Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:MFD)

Administrator instructions

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

A filtered version of the page that excludes nominations of pages in the draft namespace is available at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts.

Information on the processEdit

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
  • Files in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
  • Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletionEdit

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD
  • Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policiesEdit

How to list pages for deletionEdit

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

I.
Edit PageName:

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.
If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.
Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transclued pages.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
  • Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
  • Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
  • Save the page
II.
Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

  • Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
  • Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
III.
Add a line to MfD.

Follow   this edit link   and at the top of the list add a line:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".
  • Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
    Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
  • If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add
{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.
  • If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
    For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

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

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

    Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]

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

Administrator instructionsEdit

XFD backlog
V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
CfD 0 0 16 41 57
TfD 0 0 2 2 4
MfD 0 0 0 1 1
FfD 0 2 4 6 12
AfD 0 0 0 73 73

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussionsEdit

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Current discussionsEdit

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

September 18, 2021Edit

September 17, 2021Edit

Draft:N. A. Khan SpondanEdit

Draft:N. A. Khan Spondan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:Notability EdNg07 (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I've now realised that this is the wrong category, should be under AfD, but I don't know how to move it etc EdNg07 (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: Since this is a draft, this is the correct venue. Articles for Deletion is only for articles. Curbon7 (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep clearly you're unaware of this EdNg07 but notability explicitly does not apply to draftspace,see WP:NMFD. Indeed WP:drafts are not checked for notability or sanity, now can you please just withdraw the nom so we can dispense with this in a hurry. MFD massively increases the number of people viewing a draft and this is one of those that are best quietly deleted in 6 months time (see WP:G13). Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NMFD and above. Also, it would be inappropriate to move this to the mainspace to seek deletion, in a similar vein to what is expressed about userspace drafts here (B3). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete and get oversight involved. Wikipedia should not be hosting the personal information and contact details for random children. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Deleted as a test page: written by a very young new editor. – Athaenara 04:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sai aravind/Prasad V.Potluri Siddhartha Institute of Technology
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#U5 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) 81.177.3.8 (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Sai aravind/Prasad V.Potluri Siddhartha Institute of TechnologyEdit

User:Sai aravind/Prasad V.Potluri Siddhartha Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

abandoned draft MB 07:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:STALE. WP:RAGPICKING. WP:TIND. Please, no more; if the current ones end in delete somehow, then carry on with the flood. But a pause is preffered until then, so this does not get more out of hand. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

User:RAFIAMAN/Aeronautical Institute of BangladeshEdit

User:RAFIAMAN/Aeronautical Institute of Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

abandoned draft MB 06:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:STALE. Listing such pages here un-bundled en masse is a maintenance burden for those commenting. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep nominator has failed to advance a reason for deletion, this is not problematic even if blanked see WP:STALEDRAFT. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment My rational is that if you look at the edit history, there were two edits by the author and three edits by others fixing problem. This is typical of these types of pages. Deleting will prevent any future maintenance edits and wasting other editors time on abandoned pages. Since the subject is in mainspace at Aeronautical Institute of Bangladesh, I don't see that anything potentially useful would be lost. I will just blank this page instead; I thought deleting via MFD would be uncontroversial and simpler. MB 20:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Pcs123456/Pateros Catholic SchoolEdit

User:Pcs123456/Pateros Catholic School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

abandoned draft MB 06:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Looper2222/LAIADEdit

User:Looper2222/LAIAD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

abandoned draft MB 06:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:STALE, WP:RAGPICKING, and WP:TIND. One might also raise the ponderance: why this userspace draft over any other userspace draft that has not been edited in a while? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and blank if you must, but no PAG based reason for deletion has been supplied. If a userpage is speediable then tag it for speedy. If you think the current content is an issue, blank it. If the page is not speeidable and the content is problematic even if blanked then and only then should an mfd be initiated. That means there must be a clear reason to conceal the history.
    Using mfd to clean the userspace of others is not productive. The negative to the community of editors policing others userspace is a bigger negative than leaving these things alone. There's endless reams of abandoned junk in userspace but it's all noindexed and impossible to find, and the links are nofollowed and do nothing for seo. If we systemically went through all of it mfd would be completely overwhelmed, and to what purpose? Especially when there's so much junk in mainspace. If you want to use your time efficiently go start by cleaning out backlogs like Category:All articles lacking sources or Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability, or hell just Category:All pages needing cleanup and remember the articles in those are indexed and actually can be found. If you want to flood some place with deletion noms then flood afd where this actually matters. Bluntly stated noms like this serve no purpose except wasting people’s time, sorry. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Evergreen678/UNE16Edit

