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 this page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion include:
Information on the process
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 deletion
Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:
Deleting pages in your own userspace |
|
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
- 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
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.
|
Administrator instructions
V | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 137 | 75 | 217 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 18 | 20 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
FfD | 0 | 19 | 2 | 15 | 9 | 45 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 88 | 88 |
Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.
Archived discussions
A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.
Current discussions
- 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.
August 20, 2020
User:Yilangren/Userboxes/radfem
Gender-critical feminists are criticized for being transphobic due to its close association with "womyn-born-womyn" philosophy. As someone who isn't likely to be traumatized by the discussion, I've decided to nominate the template for deletion myself.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit that I first found out about the userbox and associated category from a discussion on the discord server. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 00:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Can you or someone else clarify on what grounds the userbox should be deleted? Thank you. Yilangren (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is a clear situation where WP:SOAP applies. It's controversial advocacy that uses inaccurate language, and states the user's opinion as a fact. --ZagOnEm (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Would changing the wording in "This user is gender-critical and knows women are oppressed based on their biological sex" from "knows" to "believes" change that? If that isn't the case, then I fail to see how numerous other userboxes which have been on Wikipedia for years shouldn't also be deleted for WP:SOAP. Yilangren (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per no valid rationale for deletion being proposed. I dream of horses, you haven't said much about this past "I don't agree with this and the opinions of the people using the userbox are controversial/transphobic in nature". I don't agree with it either, but I also don't agree with half of the controversial opinions, be it from far-right or far-left that I see on people's user pages. You could say it violates WP:SOAP, okay, then by that rationale so does every other userbox that expresses more politically correct views (I can list plenty). We shouldn't be sole arbitrators of what opinions people can illustrate on their userpage and forcefully wipe those we don't agree with, and deleting this userbox will do nothing in terms of stopping disruption or anything of the like by editors who express these views and opinons. Just because we disagree with it shouldn't mean it should go. Ed talk! 01:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is a clear situation where WP:SOAP applies. It's controversial advocacy that uses inaccurate language, and states the user's opinion as a fact. --ZagOnEm (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Acceptable self-expression by a Wikipedia on their userpage. Changing "knows" to "believes" feels like an improvement, softened POV language is always better I believe, but this is not an MfD matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
August 19, 2020
Wikipedia:Google Custom Search
Barely used script. Also, the gadget would pose problems on its own because Google Custom Search is not open source. The main issue is that when we are making API calls to non-Wikimedia projects, we are subjecting the client to that site's privacy policy. I remember proposing reCAPTCHA on Phabricator and WMF was not super happy with that. I'd suggest that this page be marked as historical and the pages with the gadgets, including User:Csewiki/monobook.js, User:Csewiki/vector.js, User:Csewiki/monobook.css, and User:Csewiki/vector.css be deleted. These are all mostly being used by users only wanting to use Google Custom Search to search Wikipedia. We are not anti-Google, but we should not be pushing these scripts and subjecting users to proprietary, non-free websites if it has no encyclopedic purpose. Aasim 08:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- phab:T174861 is the Phabricator where I was made aware that subjecting users to non-WMF services would be a violation of privacy policy AFAIK. Aasim 08:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia should not host stuff designed to expose users to external websites, and particularly not those operated by companies reliant on extracting as much personal information as possible. There could be a help page (if there isn't one already) saying to add
site:en.wikipedia.org
in a Google search, if wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC) - Keep There is a significant difference in privacy issues between a service which anyone might be required to use to complete an edit, such as the CAPTCHA, and an optional search, which any user must know uses Google and is thus exposed to Google's knowledge. That the script is not often used is not a good reason to delete it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
