Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
![]() | Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). |
![]() | Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
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 the page are available at
Information on the process
editWhat 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: and the various Talk: namespaces
- Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
- Pages 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 deletion
editBefore nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:
Deleting pages in your own userspace |
|
Duplications in draftspace? |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
Alternatives to MfD |
|
Please familiarize yourself with the following policies
edit- Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
- Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
- Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
- Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
- Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes
How to list pages for deletion
editPlease 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.
|
Administrator instructions
editV | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 14 | 49 | 63 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 16 | 25 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.
Archived discussions
editA list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.
Current discussions
edit- 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.
June 23, 2024
editThis is Lua code created in a non-Lua recognized page content model. Creating this this way creates unnecessary WP:LINT errors which there is a coordinated effort to eliminate from en.wiki. Since the user isn't interested in solving this, I've bourght it here. Lua sanboxes should be created per Module:Sandbox at Module:Sandbox/CLalgo/, so this should be moved to Module:Sandbox/CLalgo/RoundN. Gonnym (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Is this a module? Modules go to TfD, not MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. No reason to delete as a Userpage, there is no violation of WP:UPNOT or WP:NOT, and leeway in userspace is very large for highly productive contributors. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The page is in my userspace and was used as a sandbox for Module:RoundN. As the module grew apart from the sandbox, it is currently useless. Delete it for now, and I'll create a new sandbox if a need arise. CLalgo (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Removing a page on the basis of a syntax error is unjustified. I agree that there is a Fostered content error on the page, and I agree that Module space is the better namespace for it, but MFD does not feel like the correct course of actions to have taken for remedying the situation. And ditto SmokeyJoe's comments of Userpage/userspace. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Promotional article edited primarily by an account which has just been indeffed for writing promotional articles and tendentious editing. TarnishedPathtalk 05:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly promotional and despite the flurry of sources, few of them are reliable, and even fewer demonstrate anything beyond the fact that the software exists. The article itself doesn't even know if it's trying to source the notability of the company or its software.
- CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - A thorough AfD found this was not notable for the article and despite the creator of the article rewriting the source analysis in his favour on the talk page, it remains the case that no sources have been presented that support notability. This, aside from all the other good reasons that this is not suitable for article space, is grounds for deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree with the above. Bduke (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and above comments. The attempted restoration of promotional content under "please stop vandalising" or other such similar statements means they just want to promote the software without actually writing it properly. Procyon117 (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete The article was deleted recently through AFD process then recreated and deleted again, now restored to the draft space at author's request, despite going through this convoluted mess of a process, this article has barely improved and is still highly promotional. I'm open to this article being salted to prevent future recreations of the same.Ratnahastin (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think this is necessary per WP:NDRAFT. The salting in mainspace prevents any premature moves, so unless this is resubmitted without substantial improvement, disruption is minimal. On the other hand, if the primary contributor of this draft is unblocked, I would strongly advise against any behaviour that could be seen as asserting ownership over content. A userspace draft might be a a better option for some control, though ultimately collaboration is a must unless drafting the article off-wiki Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ignore per WP:NDRAFT and leave for WP:G13. Not of the above is a reason for deletion, and some, especially notability, and criticism of quality of sourcing, are reasons for something to be in draftspace, not deleted from it. MfD is not for curating bad drafts, or disappearing the work of recently blocked users. And, the user might be unblocked with a good appeal. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- NDRAFT is an essay, not policy. It makes a good point: a non notable draft harms no one. Except this draft had been sent to AfC before the creator was blocked. On that basis it was deemed, by the creator, to be ready for mainspace. It is not and it cannot be if it remains (as recently found at AfD) to be non notable. There is no harm in the draft laying around, but it would be a waste of time to get someone review it for AfC and a much bigger waste if it inadvertently got accepted and we had to go through the deletion process again. Better to just be rid of it in ths case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- None of that is a reason for deletion from draftspace. The nomination is busywork. User:TarnishedPath reverted the AfC submission, so the risk of waste of time reviewing is already dealt with. If a bad draft gets inadvertently accepted, that’s a reason to review reviewer competence, not a reason to send all bad drafts to MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Your opinion. But we are here now. There is no good reason to keep this twice deleted article, even in draft, now that the drafter is indefed. Your argument may be a good one not to bother nominating it in the first place, but as an MfD has to be closed, closing this as delete is no more work than closing it as a keep and allowing it to expire. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- None of that is a reason for deletion from draftspace. The nomination is busywork. User:TarnishedPath reverted the AfC submission, so the risk of waste of time reviewing is already dealt with. If a bad draft gets inadvertently accepted, that’s a reason to review reviewer competence, not a reason to send all bad drafts to MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- NDRAFT is an essay, not policy. It makes a good point: a non notable draft harms no one. Except this draft had been sent to AfC before the creator was blocked. On that basis it was deemed, by the creator, to be ready for mainspace. It is not and it cannot be if it remains (as recently found at AfD) to be non notable. There is no harm in the draft laying around, but it would be a waste of time to get someone review it for AfC and a much bigger waste if it inadvertently got accepted and we had to go through the deletion process again. Better to just be rid of it in ths case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
June 22, 2024
editSpeedy delete: It's a fake Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
June 21, 2024
editAcharya Institute of Technology already exists. This draft was written by an editor now blocked for UPE and relies entirely on primary sources. Nthep (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Nthep, I think it's G5-able. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acharya7317. Cabayi (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - The block for the originator does not say that it is a sock block, but that it is a UPE block, which would mean that the block was after the page was created. If the originator and the blocked account are not tied together, then the page can be kept, and allowed to die after six months. But a CheckUser says that is is probably G5. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, no CU tools were used. Please do not assume that everything a checkuser does involves use of the tools or is done in the user's capacity as a checkuser. All the evidence is laid out at the SPI case. Cabayi (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: “Already exists” goes to WP:SRE, and a need to check the histories due to the ambiguity of “already” and the possibility that someone is trying to improperly hide an older draft for articlecountis reasons. The use of primary sources is never a reason to delete a draft. The author being blocked is not a reason to delete unless the request comes from a checkuser or an SPI clerk; MfD must not be used for shadow clerking of SPI. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
June 19, 2024
edit- Wikipedia:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
We now have a landing page that answers the FAQ pretty well. Interstellarity (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete. I have moved the useful 'Crewbot part' of this page to the new landing page in the maintenance section, so there is little else needed. I think better to rationalize these redundant pages on this project to avoid editors landing on wrong/dead pages. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep for the value of article history, particularly as it relates to the landing page and the rest of the Vital Articles project. Air on White (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Wikipedia:Vital articles: since text has been moved, the history needs to be kept for attribution purposes. Graham87 (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Blank and redirect per Graham87. Don't see any reason to delete it and preserving the history and attribution has some obvious advantages. Skynxnex (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Per Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions, 79 pages link to this. That's too much to just delete. Air on White (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect. The page still has a few dozen links to it, and marking it as historical should get across that the information is outdated. Your local Sink Cat 00:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Wikipedia:Vital articles: Per above: page history should be kept and link count is too high to delete anyways. I don't see any disadvantages to redirecting. C F A 💬 23:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Was used. Wikipedia history should not be deleted. Archive, redirect, update, but keep the history available in the history. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Old business
editEverything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 21:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC) ended today on 23 June 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action. |