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. This isn't an encyclopedia. There's no minimum length. -- Tim Starling 14:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no reason to delete Dan100 15:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Skanwiki/Ugens artikel/Uge 52, 2005[edit]

This is a duplicate of w:da:Wikipedia:Ugens artikel/Uge 52, 2005. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep until there's a better place for such portals. This duplication is intentional; skanwiki is an effort to produce a cross-language portal for a language cluster (including dansk). Sj 09:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep it makes a sense to keep a multilingual portal on meta rather than on a certain language for the sake of lingual neutrality. --Aphaia 10:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Internet Authority Disease[edit]

This is an article about those who control the Internet and their addiction to power. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Foundation or any wiki. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Interesting, relevant page that is linked from a lot of places. Angela 14:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Worthless guff. Dan100 14:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. not very advanced argument, but very old. Cormaggio @ 22:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki For Dummies[edit]

This page has no content. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Might be a good idea to merge/redirect with Wiki on a stick. The title is a good one and some useful content may cluster there in time. I see no pressing need to delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Test-wp/nor/[edit]

This page and all subpages are redundant with identical pages on the Norman Wikipedia, many of them already blank. // Pathoschild (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the Test-wiki will need to be deleted, it should not be deleted yet! The Wikipedia was just created a few days ago, and we have not yet finished transferring articles and relevant discussion (in other words, not all subpages are redundant yet). We need more time to fully transfer the Test-wiki. In a week or two we will have likely finished, and the Test-wiki could safely be deleted then. The Jade Knight 08:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course, an admin deleting these pages would need to check whether they've been transferred yet. :) // Pathoschild (talk)
Are you aware a hasty request would trouble an admin? Why didn't you like to wait even a week or days? --Aphaia 10:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, currently. Precedent test wiki pages survived about half a year. You needn't to make so haste. --Aphaia 09:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Most of these are speedy deletable by policy, since they're redundant with identical pages on the Norman Wikipedia. There's no need to make haste, but neither is there any need to deliberately be slow. // Pathoschild (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

All articles have now been either copied over or copied and blanked. Man vyi 31 March 2006

Idea Generation[edit]

This is "outdated chit chat" (contributor's words) moved from Wikipedia when it was no longer wanted there. // Pathoschild (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ideal for Meta's historical collection. Keep Sj 10:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What is it? I don't see a random collection of words as a historical document. It has no context and makes no sense. Angela 16:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Ideal for Meta's hysterical collection - I have no idea what this is. Cormaggio @ 22:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Test-wp/bdf/Paribasa/Paribasa Jawa K[edit]

Seems to be a test, it consists entirely of links to nonexistant subpages. Prodego Talk 12:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep It is part of test-wp, it should be a test page. I might reconsider this page if someone provides an English translation. --Kernigh 01:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment We reached to the agreement no test wiki page should be removed until they would be transwikied to the launched (formal) wiki. It is not a pleasure at all to see an article totally out of scope of deletion policy here. --Aphaia 09:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This page exists only to deal with pages that cannot be speedily deleted, thus this nomination is entirely within the scope of the page. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 14:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it is OK to delete all bdf test page since the Banyumasan Wikipedia already installed long time ago. Borgx 05:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians with no criminal records[edit]

A pretty useless list on meta, maybe as a category, but it doesn't really seem necessary, used, or appropriate. Prodego Talk 12:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

    • There was a category on English WP, but it got deleted, see here. Prodego Talk 15:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is part of Category:List of Wikipedians. It cannot be a category because it contains interwiki links to pages not on Meta. (I do sometimes dislike that we have all these lists of Wikipedians, to the exclusion of other Wikimedians.) --Kernigh 01:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Concur with Kernigh. List of Wikipedians generally gives no harm. --Aphaia 08:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, utterly pointless. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 14:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- serves no purpose. Redux 01:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless --Özgür 14:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - bogus (just look at it). -- Omniplex (w:t) 17:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Klingon Wikipedia[edit]

Seems to be a request for information that could have been posted at Meta:Babel. But it appears to serve no purpose in the main namespace. Redux 00:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - almost unused, more like an obsolete talk page. -- Omniplex (w:t) 17:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yea, but we need to point the user at this alternative. if someone wants the Klingon pedia to be reopened s/he should get the change to do this request properly and see it discussed. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 18:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Apparently tlh: exists, but w:tlh: doesn't work. There are pages about closing and starting projects. If you take say Template:Meta and add what you know to the page, after moving its old content to Talk:Klingon Wikipedia it could link to relevant pages. As it is it's a dead end. -- Omniplex (w:t) 22:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey, I'm new to the meta and I regret that I don't understand how to request it to be reopened. Computerjoe 13:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I deleted the page and am leaving a note for User:Computerjoe on his talk page on en. UninvitedCompany 21:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Language code[edit]

This page is a very incomplete list of language codes. This is redundant with the Wikipedia article List of ISO 639 codes, as well as lists easily available elsewhere on the Internet. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  • delete - the new IANA registry is better. -- Omniplex (w:t) 16:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- per above. Redux 13:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep and improve or redirect. Pathoschild wrongly claims it is redundant with a Wikipedia article, but the article he refers to is a list of ISO codes while this meta list is not. Anybody ever seen "simple" as an ISO code? Maybe redirect to a list of installed wikis. Tobias Conradi 16:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tobias. MaxSem 20:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Hitri odgovor) 08:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirected to List of Wikimedia wikis, which includes the same information, more comprehensively and readably. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Campaña contra espanglés (Spanglish) y anglicismos[edit]

I do not agree with a former "speedy deletion" tag, that I've removed. Anyway this page is possibly out of place, but I feel that can be kept.

  • Keep --M/ 16:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, probably can be of some use. MaxSem 20:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - refers to the dilution of Spanish by English - interesting to keep. Cormaggio @ 12:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - is an unofficial campaign not related to Spanish Wikipedia. --Taichi - (あ!) 14:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Hitri odgovor) 08:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Kept. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fs:[edit]

I can't tell what this is meant to be; a redirect? // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, looks like so. I think it should be rewritten into redirect. MaxSem 19:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless redirect to the main page in Persian. Korg + + 13:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as identified by Korg. -- Omniplex (w:t) 01:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like it was meant to be a redirect. So we would just need to format it properly. Ie, keep and reformat to redirect. Redux 21:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No consensus, redirected. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Help:Cascading style sheets[edit]

Closed as keep. MaxSem 14:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This page was recently created as a resource to help users write CSS. The content dealing with MediaWiki-specific points is both incomplete and redundant with Help:User styles. Most of the rest of the content consists of patchwork tutorials, which is redundant with much more complete and useful resources such as W3Schools. The 'Major style headings' listed are very easily obtained once the user has learned enough basic CSS to write it— and those listed are specific to Monobook. All that is left is a little section detailing how to hide content, which is discouraged.

Thus Help:Cascading style sheets should be redirected to Help:User styles. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 15:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. I ripped some content from User Style because it had the only information on CSS at the time. I have since realized that that page didn't cover how to use CSS in the content. We can have stub pages. Please let things mature and be built. Many pages start as a drafts, or forks of other pages. I am offended by your request for deletion. Hiding content is important for both embededed pages and for printing.

    This is help for the Meidawiki software! We need to list every feature and describe how to use it, even if it using it is against policy on wikipedia. AaronPeterson 20:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

    I have no problem with stubs; I simply don't think Meta-Wiki should be a CSS resource. Tutorials on writing CSS are best left to dedicated coding websites, and details on CSS as it relates directly to MediaWiki (bugs, disallowed attributes, et cetera) are few enough to merge into Help:User styles. Even if we do prefer to separate CSS help from User styles If there is a good tutorial out there, then great, but frankly I haven't found anything to be of great valuehelp, we shouldn't be teaching CSS anymore than we teach HTML or English. If we keep the page, I suggest we remove the CSS tutorials and tricks, and link to more comprehensive and user-friendly tutorials such as W3Schools. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    I think we all agree that the page shouldn't be a detailed CSS resource. That extreme should, however, not count as an argument for deleting the page. The MediaWiki docs should at the very least mention CSS and would benefit greatly if they had a page on the parts of the CSS specification which are useful for and commonly used on Mediawiki pages. These should much rather be on Help:Cascading style sheets than Help:User styles. --Swift 03:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