August 18, 2020
User:Isaacwshearer/sandbox
As with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stelephand/sandbox and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Benji Brasier/sandbox, this is once again a giant collection of fantasy placement charts for imaginary alternate-universe versions of television reality shows -- except this time it's interspersed with stray bits of tangential randomness, such as unverified episode lists of television shows that do exist but don't have an article about the series on Wikipedia to include episode lists in, stub BLPs of non-winning Drag Race contestants who haven't been sourced as notable, and stuff about roller coasters. I've already had to partial-block the creator from editing some Drag Race related pages due to unproductive editing, and while I haven't acted on it yet I've had somebody who edits in the roller coaster domain approach me to indicate that the creator's edits in that area were also unproductive and may need sanction as well -- which means, if nothing else, that the stuff that isn't obviously garbage here still isn't obviously of any substantive value. As always, sandbox space is not just a free playground to do whatever you want without consequences or oversight -- stuff that is either clearly not meant for mainspace, or is getting transferred to mainspace but still raising eyebrows when it does, is still not acceptable in sandbox either. I've got no convincing explanation as to why there seem to be so bloody many of these, but I'm very concerned by it nonetheless. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Unacceptable sandbox. Aasim 09:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Paul A. Bonacci
- Talk:Paul A. Bonacci ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Talk page for a former BLP article that was redirected in 2006. First redirected to Franklin Coverup Scandal and then to Franklin child sex ring allegations after a rename in 2008. The leftover talk is full of BLP violating material and bizarre conspiracy theories. There is no positive value to the project in retention of the page or any of its content and the persistence of the BLP violation 14 years later is dismaying. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- If the above is true, you should have quietly redirected, not drawn attention to it. If it is so bad that redirection is not good enough, WP:Oversight is the answer. The redirect title name is not mentioned at the target, so I think the redirection might want to be deleted. The article looks to have been about a victim who went to court seeking justice, and the talk page crosses WP:NOTADVOCACY. I do not immediately see anything at the level of “BLP violation”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: No value to readers or contributors. I'd maybe suggest redirecting this but the page has 1) stuff that qualifies for suppression and 2) stuff only useful for the (now-redirected) page. I'd say delete and maybe suppress the deleted content. Aasim 17:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Question: In looking at this nomination (which I may come back to), I did a Google search on the subject's name, and this page—i.e., the talk page—showed up as the first Google hit. I was under the impression that article talk places are "no-indexed" and not included in search engine results. Is that no longer the case, or is there some specific reason this one appeared? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Newyorkbrad:, I honestly do not have an answer to your question but I suspect that this IP editor found the old talk page the same way. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Newyorkbrad and Eggishorn: I've manually NOINDEX'd the page. Most BLP talk pages transclude {{WikiProject Biography}}, which NOINDEXs the page, but this one did not. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Newyorkbrad:, I have always thought people naive to believe that _NOINDEX_ will be respected. Google, and other search engines, are Artificial Intelligence (AI) learners, and if their users want this information, the AI learner will accommodate. Maybe, Google won't crawl and index, but Google tracks what its users do, and if its users search for this, and then go to that, Google will surely learn. AI learning machines, like the web generally, will find ways around barriers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Newyorkbrad:, I honestly do not have an answer to your question but I suspect that this IP editor found the old talk page the same way. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Google gives me the talk page as the top hit. Yahoo gives as the fifth hit
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org/.../Talk:Paul_A._Bonacci
We would like to show you a description here but the site won’t allow us. - Google doesn't respect the request to not repeat the page content. Yahoo knows this is what I am looking for, facilitates me getting there, and pointlessly respects the request to not repeat the page contents.
- Bing.com gives talk page content in the hit, hit #5.