User:Evergreen678/UNE16 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

abandoned draft MB 06:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:STALE and WP:RAGPICKING. @MB: No need to list such pages here. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and blank if you must, but no PAG based reason for deletion has been supplied. If a userpage is speediable then tag it for speedy. If you think the current content is an issue, blank it. If the page is not speeidable and the content is problematic even if blanked then and only then should an mfd be initiated. That means there must be a clear reason to conceal the history. Using mfd to clean the userspace of others is not productive, and yes I am repeating myself.
    MB as in the other nom you have failed to advance a reason for deletion in your statement making this arguably a speedy keep under WP:SK#1. Doing this en masse is disruptive and a waste of your fellow editors time, as I get time I'll go check on your other noms, but if they're all similar to this I strongly suggest just withdrawing them and reviewing the PAGs that govern mfd. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Dgiovag/sandbox/Popular Organizations at Illinois State University in the 1970'sEdit

User:Dgiovag/sandbox/Popular Organizations at Illinois State University in the 1970's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

abandoned draft MB 06:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:DEFCON5/sandbox/Maulana Azad Institute of Dental ScienceEdit

User:DEFCON5/sandbox/Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

abandoned draft MB 06:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Cuindependent/CuindependentEdit

User:Cuindependent/Cuindependent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

abandoned draft MB 06:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Aneebkmct/HM College of Science and TechnologyEdit

User:Aneebkmct/HM College of Science and Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

abandoned draft MB 06:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Silly things/Sir Jimmy WikipediaEdit

Wikipedia:Silly things/Sir Jimmy Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I like humorous pages and have argued for several to be kept. But this isn't humorous, it's just dumb and it was created by sockpuppeteer User:Huff slush7264 who has stated he was a minor when he created his accounts. I really don't think it adds anything positive to the project and I think deleting it would actually make our editors smarter. Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete This is not useful. No-one but article creator has contributed to it, and nothing links to it. Tagging garbage such as this with the humorous template should not protect it. The link vandalize (vandalism by a sock of user:My Royal Young) suggests that the creator of Silly things/Sir Jimmy Wikipedia might actually be be the LTA Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/My Royal Young. If that were the case this would actually be a speedy WP:G5. Meters (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete As someone who usually finds "dumb things" funny... I do not find this funny. It's just a younger user's attempt at being on Wikipedia. This isn't "so dumb it's funny", this is "so dumb it's genuinely dumb". Also agreeing with Meters on this, this has no use. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

September 16, 2021Edit

Draft:Untitled Universal Live Action ProjectEdit

Draft:Untitled Universal Live Action Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Useless and empty placeholder, whose entire text is The Untitled Universal Live Action Project is an upcoming American film from Universal Pictures. It lists no director, no producers, no actors, no story, and no title. Its only source is to a list in an article announcing 22 feature films eligible for state tax credits, the IMDB link leads to nothing, and its alleged budget is actually the amount of state tax credits this so-far vaporware is supposed to receive. Calton | Talk 09:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

See also from the same source the similarly empty Draft:Passenger 58 and Draft:Leave Me Alone (upcoming film). --Calton | Talk 10:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I don’t see the problem. It looks like the ultimate movie draft. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep if this were submitted it would need to be declined; if it is not submitted it can be ignored and taken care of by g13. No WP:NMFD reason to delete has been given, it has not been tendentiously resubmitted, nor is it being tendentiously maintained in draftspace. Indeed WP:drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. Sure it's junk, but draftspace is full of junk, but it's NOINDEXed junk that no one will ever see and due to g13 it's self-cleaning without taking up community time in mfds. Sorry Calton but this looks like WP:RAGPICKING. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - The editor who created the draft, hasn't been around Wikipedia for four months. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

September 15, 2021Edit

User:PrunesqualerEdit

User:Prunesqualer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Polemical attacks on both the project and indirectly users they disagree with. Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep Any opinion can be seen as an indirect attack on holders of a contrary opinion. From my reading, it seems to wish truth, fairness and human decency on the project, hardly bad things. There's something literally, clearly and procedurally wrong with the tag syntax there and the ToC here, though, and I think it needs to be corrected. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "Wiki’s Julian Assange article is being compiled for the most part by the prosecution – the rules and courtroom niceties are usually adhered to in the editing, but such is the dominance of negativity towards Assange - that any sense of him as a human being who might just be worthy of a little compassion or empathy is generally kept off the page (usually with the rational that treating a living subject as human being is somehow “un-encyclopaedic”).".Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Not sure why you're copying and pasting what you claim to want erased, but yes, I read it twice now. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Because you seemed to say the page did not contain anything that violates wp:npa, this does I would argue. As well as WP:POLEMIC.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • From that, all I can reasonably gather is that you (or someone else) is being likened to a prosecutor, and you (or the anonymous victim represented in your formal complaints) don't think that fairly characterizes you (them). Is that the case? To be clear, yes, I don't see a personal attack, and no, I don't consider you (or any associate) an actual government lawyer. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Userspace rants railing against some aspect or another of the project are common and accepted, ever read the retirement notice of someone who departed on bitter terms? These are largely pointless but we don't delete userpages as a result of them. I'm no fan of the indirect reference to the editors with whom they are in conflict. However no one is named, nor is it the kind of coy thinly concealed reference where the target of the remark can be inferred with ease. Variants of all/most of the people who I'm opposed to in TopicArea are terrible got old a long time ago, but again they fall within the leeway granted on userpages, nor is it otherwise on obvious WP:UP vio. I'd counsel against placing stuff like that on your userpage, but if someone refuses to remove it the issue is best dropped, if for no other reason than starting MFDs or ANIs massively increases the number of people who see the remarks (cf. Streisand effect). Perhaps the project would be better off with tighter and more clear userspace guidelines, but that's best done through a centralised rfc, not by nominating one arbitrary userpage for deletion. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep after a page skim per "slippery road", "a Wikipedians userpage is their castle", and "they came for the unvaxxed IPs and I did nothing". Now I'll go back and read what the page says and see if something on it turns on my authoritarian gene so I can come back and give the page the boot. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not a polemical attack on any individual editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

September 14, 2021Edit

Draft:Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film)Edit

Draft:Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This draft has been merged with it's duplicate main article counterpart, and is no longer needed. Iamnoahflores (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Redirect. WP:SRE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Defer to AFD discussion per RMC, not sure how I missed that earlier, @SmokeyJoe and Iamnoahflores: if both of you agree, I think we can just close this now. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Speedy Redirect per WP:SRE, since a merge has occurred deletion would be inappropriate anyway. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, let's close. Iamnoahflores (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - This has gotten confused, and this discussion is conflicting with another deletion discussion. There is a main article, but the main article has also been nominated for deletion, as an upcoming film that does not satisfy the notability requirements for unreleased films; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film) (2nd nomination). The AFD will decide whether the article will remain in article space or be draftified a second time until release in December 2021. The least confusing action at this point is probably to close this MFD procedurally, and let the AFD decide whether the place for the description of the movie is in article space (where one copy of it is now) or only in draft space until December 2021. The nominator has made a common good-faith mistake of nominating a draft for deletion because there is an article. Speedy Redirect is usually the right way to deal with these mistaken requests to delete drafts. But Speedy Redirect is not the right answer if the article is also nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Procedural Close to allow the AFD to be determining. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film) (2nd nomination). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:User imploding vandalsEdit

Template:User imploding vandals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per WP:DENY. This template (and similar ones) only amuses vandals and glorifies their acts. wikinights talk 22:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment If this MfD is successful, I will batch nominate other userboxes that glorify vandalism. wikinights talk 22:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, for now, at least. It is not clear that this “only amuses vandals and glorifies their acts”. It looks like a userbox used by a vandal fighter. It is not offensive. It has many transclusions, have you considered notifying all transcluders? I recommend that you look at developing userbox policy, as opposed to trying to set policy by mfd precedent. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
The language and design portray vandalism as something that needs to be "obliterated" with a "kaboom!!". Vandals do indeed want to be obliterated gloriously with a kaboom. It is the userbox equivalent of posting "I will obliterate you, vandal!" on the talk page of a vandal account or IP. We should avoid language against vandals in fact encourages them and glorifies their acts; WP:Do not insult the vandals represents a widely believed opinion. Wikipedia:User pages affirms that pages that seem to advocate, encourage, or condone ... vandalism are unacceptable. If users want to write that they revert vandalism on their userpages, there are alternative userboxes. wikinights talk 00:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Your concern would be valid if that vandal's user page were tagged with the message. It is not. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as it's a humorous userbox used by vandal-fighters, certainly not what pages that seem to advocate, encourage, or condone ... vandalism is referring to, that being bona fide avocation/encouragement of vandalism, as opposed to anything that could be potentially be construed as provoking vandals, while WP:DENY is about making vandals infamous, not this. — csc-1 00:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - I question the basic premise of this nomination which suggests that this sort of userbox encourages and glorifies vandalism, and I am not convinced by the supporting argument. This to me reads as a humorous badge worn by a vandal-fighter, of which Wikipedia needs many. If the userbox perhaps read "Come at me, vandals, do your worst!" that would be one thing, but this is not in the same category. --WaltCip-(talk) 12:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - As a recent changes patroller I keep this on my userpage, I found it a humorous way to let others know that I revert vandalism. I don't know how this glorifies or encourages vandalism. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 18:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's humorous, and to the extent that it has any effect on vandalism, it will discourage it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Help:To Learn language with WikipediaEdit

Help:To Learn language with Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Not comprehensive or useful as a help page. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete not helpful, and somewhat incoherent. — csc-1 00:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete or Mark Historical, but was never of any use. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as not helpful and borderline incoherent. I don't think it's worth marking a 5 day old page as historical. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

September 13, 2021Edit

Wikipedia:Notice board for vaccine-related topicsEdit

Wikipedia:Notice board for vaccine-related topics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Inactive page retained for historical reference - however I'm not sure Wikipedia really needs this kept. Not very informative (especially given current events).

I've listed the talk page for this separately in case editors had a different view for the main noticeboard vs the talk page. Bangalamania (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. Speedy keep WP:SK#1 no rationale for deletion provided. It is Wikipedia history. Wikipedia history is only deleted for very good reasons. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - This page should be marked historical, and is marked historical. Has the nomintor identified any harm done by keeping this as historical? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Historical, and marked as such. No need for deletion. — csc-1 00:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Already tagged as historical and there is no need to hide the history, nor has any DELREASON even been hinted at. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notice board for vaccine-related topicsEdit

Wikipedia talk:Notice board for vaccine-related topics (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Talk page of historic Wikipedia noticeboard Bangalamania (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. WP:SK#1, no reason for deletion provided. Talk pages with history of Wikipedian user posts are not deleted without an extremely strong reason, except per WP:CSD#G8. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - Either delete the project page (the noticeboard) or don't delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep No reason to delete the talk page. — csc-1 00:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and trout the nom for bringing this here. Bangalamania there is no need to clutter mfd and further take up people's time by nominating talk pages separately, which are automatically deleted per WP:G8 if the primary nomination is successful, or at the very least you should indicate why the talk page should be deleted even if the subject page is retained, but here you've failed to advance any DELREASON whatsoever. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Noticeboard for autism-related topicsEdit

Wikipedia:Noticeboard for autism-related topics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Does not seem to be regularly updated; things from 2007 are listed as 'new', for example. Plus, Wikipedia:WikiProject Autism seems to be relatively inactive. Bangalamania (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Page has sporadic edits since 2008 - the last time there was significant activity. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. It has history. The nominator's rationale supports tagging as an archive, not deletion. The use of the word "new" should be accompanied by dates. In many cases, it is. In others, feel free to add the date of entry. Confusion by this issue is not credible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, but maybe we can breathe some life into it by trimming it down. A small page is easier to keep updated than a large page. Maybe put the active contributors list up top and remove those who are no longer active? Or remove that section entirely as it may not be that helpful. Unless it can be automated, we can probably remove the sections about articles that have been AFD'd, since nobody is going to want to fill in thirteen years worth of AFD's to close the gap. Soap 01:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Autism#New_articles has an automated new articles section, which we could use to replace the manually updated one on the noticeboard. It may be that the two pages will end up being very similar to each other, and could merge, but I would not endorse deletion of either page. Soap 01:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - Either mark as historical, or don't mark as historical. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep No reason to delete history. — csc-1 01:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Mark historical per nom. The page's nominal functions would be better served by the wikiproject itself, and it's good for inactive projectspace topics to be marked as such explicitly, but prior commentators have pointed out the unnecessity of deletion in this context. Vaticidalprophet 16:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Faactory (2021 film)Edit