    We do agree on that point, but what we seem to disagree with is how much to document CSS. The page should, if we keep it, make note of CSS only as it applies directly to MediaWiki— users wishing to learn CSS would do better with dedicated resources. To draw a relevant analogy, we use various written languages, but expect users to learn a given language elsewhere. Thus, I see no problem with documenting such things as MediaWiki CSS glitches or disallowed attributes, but I do see a problem with documenting 'tips and tricks' or listing classes used by a particular skin.

    If the page is kept, we can discuss the scope on the article's talk page. :) // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep for MediaWiki-specific and MediaWiki-oriented content, such as limitations, and classes used.--Patrick 10:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above.Voice-of-All 06:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikimania 2008/Cippalusi[edit]

Kept MaxSem 16:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fgv entnmmv aha pvnaab ha pnmmb qn sn... --M/ 23:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strongly keep and Very ROTFL --Jollyroger 07:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Wikimania/La famiglia. I'm a fish in hiding - 08:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it in the funny stuff (if there's not a funny stuff section, create it.) --Snowdog 08:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Cancellare - Pagina appena appena divertente se vista stando dentro lo Stivale; appena usciti dai confini, e toccata terra, è vergognosa la sua parte. --Twice25 09:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Twice25 means here "delete"?
      • Yes. seemingly, he lost his sense of humour in a tragic accident :-) --Jollyroger 11:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, delete. --Twice25 20:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly keep it --Tooby 10:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Meta:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (or Meta:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Wikimania 2008/Cippalusi) add Category:Humor. Korg + + 10:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it in a funny stuff section --Nick1915 11:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A funny parody of the Wikimania host city candidates. --voyager 16:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have no idea why just categorizing Category:Humor isn't proposed. Oh, sorry, you damned maniacs want keep it as "Wikimania" part? Ho capito ... --Aphaia 04:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep in that location if possible.. at least for some time.. otherwise, move in a location for funny stuff. --Twilight 07:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • too funny.. keep --Frieda 00:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A two week programme should be enough for that burlesque comedy. --M/ 21:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and slap a humor category on it. Someone put in a lot of work for this and I wouldn't want to see it go. Not hurting anything (unless, I guess, some overeager Foundation member thought it was real.) Grandmasterka 03:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Funny humour ought to be kept :) - Tangotango 15:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep :D — Timichal 16:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, rotfl... --piero tasso 20:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • it's certainly funny, but now that we laughed I would delete it. I can't help feeling bad taste. --Paginazero - Ø 11:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep--Jacopo86 13:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --.anaconda 15:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Tone 14:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Academy Progressive Enciklopedians[edit]

This page is orphaned and unwatched, and I don't see any usefulness or relevance. The only editor is Ochkarik, whom I've notified of this nomination. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. It is really assotiation of users [19] [20]. But informaton about academy is not actually.--Nikolay Kolpakov 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)--
  • Keep. It is associaton of users writing good and useful articles. It is a dynamic wiki-project. - Vald 04:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep--Sir James Paul 01:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, joke club in ru.wp and with no value outside it. -- Goldie ± (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, association of RuWiki users. But page is ungrammatical named and information is obsolete. So it should be rewrited. --Altes 16:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Can anyone explain what it is? What are the WikiProject's goals? If it is a Russian Wikipedia WikiProject, why isn't it there instead? —{admin} Pathoschild 03:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    OK, I'll give it a try by translating parts of the text and adding some comments/references:
    1. Smartass — "Founder of the Academy". (Translation of page WP:Smartassism is beyond the scope of this debate);
    2. Serebr — Member of the Presidium, Hon. academician, Scientific president of the Russian Wikipedia, Knight of 5 Hero-stars
    3. ED-tech — Science secretary on the fight with the marasmus (in Russian it means weird behavior) and the mithgoliosis (fictious brain virus, term from the Internet forums slang);
    4. неон — Member of the Presidium, secretary on the connection with the nation, Hon. academician, Hon. admin
    etc., etc.
    I can state that am seeing here and there requests coming to their Bulgarian member (#23) talk page - "A member of APE is running for adminship, could you support it", "An article on <whatever> is nominated for deletion, could you ...". From my POV it is a joke club with some cliquish behavior but is rather harmless if contained within ru.wp. As many (if not all) of its features rely on Russian culture, Russian slang, or play on words in Russian, its usability outside ru.wp is negligible.
    @Members of APE: Guys, you are doing well at ru.wp, and I regard you for writing encyclopaedic articles on obscure subjects (как скажем банка). However Meta is not a place for fun (or at least IMO). -- Goldie ± (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly keep. I've renamed it to Academy of Progressive Encyclopedists. AoPE is not a joke club. It is a serious association of users which write articles about simple things (on the one hand) and simultaneously about things that is hard to write about. They are working together on very useful articles. This association of users is not just a debating-society, but is a group of advanced users of Wikipedia, which primary target is to write interesting, cognitive articles considering both simple concrete things (e.g., ru:Бутерброд, sandwich, or ru:Рукопожатие, hand-shaking) and complex abstrast ideas such as ru:бесполезность (uselessness). --Jaroslavleff 21:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    What does the WikiProject do? It seems to be just a list of some people who edit content, which is not very useful. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    Why is it not very useful? Please prove it. --Jaroslavleff 11:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    See Goldie's comment above. Furthermore, if it is a group of editors, then there is no goal not targeted by nearly every member of every project in the Wikimedia Foundation. That would be about as useful as a club for people who seek to live on Earth. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this club does exist. Incnis Mrsi 00:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Closed as keep --Dbl2010 19:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Unused images[edit]

These are not used anywhere. If they are needed because they are linked to, they should be tagged with {{not orphan|[[pages]], [[linking]], [[to it]]}}. If they are historical, they should be used and documented at Meta:Historical. These should only be listed a few at a time so that RFD isn't overwhelmed.

  • Keep for all files which are not images actually. The reason I stated on an EXCEL file. It could be appliable for other similar files. --Aphaia 09:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    This argument is largely invalidated by the new ability to restore images. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
GALILEOArchitecture.sxd[edit]

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Unused images[edit]

The following files are unused, orphaned, and with no incoming links. Files that are useful should be categorized and linked to; please don't claim vague usefulness unless you can suggest where it is useful. (To keep discussion neat, please place comments under the appropriate header, general discussion just under this paragraph, and comments about a specific image under that image's bullet. Thanks.) —{admin} Pathoschild 02:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unused documents[edit]

Keep all of this section. These 5 documents are not unused. They are linked on Wikimedia meetup 2005/City Candidate List and potentially useful for future proposals for Wikimania to be in Ireland. Angela 03:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Kept. Thanks for pointing that out; I've updated the syntax on that page. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Unused photographs[edit]
Unused miscellaneous files[edit]

Other[edit]

Zero/Short pages[edit]

What about these? Borgx 05:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - cruft. Some edit histories 2004 aren't very interesting from my POV. -- Omniplex (w:t) 16:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, I completely missed that this list is in fact a special page, and therefore its content might change while we discuss it. Maybe we should tag identified cruft with {{looks useless}} or add it to a pseudo-category:short cruft that's not supposed to change while we talk about it. Compare #Category:Obsolete_Hilfeumleitung above, as long as there are 43 pages it's no moving target (pray). -- Omniplex (w:t) 23:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    Striking my obsolete example handled by speedy deletion: -- Omniplex (w:t) 17:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete anything that's empty. Stifle 22:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Many of these pages are useless, but some aren't (such as Wikimedia budget/2005 and WMF/Membership). Also, there are plenty of test pages, that not many people will be able to comment on, besides those working on that test-wiki. So, delete with care :-) Cormaggio @ 16:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    I don't suppose we can vote a sort of "mass delete" here, although any page that's empty fits the criteria for deletion. That notwithstanding, we need to look at each case. As Cormaggio said, not all pages listed there are indeed to be deleted (although in all likelihood most of them are). Redux 22:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all, most of them appear to be trasnwikied test-wp articles. MaxSem 19:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Hitri odgovor) 09:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This request should be declined, and each item should be listed individually. Some links, including Cormaggio refered, and translation related ones, should be kept for working. Mass deletion request in so a rough style, which forces the editors involved into present concernings to spend their time, is not to be encouraged. At least, you had to prepare a whitelist, on which editors could list the item which must be kept. --Aphaia 07:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Closed as invalid. Many of these are speedy deletion candidates and should be tagged accordingly. Others should be considered individually as proposed by Aphaia. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No consensus[edit]

Articles[edit]

Wikimedia wikis by number of pages[edit]

Closed as no consensus. Essjay TalkContact 20:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Only two old edits in history; Redundant to List of Wikipedias and List of largest wikis. --Pmsyyz 04:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I am assuming that Pmsyyz wanted to delete both Wikimedia wikis by number of pages and Template:afd. However, Pmsyyz marked Wikimedia wikis by number of pages with {{afd}} instead of {{rfd}}, probably by accident, as I remember some wiki using "afd" for "articles for deletion". The same user marked Template:afd with {{rfd}}. The confusing result is that Wikimedia wikis by number of pages has a section at "Meta:Requests for deletion" but no {{rfd}} tag (though it includes a template, {{afd}}, with an {{rfd}} tag), while Template:afd has an {{rfd}} tag, but no section at "Meta:Requests for deletion". Thus neither page has a correct request for deletion. If Pmsyyz can clarify what was attempted, I might comment on whether to delete either page. --Kernigh 00:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This entry is just for deleting the title article. I just didn't realize that {{rfd}} was the correct template instead of {{afd}} since they cause the same thing to appear in an article. I guess I marked {{afd}} as {{rfd}} some time ago but forgot to add an entry here. --Pmsyyz 02:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Faster Ray Traced Terrain Shadows[edit]

Closed as no consensus. Essjay TalkContact 20:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This does not seem to be meta related, but is a large article, if not existing elsewhere, perhaps could be transwiki'd. xaosflux Talk 02:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment This page is only a few days old, and there is a thread at the talk page of the uploader User talk:Soconne. --Kernigh 05:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Chinese ISP Proxies[edit]

Closed as no consensus. Essjay TalkContact 02:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC) This page was marked speedy. Are we sure it can't be of any help in some way, relating for instance to China lockout of Wikipedia? --M/ 20:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Is any of the content useful in any way? Looks almost like spam, the link at the bottom doesn't seem releated. And, yeah, Wikimedia actively helping Chinese users circumvent their govt's block. That will inspire them to unblock Wikipedia. --Pmsyyz 09:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't think the block will suddenly get lifted if we delete it. Ausir
  • Keep! --Inspector Creep 02:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipubs[edit]

Closed as no consensus. Essjay TalkContact 02:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Advertising an existing wiki. As with the Star Wars Wiki, this does not seem a legimitate proposal for a Wikimedia project, but a sneaky way of advertising unrelated wikis on Meta. Angela 08:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: I did not create this page as a means for advertising. I created the first wikipubs site as a prototype, it is a legitimate proposal and should be treated as such. All instructions for proposing a new project have been followed, and hence this project should be considered. James 09:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, would be better at Wikicities. -- Jeandré, 2006-02-08t20:25z
  • Keep We should not be penalising proposals when they have already have demo wikis. Wikipubs seems to be a valid proposal for a new project through new project policy. Because Wikipubs is a proposal, it is more than an advertisement, and it is releveant to Wikimedia and this Meta-Wiki. Wikimedians should have the opportunity to discuss, accept, or reject the proposal, and we should not delete the Wikipubs page from Meta. --Kernigh 00:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • How is it any more relevant to Wikimedia than the 800 wikis listed at List of Wikicities? It would be great to advertise every one of those here too, but I'd rather hope that's not what meta is for. Angela 10:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, stubbify and move bulk of content to Wikipubs, link to project description there from here. Concerns about advertising are valid and the project has no chance to be accepted as a Wikimedia project, but I'm in favor of giving every project a fair hearing, as it might lead the proposer to a better understanding of Wikimedia, and might contribute to a useful abstraction. In this case, I would argue that something like Wikicompany might fall within Wikimedia's mission, while this project clearly does not.--Eloquence 07:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not suitable for a foundation project. Ausir 11:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - it is only a proposal --Walter 20:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

說明:圖片與其他上載的檔案[edit]

The following discussion is closed: kept due to lacking of concensus

A fork of Help:Images and other uploaded files that has not been edited in months, and created by an editor who has not edited in months either. Dar-Ape 04:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Week delete per nom. And Meta-wiki has no 說明 namespace the original author may have been intended to have a Chinese version of Help namespace. --Aphaia 13:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --.anaconda 00:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep--Sir James Paul 01:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    On what basis is this weak keep vote, Sir? ZimZalaBim 04:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepWeak keep and comment out the text in English. Consider it as the equivalent of a stub in WP. Hopefully someone with knowledge in Chinese will be able to identify it (there are different scripts - Simplified, Classical, etc.) and expand it. This is supposed to be a wiki, and we cannot expect everything to happen all in one go. You also might have forgotten that WP was blocked in mainland China, and the editor might have been unable to complete the translation just because of that. -- Goldie ± (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • English and Chinese Wikipedia are blocked. Meta not. We have seen many Mainland China editors active around. --Aphaia 18:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      OK, I did not got that from the en.wp article and having no checkuser rights (hope I'll never have them ;)) was unable to derive it myself. I read the article as whole Wikipedia being blocked, and assume Meta as an integral part of it. It is weakening my point indeed but still hope someone will pick up from the previous one left it, and will do the rest. Please see an example. -- Goldie ± (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --dario vet (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I am going to edit it.--Hillgentleman| 03:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Give much more time for someone who want to edit it.--encyclopedist 15:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • So why did you blank the very page on which someone left his or her edits? --Aphaia 16:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • from Help:圖片與及他上載的檔案
      1. (cur) (last) 15:31, 23 January 2007 Pedist (Talk | contribs | block) (Removing all content from page) [rollback]
      2. (cur) (last) 15:22, 23 January 2007 Pedist (Talk | contribs | block) m (說明:圖片與其他上載的檔案 moved to Help:圖片與及他上載的檔案) --Aphaia 16:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Have the Chinese page reviewed.--Jusjih 16:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is kept due to lacking of concensus. Further discussions are highly recommended to go to its talk. --Aphaia 08:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Category:EasyTimeline Examples[edit]

Closed as no consensus, default to keep. Essjay TalkContact 11:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks irrelevant to meta. Unused. --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 05:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment Support and experiments for MediaWiki is a part of meta mission, if we delete it for now, it could be created; it is good to keep some examples in one category, if we have such. --Aphaia 11:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Category is potentially useful, but currently empty. --Kernigh 20:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete This is a classic example of what people are supposed to do on wikis. Don't delete it, improve it!

Category:Географиа, Category:Әрәсә, Category:Хальмг Таңһч[edit]

Closed as keep/no consensus. Essjay TalkContact 07:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Not meta related, created by anonymous, probably by mistake. --Paginazero 07:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep: created for the Kalmykian Wikipedia. --Taichi - (?!) 23:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Meta-stub[edit]

Closed and promoted to speedy M4 (pro forma "no consensus") -- Omniplex (w:t) 15:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned and empty category, redundant with Category:Stubs. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 17:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Agreed on that it is redundant currently, but it would be helpful to divide Category:Stubs into two categories; stub of test-wiki(pedia) and stub of meta articles. --Aphaia 09:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; Aphaia has a good idea; maybe this should be a subcat of Category:Stubs? --Spangineer[en] [es] (háblame) 00:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Create "Category:Test-wp stubs" or "Category:Meta stubs", do not keep this. --Kernigh 01:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - splitting a huge category:stub is a good plan elsewhere, but here it has only 20 entries. IMO one of Category:Looks useless and Category:Checkme is also redundant, or needs an explanation what the difference is. -- Omniplex (w:t) 16:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- I must agree that Meta is nowhere near needing to subdivide categories into [seemingly] redundant ones (but that would serve an organizing purpose were the website larger, or more complex). Redux 04:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Hitri odgovor) 08:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

Template:СНГ[edit]

Closed as keep/no consensus. Essjay TalkContact 07:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Not meta related, created by anonymous probably by mistake. --Paginazero 07:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep: Created for the Kalmykian Wikipedia --Taichi - (?!) 23:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Other[edit]

Sept11 Memorial Wiki[edit]

Removed from RfD as invalid request.' Essjay TalkContact 07:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Unused images[edit]

As of 02:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC), there is 1759 unused images, except some like proposed logo, I propose hereby to delete most of them under the condition not deleting images which someone will list on the whitelist below. --Aphaia | Translate Election | ++ 02:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These images are now shown at Unused images 1, Unused images 2 and Unused images 3 so people can see what they are voting on. Angela 06:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete.--Shizhao 17:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete most of what is on Unused images 1 since these are "automatic conversions" (not including those on the whitelist below). A lot of Unused images 2 are logos and should be kept so we have a proper historical record of the Wikipedia logo contest. Unused images 3 is a mixture - keep the logos and delete the rest from that one. A few are corrupted (or have become orphaned since this RfD listing) and are not showing up on these three subpages. See Special:Unusedimages for those (not all of those should be deleted). Angela 06:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)/03:38, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep !! I am hungarian, and the ones starting with HU are logos of counties in Hungary. I am not an active wikipedian in Hungarian wikipedia (but an active one on English). Please think before deleting them, as they might be useful in the Hungarian wikipedia. I think it would be best to give a notice to the Hungarians before deleting them. I am going to do that now. So please wait a bit before deleting, they might be useful, and get linked after I post a message to them! Wait, please! Then delete! Thx! 195.56.194.129 22:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Are those really images? They look like the remnants of some Unicode bug to me. --Tgr 22:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • For some reason there are many pages in the "Image:" namespace without images, and several of these pages are listed in unused images 1, 2, 3. I think that we can delete such pages. --Kernigh 00:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete them all. Meta needs to be cleaned up, big time. Linuxbeak 20:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Deletions of all makes no sense. See the discussion above. Some of them needs to keep for historical interest, technical reasons and so on. --Aphaia 04:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You can't undelete an image once you delete it. I vote we keep all of them except those for which a solid case can be made for deletion. Otherwise we risk deleting valuable images which are not linked from anywhere simply because a vandal removed the link, or because they were linked from another project. Meta's entire image directory is only 1.4GB, we can afford the space. -- Tim Starling 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Whitelist

Image:Wiki-logo nl.png, Image:Vikio.jpg, Image:Wiki-pl.png, Image:Vikio.png, Image:Search.png, WIKIPÄDIA-frej-frei-frii.png (but rename), Image:Vikireklamilo1.png, Image:Vikireklamilo2.png,

    • Group 3 includes some data files (.xls) they have to be kept. Just information. Aphaia++ 21:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Please keep Image:Nohat-logo-X-vi.png. It is the Vietnamese Wikipedia's logo with the old tagline, and could be linked to occasionally for historical purposes. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 02:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirect Reflexions sur la bioethique[edit]

This is a redirect to a userfied page. // Pathoschild (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so ? A redirection hurts no one. This page has been linked from other websites. I later moved it in my user space, but I would appreciate taht the redirection is kept. Anthere 13:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep redirects to avoid breaking links. Angela 14:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all redirects to user pages. -- Tim Starling 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Kept. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect In Memoriam[edit]

This is an interwiki redirect with no incoming links. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • 'Keep. Fix the redirect, but keep the history since this is probably one of the few (only?) pages left that pre-date the sep11 wiki and it therefore gives some interesting information on when that started and who was editing that then. Angela 14:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with Angela. -- Tim Starling 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • How about we revert to the non-blanked version of the page with a link to the wiki, and move it to Meta:Historical? // Pathoschild (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Kept. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect Electoral reform jargon list[edit]

This is an interwiki redirect only one significant incoming link which can easily be fixed to point to the target Wikipedia article. // Pathoschild (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect Internal error[edit]

This is an unused and unneeded redirect to MediaWiki talk:Internalerror. // Pathoschild (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep all redirects for the sake of continuity, unless there is further problems; that is a part of our oral tradition. --Aphaia 08:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Kept. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Association of Deletionist Wikipedians and /members[edit]

Reason: Association of Deletionist Wikipedians#Suggested_keywords_that_may_used_for_voting_Delete (pick relevant one hence why this is not acceptable) --Cat out 08:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Humorous (although not maintained lately). Why should this one be deleted, and the other "Association of" pages be kept? --Slowking Man 09:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    I feel it is borderlining afd trolling rather than being a practical joke. Something like "We are the deletion cabal!" would be a joke. An association should not look like a FAQ on deletionism. --Cat out 16:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    On another note, strong keep per [21]. Deletion fora are not the place to act on your vendettas. --Slowking Man 10:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I wouldn't mind deleting all these irrelevant pages, either. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Slowking Man. Either keep all or delete all... — Timichal 08:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    It's much easier to delete them all if there's a precedent for deletion. If you believe that this page should be deleted—regardless of what you think of other pages not under discussion—please cast your vote appropriately. Other pages of this type can be considered individually or in a future mass nomination. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    Deleting all is fine.The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cool Cat (talk • contribs) 16:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Timichal. --Slade 19:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Without expressing an opinion, note that it makes logical sense to delete one of a set even if you think all should be deleted. Since we are a wiki, one of the fundamental deatures of the project is inconsistency: anyone can and anything at any time, even if things like it have been deleted before. Things are also sometimes deleted inconsistently because of the nature of RFD. Therefore, inclusion is not an indicator of validity or quality. For example, you could have just as easily voted "Delete. Either keep all or delete all..." as you did Keep (since this vote is about neither keeping them all or deleting them all, just one). That the reasoning offered is a rationale for keeping is a logical fallacy. Dmcdevit 20:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wonder whether the nominator has noticed this or not, but it is categorized as Category:Humor. Is this the same guy who nominated en:Wikipedia:Civility for deletion[22]? And the one who said "Deletionists can burn in hell too"[23]. In that case, Speedy Keep. Utcursch 13:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If I recall correctly, this page was already nominated here and failed to be deleted. --Aphaia 13:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Remarkable. The same user nominates this page and WP:CIVIL for deletion in little over 24 hours. That must be setting some sort of record. Keep. Moreschi 20:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with Dmcdevit, if the consensus is clear to delete this, it is for the rest as well... and ditto for keep. That said... This was one of the first bits of wikiculture I learned. I think it has merit, as do the other similar pages. Sometimes humor is the best way to get a message across. Keep ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: I have a lot less invested in this association than in the page defining the term itself. Hopefully if the association gets deleted (the irony is not lost on me!!!!) it would NOT be taken as any sort of precedent for deleting the term "deletionist" which is very useful. 20:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep--Sir James Paul 01:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. NPOV mandates all or nothing, and nomination of any page alone without all other clubs, cliques, associations, etc. smells like vendetta. Call me for the delete-all nomination. -- Goldie ± (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the Slowking Man diff. -- Steel en:Steel 22:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per the nominator's behavior on en.wp. I have to question the faith of this nomination, as well. --Coredesat (en.wp) 23:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Kjetil r 01:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, deletionism and inclusionism are the main ideologies of Wikipedia. --Altes 16:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki all to appropriate projects. Probably not within the scope of Meta. --Improv 17:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above.--Húsönd 04:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • keep the notion of deletionism is a very general one which extends to a variety of Wikimedia projects. Removing one without removing similar ones seems uncalled for and works against what Meta is useful for. JoshuaZ 05:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • keep - no valid reason given for deletion, lack of perspective, and the nom's very NPA statement that "all deletionists can burn in hell" make me question the motives of this nomination. --Shrieking Harpy Gay flag.svgTalk|Count 22:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)