- --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Google gives me the talk page as the top hit. Yahoo gives as the fifth hit
Draft:The Ultimate Travelling Camp
This draft is the same as The Ultimate Travelling Camp, which was deleted as G11. This draft is not about to become an article. This nomination is not based on notability, since lack of notability is not a reason for deletion of drafts, but on tone. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Either G11 or ignore. There is no reason for MfD to deal with all hopeless drafts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
August 17, 2020
Draft:NASLite
This draft was originally put up for discussion where it was decided to be draftified. The draft is now able to be G13'd but I wanted to open a discussion on if it should be deleted or kept for someone to work on. To be clear I am in support of deletion. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 21:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Its under my stewardship and may or may go forward in time. When I have time. I'll push this all the way if I have to up to DRV if necessary and we'll waste everyone's time. WikiStreess Rules OK! Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Djm-leighpark: its not been edited for 6 months though... Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- To state the bloody obvious the UK is under COVID-19 restrictions and some of the places I'd like to access for this (and other stuff) are closed or require me to take transport risks to access at this time. This may never come back but its on my watchlist. And there's no real rush. I could userpace it but I prefer draftspace in the remote hope of collaberation. Better to be improving articles than living in discussion place and worry about how quickly drafts develop. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Djm-leighpark: its not been edited for 6 months though... Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable software. If any established user wants to persevere with it, point them to WP:DUD and let them request userfication. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- To state the obvious If this is deleted I will immediately request userification. The only slight advantage might be I then get the pre-G13 warning. What a fiasco! Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- If userfied, please remove any AfC taggery. You will then be responsible for it, and it has nothing to do with AfC. I don't think the AfC system is well used for backburner work on deleted content, but userspace is. AfC is for waylaying inept newcomers and SPA editors with a COI. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- To state the obvious If this is deleted I will immediately request userification. The only slight advantage might be I then get the pre-G13 warning. What a fiasco! Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: No valid reason for deletion is suggested above. I don't know if notability for this software will eventually be established. But that doesn't matter as alleged lack of notability is not a reason for deletion at the Draft stage. Note this is not currently under the AfC system, although it used to be. There is very little difference between userspace drafts and non-afc draftspace drafts. Draft space is subject to g13, user space is not. Draftspace implicitly invites other editors to join, userspace does not. Those are the only differences Im am aware of. Nor are the standards for deletion any different, aside from G13. Personally I develop all my new articles in draft, but not via AfC. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Although there's no WP distinction as to this view here I personally generally see and use draftspace when I wish to allow for (the possibility of) collaberative editing and userspace when I wish to develop something myself without really wanting disruption from others at that stage. It is also case as far as I am aware that attempting to create an article in mainspace should show if the same name is already present in draftspace (Follow NASLite and you will see There is a draft for this article at Draft:NASLite.) , and I don't think that would be the case in userspace. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- In userspace there is no need for a pretence that the material is to be worked on in the short term. In userspace you may welcome or unwelcome others helping, your choice. For this material, I see no plausible prospects for overcoming the AfD deletion discussion, but in userspace there are no time limits. If leaving deleted material indefinitely in userspace, it is usually recommended to blank during periods of inactivity. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Although there's no WP distinction as to this view here I personally generally see and use draftspace when I wish to allow for (the possibility of) collaberative editing and userspace when I wish to develop something myself without really wanting disruption from others at that stage. It is also case as far as I am aware that attempting to create an article in mainspace should show if the same name is already present in draftspace (Follow NASLite and you will see There is a draft for this article at Draft:NASLite.) , and I don't think that would be the case in userspace. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Userfy per the above request, or mark as a promising draft and leave it where it is. No reason to make this more difficult than it has to be; Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs) has already said that they want to work on it, so why bother going through all this just so it can immediately go to WP:REFUND or WP:DRV as soon as it's deleted. Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Vali1105ved/sandbox
Misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. The page consists almost entirely of a religious prayer of some sort that doesn't seem relevant to Wikipedia. U5 was declined because the user has mainspace edits. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 00:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ignore. Keep out of others' sandboxes unless there is a real problem. WP:SLAP User:Jéské Couriano for the careless CSD#U5 tagging, U5 is deliberately broad except that it is strictly limited to pages made by non-contributors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep a bit unusual, but within the leeway allowed to a contributor in my view. A look at the history shows that the sandbox has, in the recent past, been used for normal drafting but with this text (prayer) at the top. If this user wants to work that way, I see no harm. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
August 16, 2020
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Singapore/Schools
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Singapore/Schools ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
looks like a draft for a template to be transcluded on user pages, but it is unused and possibly outdated (last useful edit was in 2007). proposing deletion -- AquaDTRS (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - It might be useful sometime. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ƏXPLICIT 00:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. No reason to delete. Do not bring WikiProject subpages to MfD without an explanation of why archiving is not good enough, or a preceding discussion by members of the WikiProject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as per SmokeyJoe, there is no reason to delete this. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
August 15, 2020
Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hotlist of Art & Architecture/M2
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hotlist of Art & Architecture/M2 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Everything from this page has been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hotlist of Art & Architecture/M. It is now empty. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Archive by redirection, to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hotlist of Art & Architecture/M. There is no benefit, and many downsides, to deletion of the history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Onetwothreeip/Frank Salter
WP:STALEDRAFT suffers from the same problems outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Salter where it was deleted. This has no potential for any usable content. jps (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This is the deleted Frank Salter article which was userfied by Northamerica1000 per this discussion. Onetwothreeip was warned at the time (April 2019) that it can't be kept in userspace indefinitely and that they should make an offline copy if they'd like to save it. –dlthewave ☎ 17:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Actually, I'm not sure why it was userfied - we shouldn't have such poorly sourced negative BLPs in user space at all. StAnselm (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Not yet. I'd like to see if any contributors to Australian political articles could use this content before being deleted. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On Genetic Interests. jps (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - userpages are not meant to hold deleted content forever. There has been ample opportunity to use this material and "see if any contributors to Australian political articles could use this content". -- Whpq (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Probably qualifies for G10, but we are here. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Salter. Fails WP:BLP. I note that the three sources are not suitable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete On the edge of a G10 speedy, this is poorly sourced negative or controversial content about a living person. It is in userspace and so is NOINDEX'd but WP:BLP still applies. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Borderline G10 that was already deleted once at AfD. The creator has had over a year and a half to look for sources and/or merge candidates, this needs to be cleared out under WP:STALEDRAFT at this point. Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Mamoon Gelani
This is a personal profile with no claim to notability. The author has said he wanted to write it as a page about himself. Pi (Talk to me!) 14:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete bio of a private person with no notability claims at this stage,imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per everyone above - non-notable autobio. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as something that didn't need to have existed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as self-promotion and not really a user page (not here to build encyclopedia). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Non-notable autobiography. Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
August 14, 2020
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:IN/twinkleoptions.js |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. A U1 with a link to the meta page would have sufficed. Primefac (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC) User:IN/twinkleoptions.jsUser request at meta in user page SecurityXP🔒 13:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
|
User:Stelephand/sandbox
Page of fantasy placement tables from alternate-timeline versions of reality shows (mostly, but not exclusively, Drag Race seasons.) This includes tables which keep the real contestants but falsify their order of finish (Season 12 was not won by Gigi Goode and Crystal Methyd was not first out!), tables with completely imaginary contestants like "Bobye Minaj" and "Stephanie D'Or" and "Dida Cocktease", tables which take real contestants from the series and remix them into imaginary seasons that never existed (Adore Delano winning a season against Eureka, Max and Widow Von Du? All Stars 7, when 5 only just finished airing a few weeks ago and 6 isn't even done filming yet?), and tables which somehow imagine reality competitions pitting "German Vocabulary" and "German Grammar" against "French Vocabulary" and "French Gramamar" and "Research Essay" and "Pedagogy Plan", and tables in which countries are somehow lip synching against each other in elimination battles. As always, sandbox space is not just a playground that gives you free rein to just do anything you want for the lulz -- it's for working on stuff that's actually meant to be transferred to mainspace eventually, and clearly none of this is. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a web host for fantasy versions of Drag Race or other shows. -- Whpq (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - I love the dedication and inventive, but I don't think this is the right place for this. Not A Superhero (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Rod Melancon
Procedural discussion, please. In this diff the creating editor has explained that they have lost control of their account and wishes to continue with their new account and the version in their sandbox. That means that this draft gets n the way for the AFC renewers who assume the one to be a duplicate submission of the other. Regular editors are well aware that the new user id can continue to edit the existing draft, but that is often a step too far for a novice editor who feels 'one editor one draft'.
Do we need to do a history merge? If so, the live draft is User:Kwbeth/sandbox Fiddle Faddle 05:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Drafts by Mehmoodj1
- Drafts by Mehmoodj1 – (View MfD)
- Draft:Jannat Mirza ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft talk:Jannat Mirza ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Islamic Creative ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft talk:Islamic Creative ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:B2 Labels ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Falak Shabir ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Falak Records Music ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Falak Best Song 2019 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Mehmood J ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Areeka Haq ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft talk:Areeka Haq ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:DJ Fluke ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:DJ Fluke (2) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Beatnik Records ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft talk:Beatnik Records ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Speed Records (record label) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft talk:Speed Records (record label) ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
As Mehmoodj1 (talk · contribs) has now received an indefinite block from Drmies (talk · contribs) after continually resubmitting their drafts while ignoring continued talk messages from Timtrent (talk · contribs) and I, I'm now nominating all of the drafts and related pages that they've created for deletion. The vast majority of them are completely unsalvagable, and what few semi-decent ones there are simply aren't worth the effort. Nathan2055talk - contribs 01:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I believe this nomination includes every draft page that they created, if I missed any then please let me know. Nathan2055talk - contribs 01:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete all. I am aware that there is an argument that suggests that leaving old drafts to moulder for six months is acceptable because there is a process that handles that event semi-automatically, but there is an issue here of potential promotion, even from Draft: space. I think the nomination is possibly tad over-complete in including talk pages sinces those go when an associated Draft is deleted, but the editor was also a tad complex in their prolific creation and re-creation of DRafts and associated material that the completeness is probably important. I perceive a temptation for the editor to come back and continue these drafts in another guise, thereby adding work to the SPI team's heavy caseload if the drafts remain. Fiddle Faddle 05:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
August 13, 2020
Draft:Didar Khan
Constantly recreated advertisement article on a non notable singer, has been speedily deleted 3 times, this is the fourth version. Requesting deletion as an unambiguous advertisement and to allow future speedy deletion and salting under G4. Kadzi (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and salt - Pretty blatant WP:G11 in my opinion, but creating the precedent so WP:G4 can be used in the future is fine as well. Nathan2055talk - contribs 01:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, based on the cited sources and my own searches, that Khan doesn't meet the encyclopedia's inclusion criteria and, with the usual caveats, is unlikely to become notable anytime soon. I see only two speedy deletions (4 August by Viridae and 12 August by Athaenara), which would make this the third version. But the rapid recreations, now by a second single-purpose account and without learning from their mistakes, are disruptive and warrant deletion here. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Sharonbrain2/Johnny Cooper (musician)
Userfied in 2008 and user has not done anything since. WP:STALEDRAFT to the extreme. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - It would fall under WP:G13...if it hadn't been created years before G13 or even draftspace were a thing. There's absolutely no reason to hang on to a twelve year old draft. Nathan2055talk - contribs 01:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep G13 does not apply to pages in userspace, even ones created in 2020, unless thy are submitted to AfC, and this has not been. This draft would need a good deal of work to make it ready for mainspace, but I wouldn't be supervised if a valid article could result. No good reason for deletion is provided. WP:STALEDRAFT says: (point 2)
if the draft is not problematic (e.g. no BLP, reliability, promotional issues) but not ready for mainspace, let it be
and goes on to sayif of some potential but problematic, then blank during periods of inactivity using {{Inactive userpage blanked}} or {{Userpage blanked}};
In neither case is deletion justified just for being "stale", and the recent RfC suggested that even blanking should only be done if theree was a significant issue with the content, not just "staleness". DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:1st Nor Cal Credit Union |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) JavaHurricane 03:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC) Draft:1st Nor Cal Credit UnionNon-notable company, page has no credible claim of significance. This would meet CSD A7 on mainspace. –User456541 00:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
|
August 12, 2020
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bryan.Wade/Wikipedia award templates I like |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) JavaHurricane 03:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC) User:Bryan.Wade/Wikipedia award templates I like
WP:NOTWEBHOST. User edits Wikipedia only for the purpose of maintaining this (misleading) page, and defending it from deletion. User pages "should be used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia". As this page is not "relevant to work on the encyclopedia", and as this user does not "work on the encyclopedia", it should be deleted. Jayjg (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amari Fields |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC) Draft:Amari Fieldssubmitted 5 times; no real improvement; no chance of notability DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
|
Old business
August 12, 2020
Talk:Pearl Brewing Company/Images
- Talk:Pearl Brewing Company/Images ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Not complying with Wikipedian scope (WP:NOTGALLERY). A better collection of images ecists at Commons:Category:Pearl_Brewing_Company. Several pf the images here have been transferred there thru FileEx/Importer, but I marked some images here for deletion because of their questionable nature and histories, whether Speedy Deletion or FFD. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - a subpage in article talk space is not an appropriate place for an image gallery. -- Whpq (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Happy for this to be deleted. I moved the images from the article to a subpage of the talkpage in 2008 to allow people to look at the images to see if they were OK to use in the article. By now, people should have been able to make that decision. SilkTork (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - As per above, can be moved to Commons. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: I already transferred those worthy at Commons there, categorized under Commons:Category:Pearl Brewing Company. Those undeserving, with questionable histories and/or no permissions, have been either put at FFD or speedy delete (no sources and/or permissions). As for the question below, I cannot comment, though in my first impression FFD is reserved for those under namespace "File:." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Well, well. A subpage of an article talk page is within the scope of MFD, but would these discussions, like those of Timed Text files, be better at FFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Move relevant info to Commons and delete - Per WP:NOTGALLERY, there's no reason to maintain this on an enwiki talk subpage. Move all of the correctly licensed images to Commons, make sure they're all categorized properly over there, and then add a link to the Commons category on the main article and delete the subpage. Nathan2055talk - contribs 01:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- There are already two links to Commons on the main article, one Wikidata-generated (at the left) and the other generated by {{Commons category}} at the bottom. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
August 9, 2020
Draft:Joy Bridenbaker
Restored version of previously-deleted promotional article by an s.p.a. who claims to be in personal contact with the subject. When you strip the fluff off, there's nothing there: neither assertion nor evidence of notability, just another working actor. The photo, by the way, is about to be deleted as a copyright violation (taken from the subject's own website, yet claimed as "own work" by the aforementioned s.p.a. editor). Orange Mike | Talk 14:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, I guess. If the creator wasn't disrupting Wikipedia, I might have just tagged the draft with {{undisclosed paid}} and {{notability}}, then self-submitted and declined once. If the creator is disrupting Wikipedia, perhaps you and/or MER-C could block them indefinitely. In practice, I've templated the creator with this. I'm not an admin and can't see any promotional version of the page. Orangemike, you're a good person and I believe you that the page was promotional, but it would have been nice to be able to see the full page history with my own eyes. :) Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Reply. Let's see:
- classically-trained
- has achieved a performance portfolio that comprises beauty pageants, live theater, film, television, radio, recording studio, modeling and concert venues, encompassing the U.S., Canada, France and England
- studied [blah, blah, blah] vigorously throughout the entirety of her adolescence before furthering her performing arts studies and continuing education
- has performed a multitude of live solo singing and dancing performance engagements and performed leading roles in several large scale stage musicals
- A beauty pageant winner an accomplished runway, print, fit and spokes model. She has amassed a large portfolio as a photographic model
- She has often produced studio recordings of her singing original and cover songs
- Television appearance of note include Netflix's "Daredevil" and as Young Tilda Sauer in Amazon Prime Video's "Hunters" with Al Pacino. (neither of which is "of note" by any professional standard I can imagine). --Orange Mike | Talk 23:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Reply. Let's see:
- Keep. I have not restored any promotional or copyrightable material, so that it can be written as a neutral article. No need to delete at this point. Notability is not so much an issue for drafts. This is in response to a request at WP:REFUND for user:Manhattan, NYC. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral. I may have missed something or somethings, or something may have missed me. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. The nominator's assessment appears to be correct. In addition, I cannot find reliably sourced evidence of notability, never mind supporting the extraordinary claims of the subject's self-written bio. With such strong evidence of promotion, even a draft page needs to show at least some potential for improvement. I'm not seeing that. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
August 3, 2020
Wikipedia:WikiProject Chenab Valley
- Delete yes, the creator did round up two other collaborators, but this is still an extremely narrow subject for a WikiProject, which falls completely within the much broader Wikipedia:WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir and would thus lead to WP:OVERBANNER issues and likely abandonment. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: This project just recently created and yes there are only two to three collaborators in this. But I believe other collaborators who have Chenab Valley as topic of interest will join later. Now, the reason why I made this separate project is only and only huge number notable articles which should be on wikipedia but they aren't. As you can see I am just 4 months old here. I have created number of articles on Places and a biography related to the project. According to my research and as per notability norms, I believe there are more 150 articles on Places, famous notable personalities which are exclusively related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chenab Valley in my mind and maybe the number of articles can increase and I don't think any collaborators from Wikipedia: WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir have contributed any article that much related to Chenab Valley. I am thinking about long lasting project, while I am still learning but I am working according to norms. I have given a lecture to a group of people offline when they misunderstood the Wikipedia, I told them Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and What it is. My mission is that everyone should be reader of wiki and get all the information related to Chenab Valley through wiki. Hope, you don't destroy my mission. Thank You.— The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 19:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Defer any decision for six months. (Wikipedia:There is no deadline.) What the creator is trying to do is to get people to improve articles in this area. This project is one of his/her tools for doing it. Another is to post messages on people's talk pages alerting them to particular problems with articles and asking them to fix them. This initiative was started on 30 June 2020 - that is less than a month ago. Give it another six months before making any decision. Whatever happens it will have improved some articles that would otherwise not have been improved. Maybe UnitedStatesian is right and it will be abandoned; or maybe it will grow. Give it time.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep for now. No need to delete at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - We're a volunteer project. Deletion here is essentially opening a jewelry box with a sledgehammer. There really is no need to take this route while the project is being worked on.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 13:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I am not familiar with this particular wikiproject, but couldn't it be made into a taskforce of wikiproject Jammu and Kashmir, or another related wikiproject? That seems to me as a good compromise and also makes the most sense. If this is a viable option I would vote to do it. Ghinga7 (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject India. There are no valid reasons to delete, but new thin WikiProjects only hurt the existing WikiProjects. You'll get more traction by working within a larger WikiProject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect to WP:INDIA. 🐔 Chicdat ChickenDatabase 10:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as a task force of WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir because as noted, it is highly specific. So much so, that a wikiproject for just this might be a bit too heavy. A task force subpage will allow them to have a space for discussion on the subject while at the same time not use yet another WikiProject space. Would also prevent the creation of a fork between WikiProject J&K and this Wikiproject. Regards, Field Marshal (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Update: Didn't realise that User:Ghinga7 has already suggested this. I completely agree with their proposal. Field Marshal (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JavaHurricane 10:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep this is way too premature. The project was only started a little over a month ago. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Merge with alacrity into WP:WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir - whilst I applaud the noble intent, the reality is that attempts to "encourage interest" in a subject by creating a WikiProject always fail, because it's just not how WikiProjects work. Although a WikiProject might appear to be about articles, it is really about people, and without bottom-up pressure from people wanting to talk about a subject then a WikiProject will die. And ultimately that is bad for the articles - partly because the greatest enthusiast for a subject ends up spending a lot of time on maintaining the WikiProject rather than working on articles, and because people in the parent WikiProject think "we don't need to bother with those articles as the specialist project will be looking after them". So it seems to me that if you want improvements articles on the Chenab Valley then that is less likely to happen with a specialist WikiProject about an area with less than a million people from what I can tell, and where even the more general Wikipedia:WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir has only 7 active members. I appreciate the intent of "give it time", but if even a high-profile area like J&K can only attract 7 editors then this is a WP:SNOWBALL. Le Deluge (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- You have misinterpreted WP:SNOW. That clause applies to when discussions have an overwhelming/unanimous consensus of a sizable number of people and thus there is no need to run through the full timeline of a discussion process. It does not apply here where there is no immediate consensus between keep vs delete.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 13:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Reply Dear @Le Deluge:, let me clear, Chenab Valley has 13 lakh population check here as you claimed less than million. Now about Wikipedia: WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir which is not that active and if it has 7 members then WP CV have also 5 members atleast. That is not the thing for comparison. Matter is improvement of articles and activeness. Wikipedia: WikiProject Chenab Valley is started just a month ago by me. I don't want to increase the participants of this project in quantity. I believe in quality, whatever if this projet only 5 members but they are active and improving the articles related to it. If Wikipedia is being improved through a project, whatever its start is simple and small but its participants have dedication to do the work. Regarding the merge in WP Jammu and Kashmir is a bad idea because its members are less active regarding to project. So in conclusion, if this newly created project is meant for improving Wikipedia, lets wait for atleast 6 months. I am thinking of to do some seminars on awareness of wiki in the Chenab Valley and have much more plans (no need to discuss here). Thank You.— The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)
- @TheChunky: It doesn't really matter if it's 1 million or 1.3 million - that's still about the size of one of the bigger British counties, and most of them struggle to maintain active WikiProjects despite having 100% native English speakers. I'm just giving advice based on my experience over 10+ years here, that projects based on relatively small geographical areas tend not to work, and projects driven by one person trying to publicise a particular subject, tend not to work. All the stuff you're talking about could just as well happen within the framework of the J&K workgroup - and you'd be able to do more that way because you wouldn't have to spend so much time on the mechanics of setting up and maintaining a WikiProject - which takes a lot more time than people expect, and which directly reduces the time you can spend on articles.Le Deluge (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Reply Dear @Le Deluge:, let me clear, Chenab Valley has 13 lakh population check here as you claimed less than million. Now about Wikipedia: WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir which is not that active and if it has 7 members then WP CV have also 5 members atleast. That is not the thing for comparison. Matter is improvement of articles and activeness. Wikipedia: WikiProject Chenab Valley is started just a month ago by me. I don't want to increase the participants of this project in quantity. I believe in quality, whatever if this projet only 5 members but they are active and improving the articles related to it. If Wikipedia is being improved through a project, whatever its start is simple and small but its participants have dedication to do the work. Regarding the merge in WP Jammu and Kashmir is a bad idea because its members are less active regarding to project. So in conclusion, if this newly created project is meant for improving Wikipedia, lets wait for atleast 6 months. I am thinking of to do some seminars on awareness of wiki in the Chenab Valley and have much more plans (no need to discuss here). Thank You.— The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)
- You have misinterpreted WP:SNOW. That clause applies to when discussions have an overwhelming/unanimous consensus of a sizable number of people and thus there is no need to run through the full timeline of a discussion process. It does not apply here where there is no immediate consensus between keep vs delete.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 13:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
:::::@Le Deluge: With respect to your experience, I still say WP Jammu and Kashmir will not satisfy me. Look at the both projects, how many related articles both have. And which project is working hard. I agree that saving time is more important and projects on small geographical area may not work longer. But as I said I have long term plans. Kindly give some time atleast to work and support me in designing the project correctly. Thank you. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 03:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I change my opinion after reading and exploring other WikiProjects, kindly turn this as sub-project of Wikipedia: WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir. The WP:INJK and WP:IND should be the parent for this project and add WP:CVJK at Descendant WikiProjects section of WP:INJK. Thank You. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 20:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- Merge with WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir - per Le Deluge. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
July 25, 2020
Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual things/personal names
- Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual things/personal names ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
What should we do with this page? It's not a discussion, for a start. Should we move it to article space, or delete it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- It is trivia. Ask at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's not a section; this is not a style issues; this page - with a link to it from the page under discussion - is an adequate venue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- There was a debate over the validity of such lists 11 years ago. SP-KP created Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual things and its subpages to discuss them. This particular subpage is a copy of a deleted article for the purpose of discussion. None of these have been edited since 2009, none seem particularly useful in a broad sense, and I can't see any reason why it's in Wikipedia_talk space. As such:
- Move Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual things back to KP-SP's userspace, where it started
- Delete the two subpages, Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual things/personal names and Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual things/place names as archived versions of articles deleted at AfD. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)