Draft:Faactory (2021 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Pretty much a vandalism only page now. Also not important enough yet MoonlightVector 15:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. An upcoming film. Mentioed at Faisal Khan. I added a source. "not important enough yet" is absolutely not a deletion reason in draftspace. There are sources in the history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep after reverting vandalism. Vandalism is a reason to revert vandalism, and warn or block the vandals, not to delete a draft. Not being important enough is a reason to decline a draft. This is a valid draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per those above. Reasonable draft; WP:NDRAFT. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep notability does not apply to draft space see WP:NMFD, nor is likely to be vandalised a DELREASON. Sure it's junk in it's present state, but it's NOINDEXed junk and there's no reason to delete it, WP:drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. If it were submitted it would need to be declined, if it is not submitted it can be ignored, and if never improved it will be automatically deleted per G13 in 6 months without taking up any community time in discussion. I'm sorry MoonlightVector, but this is WP:RAGPICKING. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Lana RhoadesEdit

Draft:Lana Rhoades (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Lana Rhoades

This draft was submitted and rejected in February 2021, and has been resubmitted without explanation or discussion. (There have been changes, but the nature of rejection is and should be such that an editor should not simply modify and resubmit a draft after rejection.) The draft was rejected because articles about the subject have been created and deleted three times, most recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana Rhoades (4th nomination). The title Lana Rhoades was cut down to a redirect, and was salted. It appears that the salting in article space has expired (possibly due to an error in entering the date by the salting admin).

The subject is a pornographic actress who appears to have a cult following of ultras. Any effort to create an article (after three deletions and one Deletion Review) should be via another Deletion Review, not by disruptive resubmission.

Recommend that this draft be deleted from draft space, and ECP create-protected in draft space, and that the redirect be ECP-protected in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep, "and has been resubmitted without explanation or discussion" is incorrect. Please see the comment I left on the draft. I'll repost it here. I added sourcing that did not exist at the time of the AFDs nor the last submission more than half a year ago. I do not appreciate the accusation of disruptive resubmission. I could have just moved the draft to mainspace.
    • "Draft revised by removing most non-english sources and providing a couple more reliable, secondary sources. I would ask the next reviewer to consider the in-depth Playboy article published since the last AFD. "Most recent" AFD was over a year ago. Although many sources are industry magazines, I believe there is more than enough coverage in this article and online (such as this list from the 4th AFD: Germany (Rheinische Post), and Spain (Marca), and Puerto Rico (El Imparcial), and Portugal (Correio da Manhã), and those found in the previous version of this draft [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]) to satisfy WP:BASIC." Mbdfar (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon:, I don't understand why my submission incorporating new WP:RSP, with the aim of improving the article and making it pass WP:GNG, was deemed contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Last submission was over 6 months ago, it's not like I'm spamming entries. I commented my rationale on the page. Legitimately believe this version of the draft is worthy of a non-biased review. Mbdfar (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • No comment on the merits of the draft but the mere fact something has been deleted at AfD a few times doesn't automatically make working on a draft inappropriate, or even recreating the article, and there's no requirement to go to DRV (which would probably ask to see a draft version anyway). The draft author did also make some improvements before resubmitting it. Hut 8.5 12:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana Rhoades (4th nomination). Advise the proponent of WP:DUD, and that few in the WP:AfC WikiProject are supportive of recreation of multiply deleted old topic, unless the advice at WP:THREE is followed. Also note that WP:PORNBIO topics are tolerated much less than once before. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @SmokeyJoe:; Thanks for the WP:DUD link, that is the exact reason why I decided to re-edit and resubmit 6 months later. For what it's worth, this is only the second time this draft has been submitted for review. Again, thanks for the link to WP:THREE, but I did add "two or three" more WP:RS before resubmission. Also, the last AFD was over a year ago. This is a public figure, things change in that timeframe. I want to know why me changing things and submitting it (6 months later!) is considered disruptive.
    • But this discussion isn't whether or not to accept the draft. If the reviewer doesn't think it's ready for namespace, fine! That's why I'm going through the motions and not just moving the page now, because I believe in the process. But why delete? This isn't a copyright vio, promotional, or anything else. It would simply be a case of WP:TOO SOON. If that's what the reviewer thinks, ok cool, I'll try again in another half year. Again, I'm not spamming submit, I'm not resubmitting the same version of the draft over and over. Deleting doesn't help anything, just say no for now. Mbdfar (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - The draft had been Rejected and not declined. Rejection is intended to be final, and the submitter is not invited to resubmit a rejected draft. That doesn't prevent submitters from resubmitting rejected drafts, but it is not supposed to be done. In this case I had rejected the draft precisely because articles on Lana Rhoades had already been deleted by the community three times, and I will not accept a draft on a topic where the community has already discussed the notability of the subject. We can assume that another article would be deleted a fourth time. That is why I had rejected the draft rather than declining it, and a rejected draft simply should not be resubmitted. Resubmission of a rejected draft is very seldom done in good faith.
  • However, after reviewing the history, and User:Mbdfar's statement here, I think that this is a rare case where a rejected article is being resubmitted in good faith. When I reject a draft, I normally add a templated warning saying that if the draft is resubmitted, it may be nominated for deletion, or a topic-ban may even be requested. I forgot to provide that warning this time. Other reviewers do not always do that, and such a warning should not be needed, but the author had not been specifically told not to resubmit the draft. Also, I see that the author wishes to rely on new material to establish general notability. The way to do that after there has been a deletion discussion is not simply to submit or resubmit a draft. After a deletion, the author should request Deletion Review and should cite new material that may establish general notability. (General notability may be the only guideline that now applies to pornographic performers.)
  • If User:Mbdfar wishes to request Deletion Review on account of new material being available to support general notability, then I suggest that this MFD be relisted or otherwise kept open for an additional week, which is the time that a Deletion Review is normally open.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

    • @Robert McClenon:; I appreciate the lengthy reply. I was not aware of the distinction between 'rejected' and 'declined' - I wonder if it's possible to remove the 'submit' button from 'rejected' drafts to prevent this confusion in the future. For what it's worth, your original post on my talk page after the February rejection did state "...please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page which criterion is met, and resubmit." It did have your warning at the bottom, but it was contradictory with the first half of the post. This was evidently confusing and should be considered in the future.
    • I will likely open a deletion review once I look over the policy. Regardless, I still don't see the benefit of deleting the draft in it's current state. Would you consider placing the warning template on the draft and leaving it? I wouldn't resubmit it again, I just think the draft is well sourced and formatted, and would be a good jumping off point for future editors once notability is established. And for the record, I'm not an ultra. That was unnecessary. Thanks. Mbdfar (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
      • User:Mbdfar - If you request Deletion Review, then, as noted, this MFD should be relisted or otherwise kept open while the DRV is in progress. If Deletion Review is not requested, and the three previous deletions of Lana Rhoades are allowed to stand, then the draft will serve no useful purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
      • User:Mbdfar - I will take your word that you are not an ultra. Some editors, including some of those who push for the inclusion of deleted articles, are ultras; and the essay on ultras does state that they are good-faith editors who simply are very enthusiastic about a particular topic, team, or person. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
        • @Robert McClenon:; "[if] the three previous deletions of Lana Rhoades are allowed to stand, then the draft will serve no useful purpose." - then why wasn't the draft put up for MfD in February? If you saw no chance of accepting this article through AfC, as you made it seem above, what was the purpose of leaving the draft initially? And why are things different now? Mbdfar (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: per prior article deletion discussions. No point in maintaining a draft on a nn subject, whose lack of notability has been recently (2020) determined by consensus. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

September 11, 2021Edit

Draft:Raw Moon (band)Edit

Draft:Raw Moon (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Entirely unsourced and created by a now blocked user. – zmbro (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom, no references. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - User is blocked for 2 days, and so will come off block while this MFD is still running. Draft needs to have sources added, which can be done by creator or someone else. It's a draft. Draft also needs to have musical notability criteria added before it can be accepted; that is what drafts are for. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep – the reason it was moved to draftspace is that someone thought it was promising. Moreover, this is a perfectly ordinary draft that doesn't meet the high standards for MfDing it. See WP:NDRAFT. If it's not improved, it'll die without our intervention. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sources exist. Draftspace does not require this level of curation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per those above. The quality of the sourcing (or lack thereof) is not something generally considered at this venue in relation to drafts. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and ignore. Zmbro notability explicitly does not apply to draftspace, see WP:NMFD; nor are pages are deleted because the user was subsequently blocked, note discussions in the archives of WT:Deletion policy. WP:RAGPICKING is a waste of time and WP:drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. Using MfD this way because someone was blocked is unproductive as draftspace is self-cleaning (g13). If a page is later tendentiously resubmitted then go ahead and nominate for mfd, but otherwise just ignore. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

September 10, 2021Edit

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. plicit 13:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:GarchompEdit

Draft:Garchomp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This Pokemon species is being resubmitted for review disruptively. It has been declined three times and then rejected twice, and has now been resubmitted again on 10 September 2021. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom, re-submission following rejection. — csc-1 00:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:SILVERLOCK it for 6 months - This allows a legitimate attempt on the article without constant resubmission from what appears to be IP users. If the article does not make it within six additional months, then a deletion is warranted. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete. I'm the guy who made that draft. I don't think I've touched it in well over a year, so I'm really confused as to who keeps resubmitting it and... why? I'd support a deletion since it's just sitting there gathering dust, I don't have any plans to do anything further with it, and apparently it's being used disruptively to boot. ShinyDialga777 (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NMFD as tendentiously resubmitted, turned away 5 times including two rejections and will obviously not become an article. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Draft:Main PageEdit

Draft:Main Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unnecessary duplicate. Perhaps time to salt this (and only unsalt it when an actual effort for a redesign is happening here)? Fram (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, not much to see here, created by vandal IP. I'm disappointed, I was hoping something notable called "Main Page" that would finally force us to add disambiguators to the Main Page, or at least to stop pretending the Main Page is an article. —Kusma (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator, not so much vandalism as a useless test edito. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • ECP Salt - There is no reason why an unregistered editor or new editor needs to create something called Draft:Main Page. If there is a main page redesign being considered, it will be considered by extended-confirmed editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per obvious. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. Oppose salting beyond salting policy. Draft space, especially. There is no disruption. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as an insincere creation from a vandal that isn't G3'able. — csc-1 00:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not salt, useless, but not necessary to salt.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe redirect to Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox? --Yair rand (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox and apply an appropriate amount of protection so we likely do not have to discuss this title again in the future. This may serve well as a navigational aid for anyone potentially looking for a "draft" of our main page. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox. This will require a bit of explanation. Usually WP:SRE dictates that we redirect duplicates to the mainspace page, however the principle behind that guideline is to get editors where they need to go. Usually that invoves redirecting e.g. Draft:Red link example to Red link example so they can contribute to the existing article. However it's clear that in this case people are attempting to experiment with main page design; hence, while we could redirect to the Main Page editors will be better served by redirecting to the sandbox where they can continue to experiment. I would probably wait on the semi, it's fairly rare for these redirects to be tinkered with as the people they are assisting are not usually aware how to do so. So I'd be inclined to wait and see.
    As a side note Fram, to save everyone time and keep mfd unclutterred it's usually best to just boldly redirect any duplicates yourself. MFD is really only needed in the rare event that one is challenged, in which case we can admittedly dispense with them here fairly quickly per SRE. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Old businessEdit

September 10, 2021Edit

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Liamg500/2012-13 Premier League
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. plicit 13:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Liamg500/2012-13 Premier LeagueEdit

User:Liamg500/2012-13 Premier League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This article has mostly hoax material and some accurate material. The league table, FA Cup Final and League Cup final do not match 2012–13 Premier League, 2012 FA Cup Final or 2012 UEFA Champions League Final. Otherwise, the pre-season managerial changes (first six rows) do match 2012–13 Premier League. The other five rows are inaccurate and not mentioned in the article. For example, Martin Jol was fired in 2013 and replaced by Rene Meulensteen per Fulham F.C's article. This contradicts with the managerial table saying he was fired in 2012 and replaced by Harry Redknapp. Since the referenced part of the managerial changes table is accurate, I think a MFD is more suitable in order to determine what should be done with this userspace article. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete as draft in user space by departed user, that would have already expired if in draft space. (I know that some editors favor retaining stuff created by departed users for a long time. I don't, especially if it is Stupid Stuff.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Closed discussionsEdit

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates