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.

Filtered versions of this page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion include:

Information on the processEdit

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Education Program:, 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.
  • Proposed deletion is an option for non-controversial deletions of books (in both User: and Book: namespaces).

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}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
If the nomination is for a userbox, use <noinclude>{{mfd}}</noinclude> as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

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.

or

{{subst:md1-inline|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
if you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page.
  • 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 Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
CfD 3 3 92 0 98
TfD 0 0 3 0 3
MfD 0 0 4 0 4
FfD 0 13 14 0 27
AfD 0 0 14 0 14

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.

December 5, 2020Edit

User:Paptilian/Official State of Colorado, U.S.A. Museum and LibraryEdit

User:Paptilian/Official State of Colorado, U.S.A. Museum and Library (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

WP:NOTWEBHOST Guy Macon (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Paptilian/Official State of Colorado, U.S.A. Article Project.Edit

User:Paptilian/Official State of Colorado, U.S.A. Article Project. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

WP:NOTWEBHOST Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Note I originally speedied it U5, the author wanted it back, I restored it, but it should absolutely get deleted again at the end of the MfD. I restored it merely as a courtesy to an editor who didn't have an email to send the deleted page contents to. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete; blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost (I've already deleted one of these), and the creator asking for it to be restored doesn't somehow stop this being an abuse of Wikipedia. Most of the rest of this slushpile should probably also go. ‑ Iridescent 21:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Paptilian/State of Colorado, U.S.A./Education/Library/LegardEdit

User:Paptilian/State of Colorado, U.S.A./Education/Library/Legard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

WP:NOTWEBHOST Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Paptilian/Official State of Colorado, U.S.A. Article Project.Edit

User talk:Paptilian/Official State of Colorado, U.S.A. Article Project. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

WP:NOTWEBHOST Guy Macon (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Justine TungEdit

Draft:Justine Tung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Repeated tedious re-submissions with no improvement, and no indication that they have done anything to meet WP:BIO KylieTastic (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete The author has not made a proper effort to show notability. SK2242 (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree, delete it. 82.3.185.12 (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I’ve cleared the page, everything’s been removed, ready for deletion when you are. 82.3.185.12 (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:My Family TreeEdit

Draft:My Family Tree (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

needs to be discouraged before he devotes any more time to this DGG ( talk ) 10:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Another reason why U5 is needed in draftspace. SK2242 (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - Maybe U5 should be G15 or D2 or something. (I know that there is no D1. We need gaps in the codes.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Medical Women's Association of NigeriaEdit

Draft:Medical Women's Association of Nigeria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Constantly being resubmitted with little to no improvement, and was warned that this would be MFD'd. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Plausibly notable, but I cannot find any mentions in independent sources. We should try harder to accommodate Nigerian topics, considering the huge apparent systematic bias against, but tendentious resubmission is not OK. The draft is not suitable for mainspace. I advise the author(s) to get some editing experience with existing articles before attempting to write new articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - Previously submitted and declined 7 times, and a clear warning was given after the 7th resubmission that it would be nominated for deletion if resubmitted again. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe and Robert McClenon: Maybe we should give a final warning saying that the user will be reported to ANI if they keep disruptively resubmitting draft articles. This has become clear disruptive editing. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
It is disruptive. It is a hopeless draft. My advice to Textor Alector (talk · contribs) is to get experience in editing mainspace. Edit around this topic of interest, before diving in to write a new page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Cooper/GA1Edit

Talk:Sarah Cooper/GA1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Buidhe with the reason "This is not a proper GA review based on the criteria." FASTILY 03:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Trout Buidhe for the bad CSD tagging, G6-ing pages with a contribution history from others is definitely not OK. I don't see any rationale to delete here at MfD either. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • When GA reviewers post a "review" that obviously falls far short of what is expected, the usual way it's dealt with is substituting onto the talk page and speedy deleting the review. Since posts are signed there is no concern with attribution. If you doubt look at the page history of WT:GAN. That's how it's done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Buidhe (talkcontribs) 06:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    • The usual way? That amounts to quite an abuse of WP:G6. Subst and delete? That sounds like a dirty approximation of a history merge, or a merge and redirect with an attribution damaging deletion. Can you point more explicitly to evidence of this practice? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge onto main talk page. Destroying a record so that it can only be seen by administrators is a bad idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

December 4, 2020Edit

Draft:Cory BurkusEdit

Draft:Cory Burkus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Alexis Crum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Michael Gruszka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Jason Cole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Luke Jankosec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Rachel Hackett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Mitchell Walkowiak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:William C. Crum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Hilary Crum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Michael J. Atwood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Rebecca Witkowski's Classroom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Katherine Bell (doctor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Emma Bell (Track Racer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Patti McCormack (Lowell Red Devils) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Jason Burckhartt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Jordan Frye (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Rebecca Witkowski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Tom Denklau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Jill Hughes-Szerlak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Victoria Meyers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Melinda King (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Sarah Rosinski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Hailey Stevens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

A series of drafts written by the same editor about non-public figures (aka private persons) containing a significant amount of PII and utterly unencyclopedic. This isn't a directory of every person in some random small town and we shouldn't be hosting WP:BLPs anywhere about unknown individuals, especially when they contain information about their private, personal lives that would otherwise be revision deleted if it were in mainspace. Praxidicae (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Provisional delete all - The drafts currently would meet WP:CSD#A7 if they were articles. For each draft that would still qualify as A7 at the end of the discussion, consider my !vote "delete". For any remaining drafts in the list, consider it "abstain/have't evaluated the current version" unless I update my comments. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Update The preceeding applies only to the items that were listed as of 18:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC). Since pages may be added later, consider me abstaining from them unless I update my comments. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The problem isn't that they'd qualify for A7 in mainspace, it's that they're largely blp violations and contain an obscene amount of PII about private persons. Praxidicae (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
BLP/PII issues should be taken to WP:OVERSIGHT or ask the editor to db-author them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I am aware, and I did that. Praxidicae (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. All the drafts I see listed above are pretty clearly not notable persons. Besides privacy & BLP concerns, Wikipedia is also not a free content-hosting service etc. Creator of this content should be warned against any further creation of such "drafts". Shearonink (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Shearonink: I warned the creator a few minutes ago.[1] He's also doing small-town police departments and been warned about that as well. He moved one into the main encyclopedia, I started a merge discussion to merge it into the parent municipality. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all. They best fit WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. It appears that someone is trying to make a directory of people, likely connected. A response is demanded because these appear to be WP:BLPPRIVATE individual. Even if the personal data is publicly available, it is not OK to collect it on Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all as spam. SK2242 (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete All, and thanks to User:davidwr for warning the originator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2, 2020Edit

Wikipedia:WikiProject Far Eastern UniversityEdit

Wikipedia:WikiProject Far Eastern University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Delete Project-that-never-was; two participants, one of whom left Wikipedia shortly after creating the project. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep and mark as "historical". I don't see why this shouldn't be kept for possible future potential to those interested. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Oliverdrinkstars57/sandboxEdit

User:Oliverdrinkstars57/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Other pages in the same film series as to Kokusai himitsu keisatsu: Kagi no kagi:

User talk:Oliverdrinkstars57/sandbox (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) - another version of a User:Oliverdrinkstars57/sandbox, both are "series overview" drafts
User:Oliverdrinkstars57/Kokusai himitsu keisatsu: shirei dai hachigo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Oliverdrinkstars57/Kokusai himitsu keisatsu: shirei dai hachigo 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Oliverdrinkstars57/Kokusai himitsu keisatsu: Kayaku no taru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Oliverdrinkstars57/The Killing Bottle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Kokusai himitsu keisatsu: Zettai zatsumi

Other pages:

User:Oliverdrinkstars57/The Carnabeats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - 1967 music group
User:Oliverdrinkstars57/Takashi Tsuboshima (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - director, Kokusai himitsu keisatsu: Kayaku no taru

This is an MFD to clean out the userspace drafts of a banned editor. Special:PrefixIndex/User:Oliverdrinkstars57/ should match the list above.

This is also a "follow-on" of recently-closed-as-delete Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Oliverdrinkstars57/Kokusai himitsu keisatsu: Tora no kiba and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TeamUSA2020/sandbox. I used them as a "trial balloon." To quote Robert McClenon from those MFDs: Might as well delete it so as not to have it be sock bait. and Can these be bundled if there are any more of them?

The original rationale (slightly edited) from that MFD was:

Sockpuppet, contents repeatedly re-created under various names, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oliverdrinkstars57 and the contribs, logs, and filter logs of the various sockpuppets. Unfortunately these pre-date the original block so {{db-banned}} does not apply. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete all. This person uses Minneapolis IPs to evade the block and recreate material previously deleted. If we delete all the userspace drafts, it might foil the guy. Binksternet (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all seems sensible, but in principle I wold like to first see agreement from at least one checkuser or SPI clerk. There are several already involved evident at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oliverdrinkstars57/Archive. Ping them? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    SPI team notified.[2] davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    <hat type="clerk"> I see no reason not to delete the drafts; if we need to reference them in the future any admin can view the deleted version.</hat> GeneralNotability (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    Delete all per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Information An IP editor created Talk:Kokusai himitsu keisatsu: shirei dai hachigo as the article is create-protected. I slapped a db-repost and db-banned on it even though technically neither qualifies due to changed text (not an admin, but I have my ways - all above-board) and lack of confirmation of sock-tivity. If it gets declined, it will go to XfD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete All - Crud created by sockpuppets that is not useful to neutral editors should be deleted so as not to be used by more sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Areo MagazineEdit

Draft:Areo Magazine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Repeatedly declined draft. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 06:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I dream of horses, we don’t come to mfd for “repeatedly declined draft”, unless it is being resubmitted without improvement. You have only just now REJECTED it for the first time. Wait for the next submission before coming here for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • @SmokeyJoe: Who is this "we" you're talking about? Perhaps you're referring to a consensus I'm unaware of? If so, can you link to it? Or is this an unspoken rule that I can safely ignore?
    • I've done something similar before without complaint (reject a repeatedly declined draft and nominated it for deletion). The draft was deleted. Unfortunately, the name of the draft escapes me, and it would take an unusual amount of determination to go through my contributions simply to jog my memory. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 07:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC) (Fixed formatting at 08:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC))

ec

I dream of horses, “we” is the nebulous concept of Wikipedians, with respect to how we deal with inept newcomers banging their heads and wasting our time in draftspace. I do think there is an undocumented consensus that we’ve established here in mfd discussions and at WT:AfC to follow a stepwise escalation pathway in response to poor drafts, to (1) DECLINE with encouragement to improve and resubmitted. An RfC, I think linked downstream of WP:DMFD established (2) that tendentious resubmission can/should be responded by MfD nomination. (3) if the draft is definitely hopeless, “improvement” to mainspace-worthy is not possible, then REJECT. (4) If the draft proponent continues after a REJECT, then bring it to MfD.
Here, you REJECTED and then immediately nominated at MfD. Perhaps you consider it an especially egregious REJECTED draft? Or do you think all REJECTED drafts should be discussed for a week at MfD?
I think this draft should be left to be deleted by the WP:G13 process. This gives the author six months to fully consider whether they have encountered an unreasonable reviewer, or whether the topic is simply not suitable. A shorter deadline doesn’t help anyone or any thing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I’m not convinced this topic is woefully non-notable. A number of sources are sort of close. I consider it complicated. I advise it’s proponents to follow the advice at WP:THREE. More than three sources of low quality tend to irritate reviewers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I’m not convinced this topic is woefully non-notable. A number of sources are sort of close. I consider it complicated. I advise it’s proponents to follow the advice at WP:THREE. More than three sources of low quality tend to irritate reviewers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: I'll reply on the talk page here. You'll receive a ping when I do. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 08:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - After the draft has already been rejected, it is not necessary to delete it quickly.
      • The ability to Reject a draft was implemented to deal with repeated declines.
      • It is unusual to see something that I declined two years ago that is still being worked on with little improvement. That does not mean to keep it, and that does not mean to delete it. It only means it is unusual to see this.
      • Is there a reason why the author should not have a last chance to discuss before deletion?
      • I have been saying, from time to time, that we need guidelines for further handling of rejected drafts. Maybe further handling of rejected drafts is a third rail.
      • The author has not established that the magazine is notable, after two years. However, the reviewers have not established that the magazine is not notable.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment It’s an interesting case, usually with these drafts the author is a new editor almost certainly with a COI and probably a UPE too. In this case it’s an experienced editor who has been on the project far longer than I have, so I don’t doubt good faith. It has been 2 years without the draft being accepted, but I think it borders on notability. Has the nominator done a before check to confirm non-notability? SK2242 (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Wait, what the fresh heck is this? I submitted a draft for review and in response the reviewer is trying to delete the page? What the actual hell? Since when is this the procedure for drafting of pages, and how on earth does this give editors the confidence to use the drafting process? I am literally aghast. (Yeh this drafting is taking a long time. You know, not all of us have 3 hours every flipping night to spend on this site - those of us with multiple jobs and families and kids get to eek out 5-10 minutes every month or so when there is silence in the house. And I just wasted December's 10 minutes writing this fricking comment). Oh, and KEEP Fig (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:David HechtEdit

Draft:David Hecht (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

While the article is in draft format, it neither includes anything of significance and doesn't meet notability. The BoardgameGeek link as a a reference doesn't even include any content. I further googled to look for sources and found nothing meaningful. The games with which he created are mentioned under a subset of a wider category 18XX and are neither common from distribution or in terms of game design.Gort2020 (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep - The arguments made by User:Gort2020 are arguments for declining the submission of the draft, not for deletion of the draft.
      • An article was redirected to a list in 2008 as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hecht. That is a reason not to accept the draft unless the draft has been improved. After twelve years, it is not a strong argument in itself for a decline, let alone for a reject or a delete.
      • The author or someone else may find further evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I was looking at articles to improve as part of various projects really this is pretty close to speedy deletion creations. There is no supporting source available to support notability even sites that don't require notability don't exist. The is no sign of any significance. so you are saying the page stays forever in draft because no will ever submit it because it can't meet the criteria to pass. "further evidence" suggests any evidence has been found so far. Not only is the BGG entry empty after being created the only weblink is a sub pure text entry. I have seen AfD's and the issues for game designers from a few years back for several game creators but this clearly doesn't meet creation criteria which often don't even pass for a single award winning game and will 100% not pass review. one look at BGG shows that it hasn't even got a following in terms of any game play. My question is can you find a suggestion to support significance might be found as in an unlisted game or something missed by BGGGort2020 (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

December 1, 2020Edit

Wikipedia:WikiProject LadakhEdit

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ladakh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

A dead or probably never-alive WikiProject. All the interlinked articles have been edited only by me and FlyJet777, except few minor edits by other editors to correct wrong transclusions of templates/categories. The WikiProject surely doesn't really seem useful as there has been no collaboration by other editors, which happens to be the purpose of having a WikiProject in first place. It was created in February 2020 and 7-8 months is a good period for editors to give chance to revive the project. Seems that such thing has not happened. In fact I don't even think this Project was even created by consulting multiple editors. Seems to be just one man army working here and Project is not needed for one single (now two) editor. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 18:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: Instead of creating WikiProjects about subregions of Kashmir, I suggest renaming Wikipedia:WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir to Wikipedia:WikiProject Kashmir and creating task forces under the Project for the subregions. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 18:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - as a subproject of WP:WikiProject India. The parentage on the page suggests that it is a subproject, but the articles have been getting tagged as being handled by a separate WikiProject (see Talk:Ladakh for example. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete whether as a subproject or as its own project, two people do not a project make. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilgit-BaltistanEdit

Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilgit-Baltistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

A dead or probably never-alive WikiProject. All the interlinked articles have been edited only by me and FlyJet777, except few minor edits by other editors to correct wrong transclusions of templates/categories. The WikiProject surely doesn't really seem useful as there has been no collaboration by other editors, which happens to be the purpose of having a WikiProject in first place. It was created in February 2020 and 7-8 months is a good period for editors to give chance to revive the project. Seems that such thing has not happened. In fact I don't even think this Project was even created by consulting multiple editors. Seems to be just one man army working here and Project is not needed for one single editor. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 18:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: Instead of creating WikiProjects about subregions of Kashmir, I suggest renaming Wikipedia:WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir to Wikipedia:WikiProject Kashmir and creating task forces under the Project for the subregions. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 18:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete One person does not a project make. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:War of 1812/Who Won?Edit

Talk:War of 1812/Who Won? (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Per WP:FORUM; this is for places like reddit or quora Firestar464 (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep, topical archive. Maybe a {{talkarchive}} tag should be added/protection should be applied to stop new posts though ... Graham87 07:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:User langEdit

Template:User lang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

The purpose of this template is similar to {{Userbox-level}}, which has more options than this template. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 07:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Question - What is the reason for deleting? What harm is done by leaving it alone? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:User la-1 hicEdit

Template:User la-1 hic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

100% identical to {{User la-1}}. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 07:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request Edit WizardEdit

Wikipedia:Request Edit Wizard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Please see previous MfD. Accidental closure as keep when only one user voted. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 05:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Request Edit Wizard and the lack of any deletion rationale, here or there. MfD is for deletion rationales, and nominators should arrive with a rationale for why redirection is not sufficient. If your administration is seeing accidents, do less of it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Close. The proper venue for this is WP:DRV.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment In the last MfD, it was pointed out that the preloads for the buttons were deleted. That’s not true, this page and its subpages were originally in CorporateM’s user space, then moved into Wikipedia space, and the redirects from user space were U1’d. The preloads still link to the pages in user space, which were deleted, so that’s why they don’t work. PorkchopGMXPush to talk! is signing off w/ 4 tildes. 13:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Thesilenthero794/sandboxEdit

User:Thesilenthero794/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Fake article, almost entirely copied from Gippy Grewal, an Indian actor born in 1983. However, the actual subject of this user subpage is a Punjabi individual born in 1998. Seems like attempted self-promotion and serves no encyclopedic purpose. ƏXPLICIT 03:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

November 30, 2020Edit

Draft:Typing.comEdit

Draft:Typing.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

This draft page was recently created and does not have any true facts about Typing.com. It tells about opinions about Typing.com, for example, the only thing that i, the writer of this document do not enjoy about this educational game is when you go on a part of the game called 'stories'. See "Wikipedia is not an essay" and "G11". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

keep just let g13 take care of it. This MFD is a waste of both your time and the rest of ours, there's nothing immediate that warrants this deletion, it hasn't been tendentiously submitted. Just let it be. Praxidicae (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Praxidicae, please read WP:G13. Note that G13 only applies to draft spaces or userspaces with {{AFC submission}} that have not been edited for at least 6 months. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Please save the lectures. This nom is ridiculous and an abuse of MFD. Praxidicae (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Seventyfiveyears, this page is in the draftspace, so it will eventually be eligible for G13. If anything your MFD has pushed back that date by four months now. Primefac (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete because we are here. As noted above, should have been left alone, because an MFD nomination has the effect of restarting the calendar. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is an unsubmitted draft and shouldn’t come to MfD for such objections. It is verifiably real. “Opinions” are exactly what is wanted, except that the opinions need to be published. Facts can come later from the non independent sources. I think it unlikely to ever be a stand alone page, but it could get a mention at Typing game. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Agree with DGG below that the current content is out of scope. It could be offered as a user review on an independent website, which does not include Wikipedia. On looking harder, this is just another worthless very specific WP:CORP and it has no chance of becoming suitable. I disagree that this means it should be processed by MfD. The AfC process of DECLINE or REJECT suffices. Are these not readily available on unsubmitted drafts? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete personal opinions about a web site are out of scope for Wikipedia . DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

User:BushelCandle/3RR EvidenceEdit

User:BushelCandle/3RR Evidence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

This page was created over a year and a half ago to collect diffs on me. I believe this is a violation of WP:POLEMIC and serves no purpose any longer by this point. If I should be bringing this to a different place to request deletion, please let me know. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Noting that nominator requested user take the thing down but was rebuffed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. WP:POLEMIC. Negative material about others must not be kept live without a very good reason. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is not really what the guideline against polemics is about, but not everything undesirable is covered by a guideline, and this is undesirable. It is close enough to the meaning of several guidelines for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    • It is squarely what the POLEMIC third dot point is about. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

November 29, 2020Edit

Draft:List of curse wordsEdit

Draft:List of curse words (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

This is basically just a really bad/weak original research with poor wikilinks. Enjoyer of World💬 23:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

November 28, 2020Edit

Draft:Mel Robbins (talk show)Edit

Draft:Mel Robbins (talk show) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Constantly resubmitted with no attempt at improvement. After it was rejected the author tried to move it into mainspace itself, and when the page got draftified it was instantly resubmitted again with no improvement. SK2242 (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  • user:Praxidicae should be TROUTed for move warring. Use of draftspace is NOT mandatory, and if an author does not want to use draftspace, the answer is AfD. At AfD it would be deleted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
perhaps you should be trouted for assuming bad faith. I didn’t move war. I was patrolling new pages and saw a poorly sourced dubious article that should be draftified and did it. Praxidicae (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Praxidicae is not move warring. They only moved the article once.
  • The editor who is move-warring is Michaelstarwolf9.
  • In view of the history, it would have been even better for User:Praxidicae to AFD the article. As User:SmokeyJoe observes, this was a case of a user who had already decided, against the advice of reviewers, that they were going to get the article into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Does User:Michaelstarwolf9 have a conflict of interest?
  • This illustrates the value of clarifying our policies and guidelines on disruptive resubmission.
  • Fellow reviewers: Please do not allow a disruptive submitter to cause us to argue with each other when the real issue is the quality of article space.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Once a new page author has made it clear they don’t want to use AfC or draftspace, New Page Reviewers and others must not force them to. AfC and draftspace is not mandatory (declared or proven COI excepted). If the page does not belong in mainspace, and someone puts it back, use WP:AFD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Mainspace and, if desired, send to AfD - If the author believes this is an appropriate topic for the mainspace, it should be given its day in the proper venue. AfC is not mandatory (seems I am echoing SmokeyJoe here) and should not be coercive. This feels like back-dooring/back-rooming discussion of the topic to me. This venue should not be used to circumvent that process and if a draftication ([Draftification] is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion.) is clearly undone and opposed, it should not be forced (perhaps this was not fully realized as the draftications were by two different individuals). On a tangent, the subject is mentioned at Mel Robbins#Career.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The only person trying to circumvent any process here is the author, who has ignored several declines and rejections and refuses to communicate or improve their draft. We should not be rewarding them by sending their crappy draft to mainspace, and even if it does go there AfD will hopefully kill it. It's a waste of everyones time to try and force it into mainspace just for it to die. SK2242 (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Again, AfC is merely voluntary. One does not have to use it if they do not desire to. Morever, WP:DRAFTIFY (again): the aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace, i.e. incubation and not to set it up for prompt or eventual deletion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
There has been no improvement here. The draft is the exact same as when it was rightfully kicked out of mainspace the first time. Again there’s no point in sending this to mainspace when we all know it won’t survive for more than a week there. SK2242 (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Whether or not it was improved is irrelevant. It seems we disagree on the nature of draftification, but I believe my view is in agreement with the relevant policies and guidelines (some of which I have linked above). Finally: proper process is important, especially in matters of controversial deletion, so I disagree that my suggested action is pointless. Warm regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Process is important, but it's not a hill to die on. SK2242 (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Given the amount of disputation regarding the deletion of drafts over the past few years, that, my friend, is a matter of perspective. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Mainspace and AfD. There are many routes towards removing this, we should do what will work best. in practice, AfD is accepted as the more definitive process. Especially a second deletion at AfD. That tends to greatly discourage attempts to re-create. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Old businessEdit

November 27, 2020Edit

Template:User WP Punjab (India)Edit

Template:User WP Punjab (India) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

There is no WikiProject named as such. We already have WP:PUNJAB, which cover the Greater Punjab region instead of just the Indian state. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep as historical. See this. J947messageedits 08:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    There's no point in keeping the member template of a WPJ that is merged to a bigger WPJ. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 13:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    That sounds more like a case for potential redirection than deletion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep in some way per J947. Still in use by some users. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    Verify whether those users are active. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 13:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    Merely pointing out that it is in use; not really concerned with their recent activity. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes/RegionsEdit

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Regions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Redundant to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 07:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

REDIRECT to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location. I'm the author.  Buaidh  talk contribs 19:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

November 25, 2020Edit

Draft:Alfie WhitemanEdit

Draft:Alfie Whiteman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Govvy with the reason "Already have a draft at User:Govvy/Alfie Whiteman" FASTILY 23:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep Draft duplications are never a reason, never a sufficient reason anyway, for one user to have the other's deleted. The userspace draft, which Govvy ostensibly has some OWNership rights, is not actively edited. The newer draftspace draft is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Encourage a "merge and redirect". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Really, it was deleted last time when I said I had a better version in my sandbox I had worked on. Numerous times the article had been created by others when he hasn't even played a first-team game yet to qualify under WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge the two drafts and work on improving it. GiantSnowman 18:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @GiantSnowman: Merge what and where? Also, I have the exact same information on my draft, so that can't be a content merge. @SmokeyJoe: Which way round is the redirect and what exactly are you merging?? Govvy (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Merge the histories of the two drafts at Draft:Alfie Whiteman. GiantSnowman 19:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Sorry, but considering he just made his debut, delete this draft! :/ Govvy (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
No, you would merge the draft with any mainspace article (and then delete the redirect). That is the point of drafts. GiantSnowman 11:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Again what is the point in merging what is already there. I really don't think WP:DUP applies. Govvy (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @SK2242: I don't think you're suppose to have cross-namespace redirects. Govvy (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • You’re not suppose to have redirects leaving the main namespace. Read WP:CNR. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect to Alfie Whiteman per WP:SRED. No prejudice against a merge. If the author expresses a desire to have their own workspace, then userfy this. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:User in Daman and DiuEdit

Template:User in Daman and Diu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Dadra and Nagar Haveli is merged with Daman and Diu in January this year. Therefore, delete this template, redirect it to {{User in Dadra and Nagar Haveli}} and rename that template to {{User in Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu}}. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 16:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - Why delete it before redirection? No need to obscure the history if this is to still exist in some form. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect without deletion: Per Godsy. Techie3 (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Closed discussionsEdit

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates