Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates |
Files |
Possibly unfree files (PUF) |
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.
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:, Module:, Topic:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
- Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
- 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 |
|
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 – whose guidelines on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
- 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:
Click to view 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 steps II and III. 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
Administrator instructions for closing discussions can be found here.
Contents
- 1 Information on the process
- 2 Current discussions
- 2.1 April 11, 2016
- 2.2 April 10, 2016
- 2.2.1 Draft:SageTea
- 2.2.2 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible
- 2.2.3 User:Shivrajsinh chudasama/Chudasama shivrajsinh
- 2.2.4 User:Shirzel/Cris Craft Historic Homes Sites
- 2.2.5 User:Shereef74/Shereef Abdallah
- 2.2.6 User:ShepOgden/Shepherd Ogden
- 2.2.7 User:Shennagh/The ZoaLog project
- 2.2.8 User:Shells32/An Evolution of Love
- 2.2.9 User:AliSWA/Coldown(wrestler)
- 2.2.10 User:Ajasse
- 2.2.11 User:Amd9012/Game Price Sentinel
- 2.2.12 User:Aliasforme/Robo Roos
- 2.2.13 User:Sforsyth4/Shark Fin Soup: How an Ancient Recipe Contributes to Declining Shark Populations around the World
- 2.3 April 9, 2016
- 2.3.1 User:StoneStage/Troop 391
- 2.3.2 User:Trmcon/Naim Mrad Radwan
- 2.3.3 User:Scottmlong/Reaching Calm
- 2.3.4 User:Scottkriz/Where Was It Filmed Database
- 2.3.5 User:Allecal/Craig Calhoun (Musician)
- 2.3.6 User:Ali Limonadi/sandbox
- 2.3.7 Draft:Shivaraj kamble
- 2.3.8 Draft:Avengers: Infinity War – Part 1
- 2.3.9 User:Ryanyesterday/Chris Charleston
- 2.3.10 User:SARAJEVO 071/Economy and life in the Socialist Rebublic Bosnia and Hrecegovina,SFRY
- 2.3.11 User:Gordonjameswatson/Datapod System
- 2.3.12 User:GeorgeDaley/mid-atlantic research
- 2.3.13 User:Gargamel62/The Studio (Company)
- 2.3.14 User:Galpag/Miss Galaxy-UK
- 2.3.15 User:DannyAbbott2009/new article name here
- 2.3.16 User:JM.Beaubourg/subarticles/List of Playboy Cyber Girls
- 2.3.17 User:Wgoodman1/Krewe of Neptune
- 2.3.18 User:Peterim/Enter your new article name here
- 2.3.19 User:Pbhenning/Exida
- 2.3.20 User:Pavithra.gdlru/Mudaliar Kuppam
- 2.3.21 User:Paytir/Leaf Through Book Club
- 2.3.22 User:Alrecords/The Sneaches
- 2.3.23 User:Ajoajoajo/A J Owen
- 2.4 April 8, 2016
- 2.5 April 7, 2016
- 2.5.1 User:Popblack
- 2.5.2 User:Malcolm battle/Mike.will?
- 2.5.3 User:MCTroublesome/Chronic Revolution
- 2.5.4 User:Persacom/Orianne Pelletier
- 2.5.5 User:Lyssie29/Clay County, FL Voter Registration
- 2.5.6 User:Alex.Smith98/Utumno (band)
- 2.5.7 User:Aleksisity/Deathrow saints
- 2.5.8 Draft:Jesse Haynes
- 2.5.9 Draft:Huntercollegetechnology
- 2.5.10 Draft:Phora
- 2.5.11 Draft:My country Canada
- 2.5.12 Draft:Grade 7 Mabini
- 2.5.13 Draft:The Kickz Stand
- 2.6 April 6, 2016
- 2.6.1 User:Kemdflp/richard d'anjolell
- 2.6.2 User:Peimun
- 2.6.3 User:Andreas perstorp/The Preachers Of Neverland
- 2.6.4 User:Andresdelg/Kenji America
- 2.6.5 User:AndrewAtArcadia/Andrew Gough
- 2.6.6 User:Aksharpatel47/Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute Of Management, New Delhi
- 2.6.7 User:AngryMJ/Ashworth
- 2.6.8 User:Angrytoast/AaronSorkin test
- 2.6.9 User:Andysign/Landslide Skate Park
- 2.6.10 User:Amyziteng/Invisible Fence Co.
- 2.6.11 User:Amy Leedy/Wendy Leedy
- 2.6.12 User:AndreasJensby/Aarhus University, School of Business and Social Sciences
- 2.6.13 User:Andreasskaliontas/MethysOs
- 2.6.14 User:In8oo/In-Goo Kwak
- 2.6.15 Draft:Experimental Biology meeting
- 2.7 April 5, 2016
- 2.7.1 Draft:Rico Dinero
- 2.7.2 User:Cinteotl/stats
- 2.7.3 User:Scalhotrod/Freeones.com
- 2.7.4 User:Annabelle2010/Princess Omosivie Ann Edebiri
- 2.7.5 User:Gmaxwell/seo
- 2.7.6 User:Mishae/sandbox/Shirley Gordon
- 2.7.7 User:Eliveliv/Enter your new article name here
- 2.7.8 User:Aida Levitan/sandbox
- 2.7.9 User:Glightman/The Hypnotic Eye
- 2.7.10 User:AleeRafi/The Pakistan Revolution
- 2.7.11 User:Antisfo/Antisfo
- 2.7.12 User:Cejae28/Midwest Bounce
- 2.7.13 Draft:Mark Rubel
- 2.7.14 User:Fshussain/Bullet Quarterly
- 2.8 April 4, 2016
- 2.9 April 3, 2016
- 2.9.1 User:Of Infinite Jest/Pittsburgh, The Greatest City in the World
- 2.9.2 User:Obe92/Tha Gingabredd K∞kie$
- 2.9.3 User:Nisala12/ශා. අන්තෝනි දේවස්ථානය බටගම
- 2.9.4 User:Amasam123abc/MyVacationPages
- 2.9.5 User:Princess admin/Princess Bee
- 2.9.6 User:Profkls/Creative labor
- 2.9.7 User:Praveer87/कविता
- 2.9.8 User:Obewanz/Miniature GameWorks
- 2.9.9 Wikipedia:Draft:তেলুগু ভাষা and Wikipedia:Draft:௨
- 2.9.10 User:Priyanka2011/Burial-Temples of Sivatirtha Matha
- 2.9.11 User:Pressdingteam/tenBennys (Rapper)
- 2.9.12 User:Pradeep444/Poopadikallu
- 2.9.13 User:Popeye4buzz/Steven Hall (comedy dancer)
- 2.9.14 User:Pontechai/Christine Dawson
- 3 Old business
- 3.1 April 3, 2016
- 3.2 April 2, 2016
- 3.2.1 Draft:Tianna Bech
- 3.2.2 Draft:Metalliummaxillaryphobia
- 3.2.3 Draft:Bikash Jel Munduri
- 3.2.4 Draft:Alex From Target
- 3.2.5 Draft:Hoan Arellano Nguyen
- 3.2.6 Draft:Luuap
- 3.2.7 Draft:Sarah Salvini
- 3.2.8 Draft:Blestin V Bency
- 3.2.9 Draft:Damian Braun
- 3.2.10 Draft:Tyler Brignone
- 3.2.11 Draft:Jordan Graham
- 3.2.12 Draft:Blue Teddy Bear
- 3.2.13 Draft:Sale (Price Reduction)
- 3.2.14 Draft:Tippy Tom
- 3.2.15 Draft:Ilan Meltz
- 3.2.16 Draft:Fares Mohamed Yehia Fathallah
- 3.2.17 User:Al.rao/The case of the fugitive nurse
- 3.2.18 User:Akozick/Kozicki Coat of Arms
- 3.2.19 User:Akf1000/Wet and Forget
- 3.2.20 Draft:Humblality
- 3.2.21 Draft:Nick Hoffland
- 3.2.22 Draft:Andrew Foster
- 3.2.23 Draft:Cj Borika
- 3.2.24 Draft:Nhlanhla Treasure Kubheka
- 3.2.25 Draft:Ensighten, Inc.
- 3.2.26 Draft:Callum Smith (SmithVsGaming)
- 3.2.27 Draft:Cindy Octaviany
- 3.2.28 Draft:El pito chonchito
- 3.2.29 Draft:Duplekita
- 3.2.30 Draft:William frank mansfield
- 3.2.31 Draft:Solitaire & Mahjong
- 3.2.32 User:Andrei.smolnikov/Naum Shusterman
- 3.2.33 User:Amul2k12/Keerti Nagpure
- 3.2.34 User:Amwrap/new article name here
- 3.2.35 Draft:The legend of kaj the hacker
- 3.2.36 Draft:Pubert addams
- 3.2.37 Draft:Laser replaces scalpel-partly mechanical- and electroinstruments in surgery. That shows history of urology
- 3.2.38 User:Christian-New Age Dialogue/Christian-New Age dialogue
- 3.2.39 User:Rhobite/sandbox
- 3.2.40 User:Throup/sandbox/PC World
- 3.3 April 1, 2016
- 3.4 March 31, 2016
- 3.5 March 30, 2016
- 3.6 March 29, 2016
- 3.7 March 28, 2016
- 3.8 March 26, 2016
- 3.8.1 User:Allycat1208/Hope Witsell
- 3.8.2 User:Scorsi914/3rd World Farmer
- 3.8.3 Draft:Dan Pero Manescu
- 3.8.4 User:VanishedUser 23asdsalkaka/Partysandbox
- 3.8.5 User:The Ungovernable Force/Wikiproject Anthropology
- 3.8.6 Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sysacom R&D plus
- 3.8.7 Draft:John Paul Kelly
- 3.8.8 User:DMorpheus/Sandbox
- 3.8.9 User:Rutglez/sandbox/Infobox/History
- 3.8.10 User:Aegism100/sandbox
- 3.8.11 User:Amol.Gaitonde/Bangalore Real Estate
- 3.8.12 User:Albatalab/Comorian passport
- 3.9 March 25, 2016
- 3.10 March 24, 2016
- 3.10.1 User:Alexsutherland3/Enter your new article name here
- 3.10.2 Template:User lpl-N
- 3.10.3 User:Alexander1112/List of tallest buildings in Australia
- 3.10.4 User:Akapuraa/ShipConsole
- 3.10.5 User:Sayerslle/Goliath (band)
- 3.10.6 User:Cadams90/Flashback (with Craig and Jess)
- 3.10.7 User:AmericaHistory/Hitler's Last Days
- 3.10.8 Draft:Lester Randolph Ford Award
- 3.10.9 User:Alangpdaly/Gerry Daly (Gardener)
- 3.10.10 User:Alaaddinlamp/Miniatures postmodern
- 3.10.11 User:Aklein1/Big Mean Sound Machine
- 3.10.12 User:Akronbrian/Freez-R-Burn
- 3.10.13 User:Rainer Mueck/Gothic Blues
- 3.10.14 Draft:C.A.C.
- 3.10.15 Draft:Quillen metric
- 3.10.16 User:Richmond, Ca./Atchison Village
- 3.10.17 Draft:Mahaveer Group - RSPL
- 3.10.18 User:Hyperbole/Gerald Gallego
- 3.10.19 User:Ftheyukuza/The Orphan
- 3.11 March 23, 2016
- 3.11.1 User:Fsadiq/Insaf Research Wing
- 3.11.2 User:Aixporter/Kooboo
- 3.11.3 User:Zionboy/Nicolas-Patience Basabose
- 3.11.4 User:Wickham01/new article name here
- 3.11.5 User:SE19991/Move Management
- 3.11.6 User:SBirdTVS/TransVault
- 3.11.7 User:S. Jennifer Gray Charnoe/The Celestial Synapse
- 3.11.8 User:S. Jennifer Gray Charnoe/Harbingerites
- 3.11.9 User:S. Jennifer Gray Charnoe/Harbinger Community
- 3.11.10 User:S. Jennifer Gray Charnoe/Frontiers of Science Fellowship
- 3.11.11 User:S.V.Praveen in love with Jesus/Wikipedia;Articles for creation
- 3.11.12 User:Rysnes/Adrian Wareham
- 3.11.13 User:Rysl31/Monica Rose
- 3.11.14 User:Ryrod99/The Annexation of Santo Domingo
- 3.11.15 User:Rynsnsn/sandbox
- 3.11.16 User:RyersonU/Lauren Christoff
- 3.12 March 22, 2016
- 3.13 March 21, 2016
- 3.14 March 20, 2016
- 3.15 March 19, 2016
- 3.16 March 10, 2016
- 3.17 February 28, 2016
- 3.18 January 26, 2016
- 4 Closed discussions
Current discussions
- Pages currently being considered 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.
April 11, 2016
User:Sistermanic/Live2U
- User:Sistermanic/Live2U ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Promotional draft on a non-notable group. No refs Legacypac (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Unseen45/FIFA Street 4: Unleashed
- User:Unseen45/FIFA Street 4: Unleashed ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Abandoned user space draft. Last edit by user was June 25, 2010. Not tagged as an AfC, so ineligible for CSD G13. Article currently exists in article space as FIFA Street (2012 video game) so no plausible use for this draft. Safiel (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
April 10, 2016
Draft:SageTea
- Draft:SageTea ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Non-notable and repeatedly resubmitted by an editor who has admitted being the inventor and CEO. After 9 resubmissions, it's clear they aren't listening to advice, and there's no evidence this will ever be notable. All it's doing is wasting people's time. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC).
- I admit and disclose that I have a conflict of interest, so will take a step back from editing this article. I have given the info to Jonathan Todd. He used to work at SageTea, but doesn't anymore. He is familiar with the topic, although to a lesser degree.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Longfamily417 (talk • contribs)
-
- You hiring someone to write the page for you is still a conflict of interest and possibly paid editing, and doesn't solve the main problem, which is that it simply isn't notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I waited to nominate this draft for deletion because I saw marginal evidence that notability could be established for the subject company, and was prepared instead to go to WP:ANI to request a block for the author and give a chance for a non-COI editor to adopt this draft and move it through AFC. However, even after repeatedly being asked either to stop resubmitting or to ask for advice at the Teahouse or the Help Desk, the author continued to push to get this draft accepted. Enough is enough. The alternative is a block. If the community doesn't think that notability can be established, then deletion is the less extreme option. (If the community does think that notability can be established, then a block is needed in order to allow someone to move this draft forward without aggressive handling by the author.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I have requested a none COI author. He is not being paid by me, but is familiar with the topic (although to a lesser degree). I am willing to offer comments, if asked. If not, I am ok with however the community wants to view the article. It does have news coverage and a peer reviewed reference.
Longfamily417 (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Once again, you're not listening. If you request someone to edit this page, then that means they automatically have a conflict of interest, as you, the inventor/CEO, is asking them to edit it.
- Also, you're missing the key point- it isn't notable.
- If you start spouting the same continuous misarguments again, then I will ask for admin intervention to have you blocked, as you're clearly not here to build the encyclopedia, rather just to promote your non-notable crap. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I am doing my best to respond in a timely fashion, and don't I don't share your view or agree with your use of swearing. I thought we were having a friendly dialog ;-)
I am contributing about a topic which I know, which is not unreasonable. The article's content includes a peer reviewed publication (which means the USPTO agrees it has merit) and news that was reporting in two major newspapers. I believe this does meet the requirement for notability - that would need to be determined with the new author and the editors.
Respectfully.. Longfamily417 (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as there no salvageable content on this article that belongs on Wikipedia. I have repeatedly informed Longfamily417 (talk · contribs) that his company doesn't meet the standards for inclusion, and that he should not be advertising on Wikipedia, but I don't seem to be getting through. Bradv 23:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete: Honestly, I was ready to nominate it for G11 CSD.. Purely advertising by COI editor who refuses to listen to direct and repeated advice. I see no chance of it being suitable for inclusion any time soon. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This is in mainspace at SageTea ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The draft should be histmerged into it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I stumbled upon this discussion because it was listed rather plainly in the {{Article history}} template at Talk:Bible. The discussion remained open for all of 24 minutes and the nominator was blocked indefinitely a few hours later as a vandalism-only account. This all happened almost a decade ago. Per WP:DENY, we should not be advertising this troll nomination to everyone who goes to Talk:Bible. I see absolutely no encyclopedic or administrative need to retain this discussion. Mz7 (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete we don't normally delete AfD's but this is just vandalism. Legacypac (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral - No point to deleting the AFD because the AFD will be closed as keep before this MFD is closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- The AfD has already been closed as keep. The problem is, the article's {{article history}} template prominently advertises the AfD to anyone who accesses the article's talk page. Normally, vandalism such as this would be deleted and forgotten about, but this has remained advertised for about a decade. Mz7 (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Shivrajsinh chudasama/Chudasama shivrajsinh
- User:Shivrajsinh chudasama/Chudasama shivrajsinh ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Non-English and random nonsense in sort of English. Better to delete this then keep it hanging around. Legacypac (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - There is zero problem with non-English in userspace. The English portions are not nearly nonsense, they seem to passably-written accounts of Indian clan histories. Just because it has lots of foreign names doesn't make it nonsense. Honestly, unless this is copyvio, someone obviously worked very hard on this and I find it a bit astounding that the nom's reaction seems to be "Don't understand it, so screw it. Speak English." @Legacypac: you say it's better to delete this than leave it - can you elaborate why? A2soup (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- You rudely misrepresent my point and paint me as suffering from English disease. Within my home we can speak 5 languages and I'm working on Spanish now. Perhaps you forget this is English Wikipedia?
- Why delete? The "English" parts are so badly written that it is a TNT situation. There are no sources. Are you going to translate it and clean it up? Legacypac (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Shirzel/Cris Craft Historic Homes Sites
- User:Shirzel/Cris Craft Historic Homes Sites ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A list of addresses. Wikipedia is not a directory Legacypac (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Shereef74/Shereef Abdallah
- User:Shereef74/Shereef Abdallah ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A WP:NOTAWEBHOST violation by an non-contributor. Includes negative info, which is kind of odd and inappropriate for a BLP too, so seek deletion. Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:ShepOgden/Shepherd Ogden
- User:ShepOgden/Shepherd Ogden ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Autobio WP:FAKEARTICLE and far in excess of what an editor with such limited contributions should be posting about himself [1]. WP:RESUME violation. Legacypac (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Shennagh/The ZoaLog project
- User:Shennagh/The ZoaLog project ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This project's website is dead, suggesting this never got off the ground and that this page is never going to get to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Shells32/An Evolution of Love
- User:Shells32/An Evolution of Love ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It is nice that that someone wrote a book about their husband and dad that died, but there is no evidence this book is notable. While not everything 0 reviews on Amazon is a good indication the book has not gotten much attention since published in 2011. [2] Legacypac (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:AliSWA/Coldown(wrestler)
- User:AliSWA/Coldown(wrestler) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No sources. The SWA he allegedly wrestles for has no article but I found this page [3] that describes SWA as a backyard wrestling association that was planned. The author has blanked that page and it should be deleted after this MfD. Quite promotional. I could not find sources on this person. Legacypac (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Ajasse
- User:Ajasse ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant, little to no content, referencing Wikipedia without other sources, stale AfC draft Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Amd9012/Game Price Sentinel
- User:Amd9012/Game Price Sentinel ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Promotional stub draft Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Aliasforme/Robo Roos
- User:Aliasforme/Robo Roos ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Non-notable kid's team. No path to mainspace Legacypac (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Sforsyth4/Shark Fin Soup: How an Ancient Recipe Contributes to Declining Shark Populations around the World
- User:Sforsyth4/Shark Fin Soup: How an Ancient Recipe Contributes to Declining Shark Populations around the World ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Essay dropped here in a single edit by an account that buggered off. Legacypac (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
April 9, 2016
User:StoneStage/Troop 391
- User:StoneStage/Troop 391 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No way this is even going to pass GNG. No logical merge target. Treat as a test edit and delete. Legacypac (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Repeated RfCs are abundantly clear that userspace pages are not to be deleted due to notability or being a test. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- It should be deleted, yes, but your rationale shows that you either don't get the message, or don't care, and are careless with details. It is at the very very weak end of promotion and you should have blanked it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Trmcon/Naim Mrad Radwan
- User:Trmcon/Naim Mrad Radwan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Lebanese political figure, but not in English with no sources and from an account the made this in 2011 and has never edited since. Legacypac (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Scottmlong/Reaching Calm
- User:Scottmlong/Reaching Calm ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Promotional content on musician with no sources Legacypac (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Scottkriz/Where Was It Filmed Database
- User:Scottkriz/Where Was It Filmed Database ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Promotional. Legacypac (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Allecal/Craig Calhoun (Musician)
- User:Allecal/Craig Calhoun (Musician) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2011 page by a user that did nothing else. Looks like all OR and no claim of notability for this guy. No sources. NOTAWEBHOST violation. Legacypac (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep but blank. Google reveals sources indicating possible notability, is definitely well above a MySpace or GARAGE band. Could become an article, too much work to pre-emptively test, but is not mainspace ready now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Ali Limonadi/sandbox
- User:Ali Limonadi/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Moved here in 2012 per FAKEARTICLE by User:Drmies and tagged as a draft by User:EdJohnston. Either this is promotional autobiography that should be deleted or it is a legit article that should be sent to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's not either/or. Something can be a viable topic but written up as a promotional autobiography (which is what we had here), and something can be a legit article topic that's not ready to be sent to mainspace (which is also what we had here. Legacypac, if you spent more time thinking about these categories/divisions you have set up, you wouldn't be getting in trouble about this sending to mainspace bit. In the meantime, I added some book sources for this guy who is obviously notable, and where it seems you never even tried to apply BEFORE. Ed, what shall we do with this? Send it off to mainspace with four book references from university presses? Drmies (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, five. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I could have just blanked it in the sandbox but I wondered if it was notable, so brought it up for discussion amd hoped someone with an interest in the topic would provide better guidence. Looks like you've established he is notable which is great. Legacypac (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, no, you couldn't have blanked it, sorry. Listen, Legacypac, you know exactly what I mean. I am not trying to get you into trouble (you can do what well enough yourself!), but I hope you understand that the false dichotomy is, in my opinion, precisely the reason you got called out, and I'm suggesting this to you in hopes that you will accept it in the spirit in which it was offered. (That the dichotomy is false isn't opinion, it's fact.) Take care, Drmies (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I could have just blanked it in the sandbox but I wondered if it was notable, so brought it up for discussion amd hoped someone with an interest in the topic would provide better guidence. Looks like you've established he is notable which is great. Legacypac (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Withdraw and this should be sent to mainspace at some point soon. Legacypac (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, appears Wikipedia-notable, verifiably, despite the sources being surprisingly poor, although not unreliable. Coverage appears to be of passing mentions. Merging into a different article on the television station the subject owned may be the way out.
I am not sure about Drmies 2012 move of the article from mainspace to userspace. I don't see a request to do that, and it looks like an odd pseudodeletion. I am even less sure about the page move summary invoking WP:FAKEARTICLE, which appears to be a mistake?--SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Smokey you misread the move. [4]. The orginal page was built directly on User:Ali Lemonadi so it looked like an article. Drmies was correct. Your userpage should not apear to be an article on your user name which in this case is a real person. Legacypac (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Shivaraj kamble
- Draft:Shivaraj kamble ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a draft for a non-notable individual. A different draft has been deleted. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Shivraj Kamble. And articles have also been deleted. See Shiv Kamble (A7) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shivaraj kamble. The draft is likely the work of somebody using multiple accounts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/K100unique. And finally, the draft itself is mostly not true as the bulk of the article was copied from Idris Naikwadi. Whpq (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as promotional and that previous versions have been deleted. Legacypac (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Avengers: Infinity War – Part 1
- Draft:Avengers: Infinity War – Part 1 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Created by hoax account, article already exists. I withdraw my nomination , as per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Thor: Ragnarok. Laber□T 10:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Same invalid deletion request as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Thor: Ragnarok. Not created by a hoax account - a production article exists, but not one for the movie. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Ryanyesterday/Chris Charleston
-
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 06:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- User:Ryanyesterday/Chris Charleston ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Non-notable student. Legacypac (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete More like non-notable potential actor and thespian. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Just blank. Unquestionably has issues, but is fair newcomer drafting in userspace, if blanked. We would like this editor to return and feel welcome to edit some more. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:SARAJEVO 071/Economy and life in the Socialist Rebublic Bosnia and Hrecegovina,SFRY
-
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 06:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- User:SARAJEVO 071/Economy and life in the Socialist Rebublic Bosnia and Hrecegovina,SFRY ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stale draft that is too rough and unfocused to do anything with. Just delete it as redundent to actual articles about the country. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Unsourced, unfoucsed draft from September 2011 that could probably to an article about Economy of Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina but since Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was only a state in Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and there's already Economy of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, it's entirely redundant. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Gordonjameswatson/Datapod System
- User:Gordonjameswatson/Datapod System ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Promotional page from 2009 by a non-contributor. Legacypac (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
User:GeorgeDaley/mid-atlantic research
- User:GeorgeDaley/mid-atlantic research ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Old work with nothing to indicate notability or path to article. Legacypac (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as a stale draft that's unlikely to yield a useful article. APerson (talk!) 02:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Gargamel62/The Studio (Company)
- User:Gargamel62/The Studio (Company) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Promo piece on tiny non-notable business. Legacypac (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Galpag/Miss Galaxy-UK
- User:Galpag/Miss Galaxy-UK ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Promotional page about a non-notable event or business Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
User:DannyAbbott2009/new article name here
- User:DannyAbbott2009/new article name here ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Copy of mainspace article dropped here after the editor created the mainspace article and before they did more edits in mainspace to the page. Just a pointless page with no edits beyond dropping it in. See user controbution history. Legacypac (talk) 06:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
User:JM.Beaubourg/subarticles/List of Playboy Cyber Girls
- User:JM.Beaubourg/subarticles/List of Playboy Cyber Girls ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 06:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Userspace draft started in 2007, last edited in 2009. As a topic, the list itself could be notable, it's not clear but this list is also not very clearly sourced and there's some BLP issues here, namely I'd be concerned with personal information like date of births be included publicly. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Wgoodman1/Krewe of Neptune
- User:Wgoodman1/Krewe of Neptune ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 06:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Five year old stale userspace draft on what seems like a non-notable krewe. Krewe of Neptune was twice deleted but never by AFD for what it's worth. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Nominator is ignorant as WP:N does not apply to drafts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Peterim/Enter your new article name here
- User:Peterim/Enter your new article name here ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 06:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Advertisement by a non-contributor. Legacypac (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete It's close enough to be a U5 situation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Pbhenning/Exida
- User:Pbhenning/Exida ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 06:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Purely promotional page to host an SEO link to the company website and a paper. No attempt at an article. This page was the only thing the account did, way back in Oct 2010 Legacypac (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Attacking the creator is not a reason to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.97.149 (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as promotional. No hope of improving. clpo13(talk) 16:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Pavithra.gdlru/Mudaliar Kuppam
- User:Pavithra.gdlru/Mudaliar Kuppam ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 06:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Promotional material that would require a complete rewrite to be used. Long stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Paytir/Leaf Through Book Club
- User:Paytir/Leaf Through Book Club ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 06:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't find any RS for this organization. They have a facebook page, but that is about it. This page was the only thing the user did back in 2010 so unlikely they are coming back to upgrade this into something suitable for the project. Legacypac (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Alrecords/The Sneaches
- User:Alrecords/The Sneaches ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This one actually says they were a WP:GARAGE band. Legacypac (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Blank. They did seem to play at Lollapalooza one year so it's possible they could be notable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Ajoajoajo/A J Owen
- User:Ajoajoajo/A J Owen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User left in 2013 after leaving what is likely an autobiography as the user's initials matches the subject initials. My searched turn up nothing to substatiate an article on this person. Legacypac (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
April 8, 2016
User:Alynlloyd/Slurry Injection
- User:Alynlloyd/Slurry Injection ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Consists of only a definition. No use to project. Legacypac (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Amirlachime/Narksism
- User:Amirlachime/Narksism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is either a Hoax or too obscure a topic for an article. Legacypac (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Abby McClendon/sandbox/Concho Yoga Tai Chi
- User:Abby McClendon/sandbox/Concho Yoga Tai Chi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The single edit by a throw-a-way account. No path to article space for this topic, so delete it. Legacypac (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Adrian~enwiki/zap2.js
- User:Adrian~enwiki/zap2.js ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This isn't actually a javascript for anything other than the signature. This is creating a live link to this page every time the editor signs a page, basically like using a template for a signature. Evidence of how problematic this is can be seen from the amount of incoming links to the prior editor's name (and prior signature) at User:Adrian/zap2.js and broken signature pages because it was removed. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Rename to User:Adrian~enwiki/zap2_js? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- It's still a translucation of another page in violation of WP:SIG#NT. The fact that it's a javascript page isn't the issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- His most recent signed edit lacks a link to this page, so I'm not sure what the concern is? Stifle (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- WP:SIG#NT. Actual templates in signatures (or the equivalent) are forbidden. Translucations are discouraged. This is equivalent to linking to a template (you can call a page whatever you want). It was used in the past and translucated for all prior instances under the prior name. The fact that it isn't being used now doesn't make the page suddenly appropriate and to me, one way to actually discourage the practice is by deleting the page itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. No ongoing issue needing fixing, and no evidence of anyone attempting to talk to the user. Come to MfD for backup yes, but not as the first stpe of dispute resolution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Gülenist Terror Organisation(FETO)
- Draft:Gülenist Terror Organisation(FETO) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It's a WP:POVFORK of Gülen movement Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, attempted POV fork, not useful to the encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Milo Zoppini
- Draft:Milo Zoppini ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is the same spammy stale draft as up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Milozoppini and at mainspace at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milo Zoppini. At the very least, it's a draft already in mainspace. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milo Zoppini. In userspace, it is a FAKEARTICLE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
April 7, 2016
User:Popblack
- User:Popblack ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ok, so this draft has been fought over for some odd reason. There's a related mainspace page up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wang Dongma. In reality, Popblack created another draft and moved that to Wang Dongma on October 3, 2010 and then recreated that here in userspace on October 8, 2010, worked to change the contents on February 27, 2011 to Weng Songma, tried to G7 this page (I'm guessing to move this revised draft) and then gave up. So this is either the correct page and should be history merged into the other page (should it survive AFD but that would be a hoax surviving AFD) or the wrong page and a complete hoax with the wrong name. It's also an issue English-sizing Chinese names but most of the facts are the same (he updated the BA to his masters in this one). Ricky81682 (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- In case I missed something, I'm notifying the three editors involved in the mainspace version: @Legacypac, Bearcat, and Zanhe:. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Defer to the AfD dscussion. If there were no mainspace article, I would recognize this page as a FAKEARTICLE, a possible promotion of a non-notable artist. All the links seem to be broken. As it is a completely marked up article, if someone disputes that it is a FAKEARTICLE, I would support moving this to mainspace and allow testing at AfD, or deletion in userspace as a promotional FAKEARTICLE. The lack of reliable sources for a page that ends with a link to the artist's web site (broken or not) is a crucial factor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Google searches for "Weng Songma" or "翁宋马" return absolutely nothing. -Zanhe (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and I'm quite annoyed that this user managed to create a good enough looking article it fooled me into thinking the artist was notable. It looks 100% better then most of the drafts I've been reviewing but the sources seem to be faked. Legacypac (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Technically the editor created two of them: one that was convincing enough to get to AFD and another for MFD. You just didn't know it was the same. :) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Malcolm battle/Mike.will?
- User:Malcolm battle/Mike.will? ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another non-notable rapper. Notawebhost. Legacypac (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete This was the editor's old edit in June 2013. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
User:MCTroublesome/Chronic Revolution
- User:MCTroublesome/Chronic Revolution ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Advertising. No sources Legacypac (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Persacom/Orianne Pelletier
- User:Persacom/Orianne Pelletier ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stale userspace draft from September 2010 that is a potential WP:BLP (if not a hoax) for a young girl. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as I'm near actually tagged this as my searches found only a few apparent links, one for a Facebook and the other a blog, both of which were not fitting this "Regina, Saskatchewan" girl. Whether or not confirmed as fabricated, clearly not acceptable as it's actually worth noting I found this myself recently but watchlisted it. SwisterTwister talk 14:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Lyssie29/Clay County, FL Voter Registration
- User:Lyssie29/Clay County, FL Voter Registration ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Far too specific page about just one county in FL. It's also partly how too and partly advocacy. Legacypac (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete for the reasons above. Never plausibly going to become an article. Abandoned for over four years. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Alex.Smith98/Utumno (band)
- User:Alex.Smith98/Utumno (band) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another defunct non-notable band. Old draft, no references. No one working on this. Legacypac (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Aleksisity/Deathrow saints
- User:Aleksisity/Deathrow saints ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another non-notable garage band. Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Jesse Haynes
- Draft:Jesse Haynes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
draft of a page that's been deleted twice, most recently here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Haynes. This draft of a non-notable person has no reason to exist. Joeykai (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Huntercollegetechnology
- Draft:Huntercollegetechnology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTHOWTO. North America1000 02:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete as not a useful draft. Legacypac (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Phora
- Draft:Phora ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:NOTESSAY. North America1000 02:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:My country Canada |
---|
The result of the discussion was SNOW Speedy Delete. — xaosflux Talk 00:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:My country Canada
WP:NOTESSAY. North America1000 02:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Grade 7 Mabini |
---|
The result of the discussion was SNOW Speedy Delete. — xaosflux Talk 00:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Grade 7 Mabini
WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 02:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Draft:The Kickz Stand
- Draft:The Kickz Stand ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. North America1000 01:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
April 6, 2016
User:Kemdflp/richard d'anjolell
- User:Kemdflp/richard d'anjolell ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stale draft by a WP:SPA that was deleted by AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard d'Anjolell before being pointlessly restored at the request of an editor who has no plans to do anything with it [[5]. The reason cited for restoration [6] (that WP:STALEDRAFT says "If suitable for mainspace, move to mainspace" is being read as an exclusive option - but no where is there a rule that says you can't move something to mainspace to AfD it. Given the massive number of existing unsuitable articles in mainspace (see WP:AfD on any given day), having a potentially unsuitable page in mainspace for a week during a discussion about the page is hardly going to break the project.
Given that some editors refuse to consider WP:V or WP:N at all in MfD, an AfD may well be the best forum for discussing pages that are not a clear CSD.
This page remains unsuitable for the project and no one has raised any information to the contrary, so delete it again. Legacypac (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per my rationales at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Duplekita and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Solitaire & Mahjong.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as promotion of a non-notable musician. That is a sufficient reason, and none of the other fluff is relevant. Advice legacypac to concentrate on concise and accurate nominations. Extraneous information such as "2009 stale draft from a single purpose account. This person appears to fail " only weakens the deletion rationale. Be a sniper, don't scatter buckshot hoping one will hit. Don't question notability, as nominator you should have a clear position on it being met or not met. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, abandoned for over 6 years by the creator who has no mainspace edits. Free webhost concerns. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Peimun
- User:Peimun ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Duplicates an exisiting page Tennessee_Democratic_primary,_2016 KagunduWanna Chat? 22:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and userpages should not look like WP:FAKEARTICLEs. Legacypac (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per above - Userpages shouldn't be sandboxes .... That aside all of ehat's here is at the link above (which I can't be arsed to copy & paste.). –Davey2010Talk 01:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Andreas perstorp/The Preachers Of Neverland
- User:Andreas perstorp/The Preachers Of Neverland ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Non-notable band - reads like a hoax even. Legacypac (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Andresdelg/Kenji America
- User:Andresdelg/Kenji America ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Non-notable comedian. This attempt at an article is stale and the only thing the account did back in 2011 making it a WP:NOTAWEBHOST issue Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
User:AndrewAtArcadia/Andrew Gough
- User:AndrewAtArcadia/Andrew Gough ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unreferanced autobiography created in 2011 by an account that never did anything else. WEBHOST violation. Legacypac (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Aksharpatel47/Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute Of Management, New Delhi
- User:Aksharpatel47/Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute Of Management, New Delhi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft that adds nothing to Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
User:AngryMJ/Ashworth
- User:AngryMJ/Ashworth ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This page sure appears to be a hoax. Can't find it on a map or in google searches. The claimed "The Ashworth Spring Kick-off Carnival' does not seem to exist. Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete – Very likely a WP:HOAX, per web searches. North America1000 20:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Angrytoast/AaronSorkin test
- User:Angrytoast/AaronSorkin test ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stale draft redundant to Aaron Sorkin Legacypac (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as unlikely needed, user is no longer active. SwisterTwister talk 17:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Andysign/Landslide Skate Park
- User:Andysign/Landslide Skate Park ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Promotional page (with that SEO link) from an acct indefed as promotional. Legacypac (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Amyziteng/Invisible Fence Co.
- User:Amyziteng/Invisible Fence Co. ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
stale draft that adds nothing to Invisible Fence Inc Legacypac (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Amy Leedy/Wendy Leedy
- User:Amy Leedy/Wendy Leedy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Spam page to support a link. Legacypac (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
User:AndreasJensby/Aarhus University, School of Business and Social Sciences
- User:AndreasJensby/Aarhus University, School of Business and Social Sciences ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User placed this in mainspace [7] right after creating the draft and continued editing mainspace. A redirect therefore is redundant as the user knows where to find the page and all contributions are already attributed. Legacypac (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Andreasskaliontas/MethysOs
- User:Andreasskaliontas/MethysOs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:GARAGE and/or something made up one afternoon in your local bar. Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
User:In8oo/In-Goo Kwak
- User:In8oo/In-Goo Kwak ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Completely fails N and V. Maybe a test page, but of no use to anyone. Legacypac (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Experimental Biology meeting
- Draft:Experimental Biology meeting ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:TOOEARLY, and only one ref. 333-blue 04:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Strong keep - These are arguments for mainspace deletion, not draft deletion. Drafting articles that are TOOEARLY for mainspace seems like a perfectly legitimate user of draftspace. More refs may be added later - drafts are not at all required to be referenced. And above all, this draft was created two days ago - why you feel compelled to delete an explicit work-in-progress 2 days after work on it begins is beyond me. I want to apologize to Geoffhunt3 for this deletion nomination - it seems completely unfounded to me. A2soup (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Fair topic, but looking the wrong way. It should include past meeting dates, and not include future meeting dates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies, I'm new to Wikipedia editing and was participating in an edit-a-thon. We were at the Experimental Biology meeting, which didn't have a page, so I figured I could make that my first article. I was planning on going back and adding more content and cleaning up the page. But willing to defer to the wisdom of others with more experience. Geoffhunt3 (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Geoffhunt3: The page is fine as a draft, it doesn't look as if it will be deleted. If you want to get this page into the actual encyclopedia, there are three main things to do. First and foremost, make sure that the Experimental Biology Meeting is notable; in particular, it should meet the general notability guideline. If it doesn't, it unfortunately doesn't merit its own article. Second, the page should be about the meeting itself as it already exists, not a list of future dates per the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy. Finally, it would be good to have some independent sources - see more about this at WP:V. Thanks for your contributions and good luck! A2soup (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I was actually gonna !vote Delete but seeing as the nom hasn't buggered off it should be kept and thus he could expand and improve it. –Davey2010Talk 02:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep As it's clearly a good faith editor who's still here, and the topic may become notable given time. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
April 5, 2016
Draft:Rico Dinero
- Draft:Rico Dinero ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The result of the discussion was keep. Although I disagree on this policy theories, they seem to be the new consensus at MFD. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Ok, I'm pulling this out of the archives and re-listing this for further discussion based on the comments made here. The sole discussion was by a banned user. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTWEBHOST, and source searches are not providing any coverage to establish notability per Wikipedia's standards (see below). North America1000 13:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Find sources: "Rico Dinero" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library
Keep. WP:V and WP:GNG do not apply to drafts. 166.170.46.82 (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Banned user. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note that the primary rationale for deletion provided is WP:NOTWEBHOST: "Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site" . North America1000 11:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
None of which matters. It's a draft on a potential article. WP:N is irrelevant. 166.171.120.241 (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)- Banned user. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ricky81682 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Clear promotion of a non-notable musician. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Comment made after original closure and reverted as such. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Since the subject itself is not notable improving the article is not an option. Since this draft will never meet our inclusion criteria it should be deleted. HighInBC 21:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and points by HighInBC and SmokeyJoe. Legacypac (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per everyone above - Promotional bollocks that has no use here. –Davey2010Talk 01:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Cinteotl/stats
- User:Cinteotl/stats ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Out-of-date user subpage meant to accompany an ArbCom case, the result of which was the page's creator being indefinitely banned from the topic of the page. The page itself consists largely of the user's attempts to recontextualize an earlier ANI thread, in which he highlights "accusations" made by myself and several others, and insinuates that we were making these accusations without evidence. I don't know about the other users involved, but I wrote what I did without intending it to be nitpicked and every sentence not accompanied by a diff be recast as an accusation made without evidence and for that out-of-context recasting to be kept indefinitely in someone else's user space. An earlier version of the page explicitly accused me and numerous other (non-Christian) editors of editing with a Christian agenda. No good can come of keeping this borderline attack page on the site, and the page's creator isn't even allowed edit it per the terms of his TBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is out-of-context because at the time I, User:Ian.thomson, User:Jeppiz and so on wrote these things, anyone could look at the talk page in question and see immediately that what we were saying was accurate, but almost all of the discussion had been archived before Cinteotl/Fearofreprisal copy-pasted this into his user space. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- The page was previously nominated, deleted and then undeleted (see here). The undeletion was made on request of the original creator (see here). The creator's username was changed in the meantimes, and this page was accordingly moved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Response from Cinteotle
This MfD is somewhat fragmented, with discussion on both this page, and on the related talk page. My comments here are in response to the discussions on both pages.
I am the owner of the user page in question. As a matter of background, I am subject to a topic ban, imposed by ArbCom on 30 Dec 2014, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus.
- User:Hijiri88, the nominator in this case (who was also a party to the arbitration) has stated that I'm not "even allowed edit" the page in question, "per the terms of [the] TBAN." He also said of me, "I don't think he's allowed" to discuss the page. He may be correct in both cases, though only ArbCom can say with certainly. It is not my desire to risk being sanctioned.
- Hijiri88's comments in this matter raise claims he made in the arbitration. Again, there is no way that I can address those comments without crossing lines that could lead to sanctions.
- MfD is unable to properly address the deletion discussion, because, as the page owner, I cannot address the merits of the page without risk of being sanctioned. (See [8].)
- The only venue on WP that can properly address the deletion discussion is ArbCom. That is the only venue where the topic ban can be waived.
- ArbCom "retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes." [9] So, as is the case here, a user page that was evidence in a matter heard by ArbCom remains under ArbCom jurisdiction.
- It is my intention to appeal my topic ban, so the page under discussion will be evidence in an upcoming ArbCom proceeding.
- Hijiri88 said "You know what, maybe we should contact ArbCom just to be sure." User:Xaosflux said "Further clarification could be requested of ArbCom if you or other editors disagree." User:SmokeyJoe said "MfD should not get involved with arb cases, unless maybe at the request of a non-admin arb clerk." So, including me, 4 out of the 4 editors involved in this discussion are suggesting that this may be an ArbCom matter.
For all the above reasons, the proper course of action is to open an Arbitration Enforcement case, then procedurally close this matter as Venue Inappropriate. Cinteotl (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: This may be better to just list at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. — xaosflux Talk 11:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am in no way opposed to any admin closing this out as wrong venue, my involvement with this was due to action on the prior MFD and ensuring that Cinteotl would be aware of this discussion and be able to participate as approriate. — xaosflux Talk 11:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Arbitration request for clarification opened. I'm sure no admin would be irresponsible enough to close this without checking first whether the Arbs had weighed in, but as of now it's two or three to zero in favour of letting this MFD run its course. Hijiri 88 (聖やや)
Collapsed own basically off-topic comment. I'll leave it to others to do the same with Cinteotl's. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC) |
---|
|
Comment Arbcom are admins so even if deleted could review the content if required.Amortias (T)(C) 11:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Took the words right out of my mouth. I said this page was never used by Cinteotl in the ArbCom case "publicly", because I don't doubt that he emailed links to them, but if it's only Arbs who might hypotheticallt need to see this page in the future, then deleting should not have been a problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Leaning "delete" but prefer this to be considered under the purview of ArbCom. Uncomfortable noting the complexity of the story, and the fact that the nominator and userpage author have a history together. If there were not ArbCom history, I would say "delete as negative information on others, unless taken promptly to ArbCom".
-
- from WP:POLEMIC: "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed."
- --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per links in nomination, the page was previously deleted at MfD then undeleted by request in October 2014. The page history shows no edits since November 2014. The page fails WP:POLEMIC since it has not been used for an upcoming appeal. Per the advice from arbs at WP:ARCA, Cinteotl may keep a copy on a personal computer and may request undeletion if actually required for an appeal. Keeping battleground stuff like this on-wiki, even if blanked, is toxic for the community. Cinteotl should add {{db-author}} to save us wasting more time, and Cinteotl should move on from past grievances—life is not always fair, but working to keep stuff like this on-wiki is not helpful and will count as a big negative in the event of an appeal. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Scalhotrod/Freeones.com
- User:Scalhotrod/Freeones.com ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Scalhotrod/Katie Banks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Advertising for porn sites. User is indef'd and talk page protected. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- The first one has a claim to notability, although weak and insufficient in my opinion. The page should be blanked at least.
- The second contains no encyclopedic content and an external link to a promotional website. Delete as promotion.
User:Annabelle2010/Princess Omosivie Ann Edebiri
- User:Annabelle2010/Princess Omosivie Ann Edebiri ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I can't find any trace of this person on the internet - though the alleged grandfather exists. This could be a big hoax. If it is real, it contains unsourced negative material, personal details that have no reason to be posted on the internet, and other inappropriate material and OR.
Created by a SPA in 2010 with no edits outside this page. An IP has now blanked or requested deletion times (presumably the creator, perhaps having lost their password). These blankings have all been reverted - illustrating nicely why putting blanking templates is quite unsatisfactory.
It has also been copied to mirrors and the links to the page show up in search, but nothing else that confirms anything about this person. Legacypac (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Unlikely to be suitable, agreed. Made by an SPA, has promotional aspects, but could also be a fair draft on a notable person. Systematic biases make it hard with Nigerian topics.
- Agree that the IP blankings and {{db-userreq}}s can be reasonably accepted as by the author.
- Concern of mirror copies is better addressed by blanking, which causes the copies to blank. I suggest blanking it now, and deleting after the standard 7-56 days of MfD discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Let's try that as an experiment. [10] --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Great idea since this girl has such a unique name their is no noise in the results. I'm now somewhat convinced she is a real but totally non-notable (in WP speak) student [11] who likely does not want all this info (some of it negative) out there for people to find when they google her unique name. If she is real it is an unsourced BLP and if in mainspace could be PROD'd.
- Let's try that as an experiment. [10] --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Mirrors at [12],
- [13], Content still there 02:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- [14] (already mirrors the blanking),
- [15] (mirrors a what links here page)
- [16] and [17] includes links to this page and related pages
- [18] includes link to page on side
So it looks like we delete/blank etc out of wikivisually. Only a full deletion would remove the page name and link for the pages that collect Wikilinks. Legacypac (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Look, even assuming anything is true, blanking is fine and all but there's enough BLP concerns to worry me. If this was a personal biography on the editor's own userspace, we would consider blanking or deleting it in line with WP:YOUNG and I don't see where keeping it around, even if blanked, should be a possible solution. If someone wants to write a real article on the topic, they would have take serious care about having reliable sources and it's better to WP:TNT this draft than keep it around, even if blanked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Gmaxwell/seo
- User:Gmaxwell/seo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No foreseeable use. List of random mistyped search terms from 2006, unlikely to be found by a search engine anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as useless. Legacypac (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. A user's project related opinion and notes. There is no need for anyone to be able to see a need or use for it. This is the purpose of userspace. No actual problem to justify even blanking has been suggested. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. It's linked from a bunch of discussions on wiki(p|m)edia mailing lists. Deleting it wouldn't serve any useful purpose, and it's useful in the context of the older discussions (not to mention— not all of the pages are blue now). --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Gmaxwell and SmokeyJoe. It's also linked from a few places on-wiki. Graham87 08:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, has a potential use. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Mishae/sandbox/Shirley Gordon
- User:Mishae/sandbox/Shirley Gordon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirley Gordon in 2013, user indef'd soon after. Not a notable biography, unlikely to be an article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
A difficult case, a Crime Perpetrator article, reliably sourced, BLP issues, possibly BLP1E fixable by a merge. It could become an article. User indef's after is not a deciding factor, but not a positive sign either. At least, blank with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. NB. For those concerned with archiving and mirror copies of userspace problematic pages (BLP and otherwise), replacing with {{Inactive userpage blanked}} causes, in time, the mirror to blank the archive/copy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC). Brain freeze.
- Delete. The mainspace one was created on October 7, two days prior to userspace one. It was copied to userspace after the mainspace one was listed at AFD. This looks like an attempt to evade an AFD discussion on the subject that a legitimate alternative draft. I don't see the point of encouraging that kind of conduct with other editors and if someone thinks there's a valid draft here, the original should be restored with all its edits. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Eliveliv/Enter your new article name here
- User:Eliveliv/Enter your new article name here ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Eliveliv/Glick Family Investments ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Find sources: "Glick Family Investments" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR
Clearly self promotion, not likely to go anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, not so clearly just self promotion, not likely but possible to be worked up to an article on an historic family company ("Glick Family Investments") with lots of references. Do not move to mainspace without an interested champion. Replace with {{Inactive userpage blanked}} due to inactivity and TPH's valid concerns. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as IMHO self promotion, Pointless blanking when you can just outright delete it ... If the user wants to rework it they can go to WP:UNDELETE. –Davey2010Talk 01:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- If the user wants it and can go to WP:UNDELETE, that is how blanking works. It should only be deleted if undeletion should be refused. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- What's the point in blanking something that won't ever be edited again ? .... It may aswell be deleted. –Davey2010Talk 02:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- It looks "probably not sufficiently notable", looking at all the links pulled up by the find sources template, but not definitely not. I disagree that it is promotion, because concentrates on history, not on services for sale. It would be a good thing for the user to return and edit it again. Until then, blank it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- What's the point in blanking something that won't ever be edited again ? .... It may aswell be deleted. –Davey2010Talk 02:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- If the user wants it and can go to WP:UNDELETE, that is how blanking works. It should only be deleted if undeletion should be refused. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Aida Levitan/sandbox
- User:Aida Levitan/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Clearly self promotion, abandoned draft, user's only contribs Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. A drive-by SPA dumped resume. This is the sort of resume initially excluded from CSD#U5, but later included. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Glightman/The Hypnotic Eye
- User:Glightman/The Hypnotic Eye ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Abandoned draft from 2012 Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not clearly non-notable. Replace with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as non notable band .... Probably wouldn't survive a week in articlespace due to notability issues, Pointless blanking when you can just outright delete it ... If the user wants to rework on it they can go to WP:UNDELETE. –Davey2010Talk 01:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- If the user wants it and can go to WP:UNDELETE, that is how blanking works. It should only be deleted if undeletion should be refused. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- What's the point in blanking something that won't ever be edited again ? .... It may aswell be deleted. –Davey2010Talk 02:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Point is that TPH could have done it himself, without MfD. yeah, delete now that we are here. --SmokeyJoe (talk)
- Well TBH and myself believe deletion is the preferred option over blanking so yeah it should be deleted, If the editor was around then I'd agree blanking would be better however he isn't so there's absolutely no point in blanking when it can be deleted..... –Davey2010Talk 03:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Logically, the opposite would be true. Looking at page views [19], this nomination has caused more page views that there were for the past year. If the editor was around, the editor could participate in this discussion, and it would have have educational value. But he is not, and so he is not about to unblank. There's absolutely no point in deleting when it can be blanked, permanently, without the cost of nine people reading the page to double (nonuple!) check the proposal to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well TBH and myself believe deletion is the preferred option over blanking so yeah it should be deleted, If the editor was around then I'd agree blanking would be better however he isn't so there's absolutely no point in blanking when it can be deleted..... –Davey2010Talk 03:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Point is that TPH could have done it himself, without MfD. yeah, delete now that we are here. --SmokeyJoe (talk)
- What's the point in blanking something that won't ever be edited again ? .... It may aswell be deleted. –Davey2010Talk 02:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- If the user wants it and can go to WP:UNDELETE, that is how blanking works. It should only be deleted if undeletion should be refused. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
User:AleeRafi/The Pakistan Revolution
- User:AleeRafi/The Pakistan Revolution ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userspace page that so fails WP:V the subject does not even exist anymore. Legacypac (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Blank with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}, at least. Doing so would be sufficient processing of the trivial draft. It does seem to be WP:V failing, but it could be related to Pakistan Youth Revolution (not a shining example of an article). "the subject does not even exist anymore" is a very poor statement to make, not existing anymore makes it easier to justify coverage, as an encyclopedia is an historiographical resource, and promotion is no longer an issue. That said, deletion is fine, it was probably created as promotion of a non-notable student group in the process of being set up. I could be wrong, but no information contain is sufficient to allow checking. The title and description are hopelessly broad and the two links are broken. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as non notable organization.... Probably wouldn't survive a week in articlespace due to notability issues, Pointless blanking when you can just outright delete it ... If the user wants to rework on it they can go to WP:UNDELETE. –Davey2010Talk 01:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Pointless deletion when it can be just UNDELETED. You may as well just blank it if you are prepared to give prior approval to undelete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- But that's the point it won't be undeleted because the creator's buggered off, Blanking's just a waste of time. –Davey2010Talk 02:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- If you watch the Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion you will see that undeletion often comes with valuable comment and couching from Admins. Unblanking comes with nothing at all except the chance some other editor gets the page during another cleanup drive. Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'll give you the first point. The 2nd, no. They don't do that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I used a poor choice of words. If we blank, and it is restored (like the one restored 5 times before I MfD'd it) it will sit until some other editor finds it and MfDs or CSD's it yet again. Legacypac (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- ?
- This page has never before been blanked or deleted or MfD-ed? AleeRafi is very unlikely to return and simply unblank, but his return would be a good thing that we should anticipate. I think redirect to Pakistan Youth Revolution would give him the appropriate message, leaving open the possibility that this topic is not actually the same thing. There is no applicable CSD criterion, and if redirected or blanked, why would anyone think to MfD it? Why would they ever look at it? I presume that we are only looking at it because of its category tracking? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I used a poor choice of words. If we blank, and it is restored (like the one restored 5 times before I MfD'd it) it will sit until some other editor finds it and MfDs or CSD's it yet again. Legacypac (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'll give you the first point. The 2nd, no. They don't do that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- If you watch the Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion you will see that undeletion often comes with valuable comment and couching from Admins. Unblanking comes with nothing at all except the chance some other editor gets the page during another cleanup drive. Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- But that's the point it won't be undeleted because the creator's buggered off, Blanking's just a waste of time. –Davey2010Talk 02:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Pointless deletion when it can be just UNDELETED. You may as well just blank it if you are prepared to give prior approval to undelete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not quite understanding the suggested redirect to an unrelated topic. Legacypac (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Unrelated? I think it is the same. If unrelated, if this is utterly unverifiable, then delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- @Davey2010: If it won't be undeleted, can't you just as easily say it won't be unblanked? They are essentially equal except one takes a discussion and admin time, and then admin time again if it is reversed. The other takes none of this. A2soup (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- That is true but in this case it won't take admins time because it won't be undeleted (Despite my above comment I don't think the creator will ever come back), Maybe It's just my thinking but I really don't see the point in blanking a page when it won't ever be edited ever again ... to me if there's a 95% chance the editor won't be back then blanking it IMHO is a waste of time, –Davey2010Talk 21:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Davey2010: If it won't be undeleted, can't you just as easily say it won't be unblanked? They are essentially equal except one takes a discussion and admin time, and then admin time again if it is reversed. The other takes none of this. A2soup (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I found a page that had been blanked 5 times by an IP that is most likely the creator. Various editors and bots reestablished the page 5 times! Blanking does not mean it stays blanked, it becomes a blanked page that can be vandalized. Deleted pages are gone for good unless undeleted by an Admin, and that should only happen for a good reason. Legacypac (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ah I didn't know that, So blanking them also leaves them open to be vandalized without anyone ever knowing ..... Another reason why deletion's better, –Davey2010Talk 13:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- If someone vandalizes an active user's subpage the active user hopefully notices that on their watch list and fixes it. Generally no one is watching an inactive user's subpages so they become a playground. Further, while in theory userpages are no index in fact they sometimes do get indexed and they are often mirrored by sites that are indexed. Legacypac (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Ah I didn't know that, So blanking them also leaves them open to be vandalized without anyone ever knowing ..... Another reason why deletion's better, –Davey2010Talk 13:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- I found a page that had been blanked 5 times by an IP that is most likely the creator. Various editors and bots reestablished the page 5 times! Blanking does not mean it stays blanked, it becomes a blanked page that can be vandalized. Deleted pages are gone for good unless undeleted by an Admin, and that should only happen for a good reason. Legacypac (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
User:Antisfo/Antisfo
- User:Antisfo/Antisfo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Essay type page about an internet discussion group. No value to the project. User named for the group. Legacypac (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Textbook CSD#U5 I would have thought. Not related to the project, product of a single edit account. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - Nothing worth saving here. –Davey2010Talk 01:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Cejae28/Midwest Bounce
- User:Cejae28/Midwest Bounce ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Time stamp for bot to properly relist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Stale draft from 2010 where the creator never edited any other page. This is a non-notable music category and needs to be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Well-plausibly notable and suitable topic for inclusion as a stand alone article or in another article. No concerns of NOTWEBHOSTing or promotion or BLP etc. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - Was probably abandoned because the creator probably couldn't find sources for it ..... Anyway Pointless blanking when you can just outright delete it ... If the user wants to rework on it they can go to WP:UNDELETE. –Davey2010Talk 01:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, abandoned use of Wikipedia as a free webhost. User has zero mainspace edits. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Mark Rubel
- Draft:Mark Rubel ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Time stamp for bot to properly relist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
There is silly unverifiable trivia here and no substantial claim of notability. Would never survive in article space. Stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Appears borderline non-notable, and contains excessive unsourced personal details. Why is this draft not processed like any other old draft? I would not support deletion if it were in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Fshussain/Bullet Quarterly
- User:Fshussain/Bullet Quarterly ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Time stamp for the relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Student publication only started in 2011. No claim of notability asserted in this stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - no reason for deletion given in nomination. VQuakr (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per WP:U5 via WP:STALEDRAFT point #4 (i.e. "If the material is promotional, or otherwise unsuitable, and the author was never a serious Wikipedia contributor, consider tagging for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#U5").—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Same editor created Bullet Quarterly in mainspace which was deleted by prod in April 2011. If it was kept, it would have been history merged together and deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- It wasn't my opinion, but a clear consensus at WT:N that said Wikipedia-notability is only for mainspace. There is no other reason for deletion. Recommend blanking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
April 4, 2016
User:Xsamix/SCR
- User:Xsamix/SCR ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Looks a bit like an advertisement. Stefan2 (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - clearly directed at promotional rather than encyclopedic purpose, so not really a draft. Redirect to SCR (restaurant) is possible if we're feeling generous (the author is/was a genuine contributor). A2soup (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Eloisilveira/Tenisbrasil
- User:Eloisilveira/Tenisbrasil ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userspace draft from November 2009 that was later created at Tenisbrasil which was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenisbrasil in December 2011. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Vinaybondirwad
- User:Vinaybondirwad ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Old userspace draft from 2012. The editor's ability to add in the entire infobox makes this a bit suspicious to me but otherwise there is no page at Government College of Engineering, Jalgaon but there is a draft at Draft:Government College of Engineering, Jalgaon. There's nothing here that is sourced so I don't see the gain in merging anything into the draft version. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Is this connected to Government Polytechnic Jalgaon? Despite the lack of apparent gain, I recommend a dirty merge and redirect to Draft:Government College of Engineering, Jalgaon. There is a fair bit of work on related articles waiting for an interested editor. Wikipedia:WikiProject Maharashtra may be interested. It is semi active, don't expect a response in seven days. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
User:David-peterson57/new article name here
- User:David-peterson57/new article name here ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This draft was created in November 2009. The editor also created a screwy page at John Peterson (golfer) (some mis-written redirect) so that was deleted. The page was later separately created in June 2012 and remains today. The formatting here tells me this was copied from another page or somewhere else but I can't figure out where. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to John Peterson (golfer). Copied from his own deleted mainspace writing? Delete and redirect probably. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- The mainspace created was in June 2011 and was just a broken redirect to an IP address. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
User:ClockworkRock/Clockwork
- User:ClockworkRock/Clockwork ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userspace draft from November 2009 that was later copied to mainspace at Clockwork (band), CSD, CSD declined and then deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clockwork (band). It was separately created in October 2010 by User:Clockwork (band) and deleted again. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
April 3, 2016
User:Of Infinite Jest/Pittsburgh, The Greatest City in the World
- User:Of Infinite Jest/Pittsburgh, The Greatest City in the World ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Plug for a self published book. No refs. Stale draft Legacypac (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. A lack of refs isn't w reason to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.97.149 (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence that this would ever be potentially suitable as an article. Also, the IP who !voted Keep is a known troll who wants to abolish all deletion processes on Wikipedia. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Obe92/Tha Gingabredd K∞kie$
- User:Obe92/Tha Gingabredd K∞kie$ ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Garage band article of no value to the project. Legacypac (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - too promotional to be considered a good-faith draft. Probably eligible for G11. A2soup (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Nisala12/ශා. අන්තෝනි දේවස්ථානය බටගම
- User:Nisala12/ශා. අන්තෝනි දේවස්ථානය බටගම ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stale draft by a non contributor not in English. Worse if you search the title this has been indexed amd copied around the web. Legacypac (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Feeding this into Google translate shows it is apparently an extensive good-faith draft, though likely on a non-notable subject. @Legacypac: Is there any policy requiring editors to draft in English (honest question, I'm not sure)? A2soup (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Content obviously needs to be in English, but non-english work someone is translating is fine. This was the only thing the user did, way back in 2011, so it is pretty inconceivable they or someone else is going to do anything productive with this page other then delete it. I've MfD'd and voted on other MfD's for many similar non-English pages and I have yet to see a non-English userpage kept, so there is good precedent to delete amd that is how policy is formed . Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - good-faith, non-problematic draft. Non-English drafts are permitted in userspace. Nom's claim that it has been indexed are false, as one would expect since userspace is NOINDEX. Only the Sinhala wiki talk page has been indexed, and Wikivisually has scraped this page. If people are really concerned about getting it off of Wikivisually (and, IMO, we shouldn't be since this page is apparently non-promotional and Wikivisually is none of our beeswax), replace with {{Userpage blanked}} is a better solution than deletion. No benefit to the project is derived from deletion. A2soup (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Do not say I am making false claims - make you look ignorant. Indeed, the fact it has been scraped means it has been indexed else how does the scrappers find it. Also, my search results will differ from yours. Legacypac (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Indexing means noted by search engines so it can be displayed in results. This has not occurred. Wikivisually is not a search engine, nor has it indexed this page - it has rather copied its contents to one of its own pages. Wikivisually has then been indexed. Our search results may display in different priorities, but you will not have results that I am missing. A2soup (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Do not say I am making false claims - make you look ignorant. Indeed, the fact it has been scraped means it has been indexed else how does the scrappers find it. Also, my search results will differ from yours. Legacypac (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Presumably the author is not using a properly unified global account. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak blanking with inactive userpage template. I'd consider deleting but at the very least I made a request at the intertranswiki project talk page. In the future, I'd suggest people trying to see if Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English will consider drafts and perhaps listing it there rather than just keeping these around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
I don't see why we should bother the people at that project if the author hasn't shown enough confidence in it to try to move it out of the draft stage. Seems like busywork that's unlikely to yield results.A2soup (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Oops, I missed that the author actually did try to submit it. A2soup (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)- Does it seem like a good draft or not? If it is, then we should ask for help in making it viable. If it is not, then why are we keeping this? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- So A2soup is opposed to a plan to maybe get it worked on. How does that build an encyclopedia? Should we leave it another year, 5 years, 10 years or 100 years? Legacypac (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- That would be fine, and would save everyone time. It's gonna stick around the servers as long as they are running whether you delete it or not, and I see nothing on the page requiring maintenance. I have no problem with asking for help making it viable, I just figured the translation people might not appreciate getting a load of half-formed, possibly-not-notable drafts if you were to make it a regular practice. I realize now, though, that this draft was submitted for AfC, so my earlier comment about the author not having faith in it was wrong. So for this one at least, sending it to the translation people is probably a good idea. I have amended my earlier comment accordingly. A2soup (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- So A2soup is opposed to a plan to maybe get it worked on. How does that build an encyclopedia? Should we leave it another year, 5 years, 10 years or 100 years? Legacypac (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Does it seem like a good draft or not? If it is, then we should ask for help in making it viable. If it is not, then why are we keeping this? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I added the google autotranslation here. The page is clearly draft-like, a highly plausible early stage compilation of relevant information, clearly not ready for mainspace but in need of an interested editor. The information is historical, not prone to going "stale", so there should be no time limit imposed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Amasam123abc/MyVacationPages
- User:Amasam123abc/MyVacationPages ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Looks like advertising for a website to me. Legacypac (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Promotional of a website, extremely unlikely to be WP:CORP- or WP:WEB-notable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Princess admin/Princess Bee
- User:Princess admin/Princess Bee ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unreferrance stale draft about Princess Bee a topic already well covered in mainspace. I might just redirect it but for the username that forms part of the page title. Can we have Admin in our usernames? Because it's redundant and any redirect will include an improper username best to delete. Legacypac (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect - possibly inappropriate usernames are irrelevant here, take it up at WP:UAA. We don't delete drafts because we don't like the author's username. Page is mildly promotional, so redirection is preferable to a flat keep. No benefit to the project from deletion, nor any policy-based reason to delete. A2soup (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect. The inappropriate username should be reported to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. I think that they don't care about inactive accounts, and that there is a bot that will respond if this account edits again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Profkls/Creative labor
- User:Profkls/Creative labor ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Soapbox page by a departed editor. No hope of moving this forward or incorporating into some article. Legacypac (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Replace with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. No hope? I disagree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Praveer87/कविता
- User:Praveer87/कविता ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stale draft not in English by a non-contributor back in 2012. Legacypac (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Privileged views arguing English superiority shouldn't be encouraged here. 107.72.97.149 (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not English. In addition, Google Translate suggests it's a poem (not encyclopedic on its own) and may be a copyvio. clpo13(talk) 16:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Obewanz/Miniature GameWorks
- User:Obewanz/Miniature GameWorks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The subject was a NN game company that was speedied nearly 10 years ago and subsequently userfied to the creator. It's never been improved, and the editor hasn't made any Wikipedia edits since 2008. The company subsequently went out of business, and I'd judge that the odds this will ever be improved (let alone to a level suitable for articlespace) to be between zero and less than zero. Ravenswing 10:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- keep. WP:AGF. WP:N does not apply to drafts, no reason not to wait another ten years or so and check again. WP:NODEADLINE 107.72.99.213 (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- If the company is out of business, what difference will ten years make? It's either notable now, or it's not. clpo13(talk) 22:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't wastepaper, and the very fact that there's a deletion process for drafts demonstrates that people do, indeed, feel that there's a purpose to deleting stale drafts. A draft unimproved in ten years, userfied to an editor gone for eight years, about a subject that no longer exists is as stale as it gets. The editor's received his measure of good faith and then some. Ravenswing 23:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a web host for deleted content. ~ RobTalk 22:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete too promotional yes, now that we are here, but nominator should have preferably just blanked with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. It is so old that if the user returned and unblanked, it would strongly imply some new interest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing salvageable here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Draft:তেলুগু ভাষা and Wikipedia:Draft:௨
- Wikipedia:Draft:তেলুগু ভাষা ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Draft:௨ ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
These do not belong in Wikipedia space, tried moving them to Draft space but they are on the title blacklist : Noyster (talk), 09:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The draft named তেলুগু ভাষা is also not in English 172.56.31.63 14:01, 3 April 2016 (PST)
- Instead, things like this call for a helpful template for non English contributions, and for that template to be applied. Helping new users, especially non-English users, is more important than hiding old pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as non-English with no substantive content as per Google Translate. Author has been counselled on foreign-language Wikipedia options. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Priyanka2011/Burial-Temples of Sivatirtha Matha
- User:Priyanka2011/Burial-Temples of Sivatirtha Matha ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Makes no sense, where is this referring too? Wikipedia is not a travel guide and this is a stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Sivatirtha Matha, Old Town#Burial temples of Sivatirtha matha, which is what it's referring to (Google is nice). This is good-faith, non-problematic scratch work by a helpful and productive editor - deletion makes no sense. A2soup (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect per A2soup. Discourage the nominator from attempting to clean up things he is not interested in. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Pressdingteam/tenBennys (Rapper)
- User:Pressdingteam/tenBennys (Rapper) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another non-notable rapper mixtape guy who likely wrote his own promo piece for Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. WP:N does not to user draft. No reason to delete. Rapper could become notable eventually and then this draft is needed.
- Delete as per WP:STALEDRAFT. ~ RobTalk 22:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not per STALEDRAFT, age is irrelevant. Refer author to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete WP:STALEDRAFT Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Pradeep444/Poopadikallu
- User:Pradeep444/Poopadikallu ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No useful content, nearly qualifies as a blank draft. Legacypac (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Topic worthy of coverage in a broader article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - If this is a real village (and Google seems to indicate that it is), then it likely merits its own article per WP:NPLACE. It already makes no sense to delete a good-faith, non-problematic draft on any subject just because it's incomplete, but when that subject clearly merits its own article under our guidelines, it makes even less sense. A2soup (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Popeye4buzz/Steven Hall (comedy dancer)
- User:Popeye4buzz/Steven Hall (comedy dancer) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Non-notable contestant on tv show. No reason for a page. Legacypac (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Plausibly notable non-private BLP. Britain's_Got_Talent_(series_5). Merge and redirect to a new section at Talk:Britain's_Got_Talent_(series_5). These TV show pages have plenty of scope for expansion, but the place to work towards that is the article talk page, not drafting new standalone articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Pontechai/Christine Dawson
- User:Pontechai/Christine Dawson ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Fails WP:ACTOR includes OR and no references as well as being a stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:DENY sock |
---|
- Keep. This could plausibly be turned into a mainspace article in the future. There is a probable path to notability based on her TV roles, even if she isn't notable now. ~ RobTalk 22:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Abandoned userspace draft from a user who has not edited in over 4½ years. It is fanciful to suggest that anything will ever come of it. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- If Rob is correct we should move it into Draft space so others might see and work on it. Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Old business
April 3, 2016
User:Ameo14
- User:Ameo14 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Fake article on a userpage Legacypac (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm not sure what "fake article" means in this context. Without making any judgment on its notability, dub house is a real thing and this is a draft for an article on it, as is clearly indicated by the {{Userspace draft}} template atop the page. Dub house was previously deleted but it was an A1 speedy, which means this draft could not be a re-creation of the deleted article. The draft is obviously good-faith, non-problematic, and even competently made - I have no idea why it's up for deletion. If people are really concerned about the maintenance work it may require or don't think the draft template is sufficient to identify it as a draft, replace with {{Userpage blanked}} would be a better solution than deletion, although I think those concerns are non-issues anyways. A2soup (talk) 06:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Alwaysinfamous/Rodney King and Police Brutality
- User:Alwaysinfamous/Rodney King and Police Brutality ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Obvious copy of mainspace dropped here by an acct that never did anything to it or anything elsewhere. Legacypac (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Alex9226/Enter your new article name here
- User:Alex9226/Enter your new article name here ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The only edit by this acct was to drop tbis spanish page here in 2010. Even if it could be translated, why work with a 2010 version? Legacypac (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Alex.madden/Baxter Ball
- User:Alex.madden/Baxter Ball ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Short something about a teacher likely created by a bored student. As a private person, he should not have his name attached to a wikipedia page like this. Delete it. Legacypac (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Drafts are noindexed so it doesn't matter. No basis for deletion provided. 107.72.99.213 (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:NOTWEBHOST. This isn't encyclopedic in any way. ~ RobTalk 22:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Alecdurberville/Helen cuinn
- User:Alecdurberville/Helen cuinn ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unsourced bio about someone who has worked as a cleaner and lapdancer (yup!) and did some school theater. NOTAWEBHOST Legacypac (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Article hasn't been active for over four years. It's possible that she's now notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.97.149 (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Or not. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5320821/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm Legacypac (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Aled2305/sandbox/MEGA
- User:Aled2305/sandbox/MEGA ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:UP#COPIES of Mega (service) and stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
April 2, 2016
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tianna Bech |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 00:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Tianna Bech
WP:NOTFACEBOOK. North America1000 23:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Metalliummaxillaryphobia |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 00:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Metalliummaxillaryphobia
WP:NOTMADEUP. North America1000 23:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bikash Jel Munduri |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 00:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Bikash Jel Munduri
WP:NOTFACEBOOK. North America1000 23:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Alex From Target |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 00:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Alex From Target
Article in main namespace was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex from Target (2nd nomination). North America1000 23:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Hoan Arellano Nguyen |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 00:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Hoan Arellano Nguyen
WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 23:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Luuap |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 00:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Luuap
WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. North America1000 23:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sarah Salvini |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 00:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Sarah Salvini
WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. North America1000 23:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Blestin V Bency |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 00:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Blestin V Bency
WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 23:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Damian Braun |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 00:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Damian Braun
WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. North America1000 23:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tyler Brignone |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 00:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Tyler Brignone
WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. North America1000 23:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Jordan Graham |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 00:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Jordan Graham
WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. North America1000 23:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Blue Teddy Bear |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 00:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Blue Teddy Bear
WP:NOTMADEUP. North America1000 23:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sale (Price Reduction) |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 00:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Sale (Price Reduction)
WP:NOTDICT. North America1000 23:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tippy Tom |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 00:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Tippy Tom
WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. North America1000 23:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ilan Meltz |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 00:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Ilan Meltz
WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. North America1000 23:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Fares Mohamed Yehia Fathallah |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 00:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Fares Mohamed Yehia Fathallah
WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. North America1000 23:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
User:Al.rao/The case of the fugitive nurse
- User:Al.rao/The case of the fugitive nurse ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
page consisting almost entirely of a plot summary of a book. There is a criteria that covers this - anyone know what it's called? Stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Akozick/Kozicki Coat of Arms
- User:Akozick/Kozicki Coat of Arms ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Coat of Arms for a person with no wikipedia article. No where to use this so delete the stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – The plot is a bit thicker than that, because this draft was in fact turned into an article already at Kozicki coat of arms. I've just PRODed the article, since it gives just as little indication of why this coat of arms is notable. Not sure what to do about a userspace draft though. —Nizolan (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Akf1000/Wet and Forget |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC) User:Akf1000/Wet and Forget
Non-notable product/company. Long stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Humblality |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Humblality
WP:NOTMADEUP. WP:NOTDICT. North America1000 22:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nick Hoffland |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Nick Hoffland
WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. North America1000 22:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Andrew Foster |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Andrew Foster
WP:NOTNEWS North America1000 22:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cj Borika |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Cj Borika
WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. North America1000 22:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nhlanhla Treasure Kubheka |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Nhlanhla Treasure Kubheka
WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. North America1000 22:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ensighten, Inc. |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Ensighten, Inc.
WP:NOTFORUM. North America1000 22:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Callum Smith (SmithVsGaming) |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Callum Smith (SmithVsGaming)
WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 21:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cindy Octaviany |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Cindy Octaviany
WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 21:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:El pito chonchito |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:El pito chonchito
WP:NOTESSAY. WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 21:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Draft:Duplekita
- Draft:Duplekita ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This page was deleted at AfD just recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duplekita. As such the restoration to draftspace is pointless unless someone can establish notability. This should be deleted as disruption and per the AfD. Legacypac (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - The content at Duplekita was only deleted because of your inappropriate move. As the content was nominated for deletion and subsequently deleted, it clearly wasn't suitable for the mainspace. You actually !voted "Delete per nom, thanks for the good analysis" in the deletion discussion. I contested the deletion and requested restoration in a proper namespace via the proper process. This nomination is mischaracterizing and further disruption by Legacypac.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and {{trout}} for these never-ending time-wasting requests to delete drafts. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Godsy is the time waster bring back a deleted draft and he is uncivil to boot. Misrepresents my actions amd acts like a complete troll. Get a life amd stop stalking my edits Godsy. Legacypac (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Further you misrepresent the deletion reason. I thought coverage by the CBC was good for notability but that was shown to be insufficient. That is why i supported deletion. Legacypac (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete. The process wonkery is irrelevant if the restoration was not a good faith effort to actually work on the thing. Only admins can see this but there were also numerous page moves that were deleted via CSD criteria. One example is Strategic Biomass Solutions. Those haven't been restored because no one has successfully argued for a wholesale reversal and restoration of Legacypac's conduct. As such, I don't see why we should be restoring the AFD deletions and not the CSD deletions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Ricky81682: That isn't true. Non-admins can see them too: Special:Log/Legacypac. All the content speedily deleted under non-general speedy deletion criteria have been restored at RfU. Strategic Biomass Solutions was deleted under two criteria, one of which was general (i.e. it would have applied to the userspace as well).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Fine. I'll support a very weak keep just to end all this nonsense. I'm assuming someone actually intends to work on this draft and it's not just here because people presume the original author will return and do it for them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability concerns have been established as not a sufficient reason to delete in DraftSpace or UserSpace. Allow it to go through the normal Draft process. If there is a wish to delete more quickly drafts of dubious notability, establish consensus to do so, but I strongly recommend against it as notability testing is hard work. The exercise would not be worth the work. Classifying drafts of dubious notability may be helpful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:William frank mansfield |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:William frank mansfield
WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 21:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Draft:Solitaire & Mahjong
- Draft:Solitaire & Mahjong ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This was deleted at AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Solitaire_&_Mahjong as not notable, and now restored and moved to Draft space at a user's request. They created a redirect from another user's space to this page which should also be deleted as dependent on a deleted page. Legacypac (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - The content at Duplekita was only deleted because of your inappropriate move. As the content was nominated for deletion and subsequently deleted, it clearly wasn't suitable for the mainspace. I contested the deletion and requested restoration in a proper namespace via the proper process. This nomination is mischaracterizing and further disruption by Legacypac.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- A vote based on assuming bad faith, incorrect assumptions and a personal attack should be ignored. No policy reason give. to keep this and override the AfD consensus Legacypac (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete. The process wonkery is irrelevant if the restoration was not a good faith effort to actually work on the thing. Only admins can see this but there were also numerous page moves that were deleted via CSD criteria. One example is Strategic Biomass Solutions. Those haven't been restored because no one has successfully argued for a wholesale reversal and restoration of Legacypac's conduct. As such, I don't see why we should be restoring the AFD deletions and not the CSD deletions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Ricky81682: That is not true. Non-admins can see them too: Special:Log/Legacypac. All the content speedily deleted under non-general speedy deletion criteria have been restored at RfU. Strategic Biomass Solutions was deleted under two criteria, one of which was general (i.e. it would have applied to the userspace as well).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Proposing a very weak keep on the assumption that someone actually intends to work on this draft and it's not simply better on the original editor returning after four years to do it for them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Andrei.smolnikov/Naum Shusterman
- User:Andrei.smolnikov/Naum Shusterman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unimproved copy of Naum Shusterman in userspace since 2012. WP:UP#COPIES Legacypac (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Amul2k12/Keerti Nagpure
- User:Amul2k12/Keerti Nagpure ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Promotional page about a non-notable actress. Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Draft indicates that she could become a notable person. Better to improve and mainspace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.97.194 (talk • contribs) 13:09, April 2, 2016
-
- Go for it IP since no one has tried to improve it since Aug 2012 - you have until this MfD closes. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- no, she could become notable in ten years. At which point, we would have start all over on this. What is gained by deleting this potential article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.97.194 (talk • contribs) 15:49, April 2, 2016
- WP:TOOSOON. She can get an article when she's notable. clpo13(talk) 23:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- And if this was an article, I would say "good point, Clpo13". But it isn't, it's a draft. There's not reason I can see to delete this. Keep. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- no, she could become notable in ten years. At which point, we would have start all over on this. What is gained by deleting this potential article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.97.194 (talk • contribs) 15:49, April 2, 2016
- Go for it IP since no one has tried to improve it since Aug 2012 - you have until this MfD closes. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually it is in userspace and not draft space. It is a NOTAWEBHOST violation if there is no chance she meets WP:ACTOR. We don't need to wait another 10 years to assess that. Legacypac (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Amwrap/new article name here
- User:Amwrap/new article name here ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2009 stale draft from a user that never did anything else. Vanity piece about a non-notable rapper. Legacypac (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Draft asserts multiple album releases and extensive notoriety. Refusal to search for sources is not a reason to delete. 107.72.97.194 (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. No plausible path to mainspace. ~ RobTalk 20:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The legend of kaj the hacker |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:The legend of kaj the hacker
WP:NOTWEBHOST. No encyclopedic value here. ~ RobTalk 17:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pubert addams |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Pubert addams
WP:NOTWIKIA. This is crufty stuff from a fan of Achievement Hunter. ~ RobTalk 16:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Laser replaces scalpel-partly mechanical- and electroinstruments in surgery. That shows history of urology |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Laser replaces scalpel-partly mechanical- and electroinstruments in surgery. That shows history of urology
WP:NOTESSAY. ~ RobTalk 16:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
User:Christian-New Age Dialogue/Christian-New Age dialogue
- User:Christian-New Age Dialogue/Christian-New Age dialogue ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Abandoned copy of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian-New Age dialogue, no edits on it or by editor since 2011 Doug Weller talk 08:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rhobite/sandbox |
---|
The result of the discussion was Keep, reset sandbox. — xaosflux Talk 23:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC) User:Rhobite/sandbox
February 2006 test consisting of the lede from Wal-Mart. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
|
User:Throup/sandbox/PC World
- User:Throup/sandbox/PC World ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Copy of Dixons Retail created in October 2005 and the editor never edited the mainspace version after stopping editing 15 days later. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
April 1, 2016
User:Lord Genesis Saway
- User:Lord Genesis Saway ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:FAKEARTICLE and probable autobiography. Whpq (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Preet Model
- User:Preet Model ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:FAKEARTICLE, and probable autobiography. Whpq (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
User:CandyCityEnt
- User:CandyCityEnt ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:FAKEARTICLE on what is likely an autobiography. Whpq (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Tag abuse/Noticeboard
- Wikipedia:Tag abuse/Noticeboard ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
An unused project page that was created over 6 years ago and (hasn't) ever been used. Feinoha Talk 21:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, clearly unused, unlikely to be used as well. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Solrachet/Pokemon: Den of Ages
- User:Solrachet/Pokemon: Den of Ages ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userspace draft from 2008 for a non-notable video game. Userified after Pokemon: Den of Ages deleted it for the third time in April 2008 for A7 issues. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
User:ASOTMKX/Myon & Shane 54
- User:ASOTMKX/Myon & Shane 54 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft from June 2013 created by a now-blocked sockpuppet. Another admin can check but this is actually a copyright violation from the last deleted version of Myon & Shane 54 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myon & Shane 54. If someone wants to continue this, then the original should be restored into a draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
User:ASOTMKX/Simon Patterson (musician)
- User:ASOTMKX/Simon Patterson (musician) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userspace draft created in September 2012 but a blocked sock. Simon Patterson (musician) was already created in 2011 so there was no need for this separate version and there's no connected history. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Mamta Jagdish Dhody
- User:Mamta Jagdish Dhody ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Fake article Greek Legend (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as clearly not acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
March 31, 2016
User:Turtlenater
- User:Turtlenater ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userspace draft that seems to consists of WP:OR or a portion about The Hunger Games from September 2011. Not necessarily a U5 but it's closer to a userspace draft of an article that is already around. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to The Hunger Games. User has only just been welcomed. WP:AGF and assume that when the user returns, he will read the clear message and better understand Wikipedia. Deletion would be heavy-handed, but delete and redirect or delete and point the user to The Hunger Games would be acceptable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as unlikely needed. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Mary Patten
- Draft:Mary Patten ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There is already an article on Mary Patten in the mainspace. I incorporated the relevant information from this article which wasn't in the article on mainspace. There is no need for this draft any longer. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Question - In general practice, what procedure is there (if any) for when a page is created for which there already exists a draft. (This draft was created before the mainspace article). If the nominator has already incorporated material into the existing article, there's not really a reason to keep this draft, but if we have a draft that has content used in a later-created mainspace article, is a history merge possible? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to mainspace version. The addition with this edit is fine and all but it doesn't give the full attribution to the original creators to the content which can only be done if the link in the edit summary goes to a valid article. We need to keep this draft but since it's not in use, we may as well redirect. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Malevious/Carey Martin
- User:Malevious/Carey Martin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Old 2007 userspace draft of Carey Martin. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as not needed. SwisterTwister talk 20:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Paul730/Buffy Summers
- User:Paul730/Buffy Summers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Old userspace draft of Buffy Summers. First version didn't contain the actual attribution but it was clearly from an old version of the same article. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as not needed. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Buaco/sandbox
- User:Buaco/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nine and a half year old draft infobox for a school article already at Instituto Libre de Segunda Enseñanza. This infobox is populating Category:Pages with missing files. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as unlikely needed. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
March 30, 2016
User:East London Line/Sandbox
- User:East London Line/Sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:NOTWEBHOST, specifically WP:NOTGUIDE. The page seems to be intended to display up to date, current information on conditions of the London Underground (such as which stations currently have broken lifts or which lines have service issues) and transportation there in general, as some sort of travel guide or information service. The user has not made a main space edit in three years, which would indicate the information is not meant to improve articles. I have attempted to ask this user about the content, but they have not replied- and has not posted to their talk page since 2010. This content was apparently on their main user page in 2009 when it was suggested for deletion and it was kept on the grounds that it might be helpful(and was later moved), but that doesn't seem to have been borne out. Some of the reasons given in that page still seem relevant. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would add that I had tagged it as CSD U5 but was declined on the grounds that they had made too many main space edits(about 125). 331dot (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Blank since this is the user's sandbox page. This content is clearly not appropriate for Wikipedia, but since it's their sandbox, it should be blanked and replaced with the standard user sandbox template. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Milozoppini
- User:Milozoppini ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
fake article Greek Legend (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Same page was created at Draft:Milo Zoppini and then at Milo Zoppini. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:U.S. Route 33 Business (Stanardsville, Virginia) |
---|
The result of the discussion was History Merge. — xaosflux Talk 23:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:U.S. Route 33 Business (Stanardsville, Virginia)
Stale draft with no content outside of an infobox. Questionable notability on its own, so unlikely to ever develop into an article –Fredddie™ 01:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
|
March 29, 2016
Draft:State of the Nation Address 2015
- Draft:State of the Nation Address 2015 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Time stamp for relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
One line non-G13 draft from February 2015 already covered by 2015 State of the Union Address. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as not useful. Even the title is wrong. Legacypac (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Just blank. AfC / DraftSpace needs some process to deal with trivial things, a process that doesn't involve MfD. These worthless harmless pages do not need to be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- How about Move to mainspace, because this actually is the correct and verifiable name and date for the 2015 State of the Nation Address in South Africa? To help other people avoid making the same US-centric mistake, I'll go add the name of the relevant country to the text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'll agree with that. Sorry, it didn't even click to me that we're talking about another nation's SOTU address. I'll withdraw the nomination since the draft needs work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's easy to make an honest mistake like that. If I were in charge of the world, every country would be required to have radically different names for everything, just to make our work easier. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- In case this isn't clear, I've withdrawn my nomination. There is however a delete vote here. Consensus should be obvious though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's easy to make an honest mistake like that. If I were in charge of the world, every country would be required to have radically different names for everything, just to make our work easier. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'll agree with that. Sorry, it didn't even click to me that we're talking about another nation's SOTU address. I'll withdraw the nomination since the draft needs work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Currently there are no other articles about specific annual State of the Nation Address (South Africa) and that article is quite short so this is unlikely be built out into an article. At best, it could be merged with the existing article. Legacypac (talk) 02:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Relisting is a waste of time if the relister doesn't say anything.
- Relisting as a means of advertising a discussion is a flawed idea.
- Relisting has extended the bureaucratic restraint on fixing the title, and delays the G13 process. There never was any good reason to list this page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
-
Or you could just given an opinion here and someone could close this thing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)- Let me correct this. This is a draft where the nominator has withdrawn his nomination and suggested a merger into a mainspace article on the topic. Nevertheless, because in part of your strange blank vote, Legacypac's delete vote and the two merge votes, it's not clear what to do. Even when you have it in the bag, MFD is a nightmare. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is a good topic, worthy of drafting. But currently it is far too drafty for mainspace. I think it should be kept, renamed per above, moved to draftspace, and allowed to be treated as any drafty draft. If the user returned, he may obtain a WP:REFUND at any time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as there's hardly a large amount to suggest actually keeping. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- If someone wants to merge this ok, but it adds nothing to the other article except perhaps the ref. We have expended far more effort on this stub then the creater that spent about 60 seconds on it. Legacypac (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lær Kidsa Koding! |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Lær Kidsa Koding!
Non-English non-AFC draft from June 2014. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Wizards F.C |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Wizards F.C
Non-AFC draft from November 2014 for what seems like a non-notable youth football team. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
|
March 28, 2016
User:Mlindstr/Timelapse
- User:Mlindstr/Timelapse ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userspace draft from August 2006 that was later created (a month later) at Timelapse (video game) independently. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete ads nothing to the mainspace article. redundant. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to the mainspace article is a better action because:
-
- it doesn't require MfD
- doesn't require an admin
- takes the author to the proper place should he look it up
- Doesn't require review, because if a mistake is made the mistake can be fixed by any editor
- Doesn't hide bits of the user's contribution history.
- --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wholeheartedly agree, redirecting should be the standard action for drafts redundant to mainspace. A2soup (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Except I don't prefer the idea of people just randomly changing drafts in userspace without notice to the editor (blanking or redirects). I only do it if the mainspace version is actually the same editor (or just history merge it). If you actually believe that people's userspaces should be their own, it seems odd that you also want people to just unilaterally change other people's drafts without any notice or explanation or even admin review. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think that is inherent bad faith on your part to ascribe a redirect to a superior page as "random". If someone were to make a random change to others' userpages, they should be warned and blocked if it continues, but in the absence of evidence of disruptive edits, it is WP:AGF to assume that the editor making the edit is doing it for a good reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Fine, if you think editors should have their work just redirected or blanked without notice to them, that's up to you. I find the idea of unilateral blanking or redirecting without any notice more disruptive to an editor's experience here than taking a page to MFD. What is the point of WP:UP#COPIES which say you aren't supposed to have copies of mainspace articles if all you are going to do is make redirects out of them and then presume that editors who are deliberately copying mainspace articles aren't going to be interested in restoring it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think that is inherent bad faith on your part to ascribe a redirect to a superior page as "random". If someone were to make a random change to others' userpages, they should be warned and blocked if it continues, but in the absence of evidence of disruptive edits, it is WP:AGF to assume that the editor making the edit is doing it for a good reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Abandoned userspace drafts that do not meet existing CSD criteria are harmless and can be safely ignored. 166.170.47.15 (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Peidu/Space Conflict
- User:Peidu/Space Conflict ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userspace draft last edited in 2007. Article was formerly in mainspace but userified in June 2006 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Conflict. According to the AFD, this was created by someone with a COI. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Abandoned userspace drafts that do not meet existing CSD criteria are harmless and can be safely ignored. 166.170.47.15 (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Blank, largely due to the criticisms voiced in the old AfD, but do not delete because there was no finding of "delete" at the AfD, therefore it cannot be claimed "deleted at AfD" and that clause of WP:UP#COPIES therefore doesn't apply. I see no reason to thoroughly examine the material and have not done so. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Andretamale/The Coup (book)
- User:Andretamale/The Coup (book) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stale draft that adds nothing to The Coup (Updike novel) and no point of a redirect. Legacypac (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Points for redirecting include:
-
- Keeps the user's edit history available for review;
- serves the user should he return looking for his work;
- supports any external invcoming links, such as the user's offline notes or bookmarks.
- Redirect. No reason to delete, but should be redirected because any interest in this subject should be first referred to the mainspace article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete There's no need as the histories are unrelated. I don't know what's the point of saving the fact that the editor created a draft version of a page we already have (deleted edits are vieweable by admins). The editor was already notified on their talk page so they will know what happened. If the editor has external incoming links to draftspace, that kind of defeats the whole idea of noindexing and generally giving more leeway to drafts than mainspace. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- No need to keep the history. delete with reference to The Coup (Updike novel), or delete and redirect to The Coup (Updike novel), or delete noting The Coup (Updike novel) in the deletion summary are all effectively the same as redirect except one has far less administrative overhead than the others.
- Incoming links does not defeat noindexing. Noindexing stops search engines from showing the page to other people looking for things like it, it is not intended to prevent bookmarking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Antidiskriminator/Drafts of articles/List of notable dead people with anti-Serb sentiment
- User:Antidiskriminator/Drafts of articles/List of notable dead people with anti-Serb sentiment ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There is so much wrong with this. Putting dead people on a list by what group they don't like is a little much, and lining them up with Hitler is over the top. No encyclopedic topic. Legacypac (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- One of many draft and actual WP:COATRACKs in the Balkans area. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, but merge to talk page of the relevant parent article. Not so indisputabley unsuitable. WP:COATRACK implies care is required. Move all to a new section at Talk:Anti-Serb sentiment. Spinout articles, especially possibly WP:NPOV issue spinout articles, should begin from the main article where interested editors can see what is happening. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes this user has a few like this. This looked to be the most problimatic at quick glance, and a good test case. Legacypac (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think, abandoned material so closely related to an article, possibly partly suitable for inclusion in the article or as a spinout article, would in general be best merged to the article talk page. The policy supporting this would be WP:PRESERVE. Is it agreeable for you to merge and redirecting these things to a talk page section, where appropriate? I don't anticipate objection from the talk page, but would be interested in hearing about it if it happens. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Angelbo/Draft of Regiments of Denmark
- User:Angelbo/Draft of Regiments of Denmark ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
6 year old stale draft in Danish (for the bit that is there). Legacypac (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Replace with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. Barely any material there, but clearly is the start of the user's idea for building content. Although the user has been inactive for a long time, there is no advantage to assuming he will not return, preventing his access to his old ideas, and making his returned unwelcomed. There are no problems with the minimal content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as nothing imaginably acceptable, account now seems to be retired. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- @SwisterTwister: What benefit to the project does such a deletion provide? A2soup (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Move to Regiments of Denmark and make it into a redirect to List of Danish regiments. Same topic, plausible redirect, so rather than creating a redirect separately, might as well keep this old history somewhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
March 26, 2016
User:Allycat1208/Hope Witsell
- User:Allycat1208/Hope Witsell ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This one is a little tricky. The subject got media coverage and this is a tragic story. Does WP:BLP1E apply here? Is there good reason this page should be kept or deleted? I'm going to say Delete as inappropriately negative about the subject. Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- BLP1E doesn't technically apply since the subject is not living or recently deceased, but given the subject matter a WP:COMMONSENSE-based argument isn't inappropriate. We (unfortunately) have List of suicides which have been attributed to bullying, which is a potential merge target. VQuakr (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Looking at that list - nearly all the names have articles. That suggests mainspace it and include a link and summary in the list. Legacypac (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I considered that, but there doesn't seem to ever have been a consensus on the talk page of that article to restrict the list to entries with articles. IMO Hope Witsell would not satisfy the requirements for a stand-alone article per WP:ONEEVENT, so better to merge it now and avoid a 2nd round of processing over in article space. VQuakr (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at that list - nearly all the names have articles. That suggests mainspace it and include a link and summary in the list. Legacypac (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Abandoned userspace drafts that do not meet existing CSD criteria are harmless and can be safely ignored. 166.170.46.82 (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Scorsi914/3rd World Farmer
- User:Scorsi914/3rd World Farmer ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userspace draft from 2010-2011 that was later and independently created in mainspace at 3rd World Farmer. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Dan Pero Manescu
- Draft:Dan Pero Manescu ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Time stamp for relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I know this is a fairly recent draft, but there are good reasons for deleting it now. First, an article on the topic was deleted back in 2012. Second, the creator of that article and at least one sockpuppet were indefinitely blocked: one, two. Thus, there is good reason to assume that the draft creator, also a single-purpose account, is himself a sockpuppet. Third, the draft was declined and there is no realistic chance of the topic being accepted. - Biruitorul Talk 15:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
User:VanishedUser 23asdsalkaka/Partysandbox
- User:VanishedUser 23asdsalkaka/Partysandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
-
- Time stamp to re-sort for relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
Old userspace essay from an editor who requested to vanish. Note that the editor's name is inadvertently left here so to respect the vanish, we should delete it. The editor has either vanished and won't return so this isn't needed also or the editor could undo the vanish at which point they can request reinstatement if they want. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Valid user essay, indeed important and pertinent. The philosophy of the essay also would oppose busybodies cleaning retired user's userspace. Highlighting a vanished user's name, inadvertently left, on a high profile process page, was irresponsible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- The essay is in the userspace of the equivalent of say a blocked user, namely someone who isn't going to return under that name. If there's no indication that someone else supports the essay (or enough support to move it to Wikipedia space), how is keeping it anything but a WP:WEBHOST issue? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Still Keep. Valid essay, clearly relevant to Wikipedia. No has four explicit supporters, although I don't support every choice of word. Move to ProjectSpace, as a valid, well-intentioned, multi-user supported project essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Move to Project space clearly this is an essay that resonates with some people. Brustopher (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Move to Project space but remove the vanished user's signature to respect their privacy. ~ RobTalk 21:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
User:The Ungovernable Force/Wikiproject Anthropology
- User:The Ungovernable Force/Wikiproject Anthropology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Time stamp to sort relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Old userspace project-looking page that seems to have been the precursor to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropology. I don't know if this is needed now but I asked at the project page. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- NB. the userpage guidance against userpages that look like project pages was imposed in the very early days to discourage and prevent further instances of policy documentation being located in userspace. Back then, policy was supposed to be at meta, but early evolutionary steps saw editors preferring to keep policy discussions on the same site. It was never intended to be a rule against things looking like WikiProjects. However, organising old pages by putting them in their proper places, whether Portal Space, of WikiProject subpages, might seem a good idea. I would disagree that it is a good idea, observing that Portal Space and WikiProjects, with few exceptions, are very far into terminal decline, and that a cleaning service for ghost towns is probably not a productive endeavour, but do feel free to wikt:knock yourself out, seeking permission at MfD to do this is not required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sysacom R&D plus |
---|
The result of the discussion was speedy delete - no content. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sysacom R&D plus
This page consists nothing more than its creator asking a question. This is not a draft... Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
|
Draft:John Paul Kelly
- Draft:John Paul Kelly ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
-
- Another time stamp. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Time stamp correction for relisting below. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
-
May 2014 draft already covered by John Paul Kelly. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete as not needed and not useful. Need to clear stale draft backlog. Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Redirect to the mainspace article. There is no need or reason for deletion. These space-wasting nominations are to be discouraged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Delete as unlikely needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Delete - Not needed, get rid. JMHamo (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)- Delete per JMHamo. No reason to redirect a draft back to mainspace. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to John Paul Kelly. North America1000 16:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Neutral. Going with the strike above. The redirect target I suggested is for a different subject. North America1000 22:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Redirect per User:Northamerica1000. This is the standard way of dealing with duplications. No reason to delete. 103.6.159.92 (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Redirect to mainspace article. This is the standard way to deal with a duplication in userspace. Please read the instructions at the top of the "Miscellany for deletion" page (the page you are looking at now): "Note that we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Please only nominate pages that are problematic under our guidelines." And under WP:STALE, stale drafts should only be deleted if "problematic even if blanked," which is not true here.Fagles (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I've have completely discounted every above comment and relisted this discussion. It took me only ten seconds to see that this draft and the linked article are not about the same person (they don't even play the same sport, for God's sakes), and that the similarly-named John-Paul Kelly is yet a third person. As a result, every single above vote is based on a false premise, and this whole discussion needs to re-start from scratch. Courtesy pings: @Ricky81682:@Legacypac:@SmokeyJoe:@JMHamo:@Chrisw80:@Northamerica1000:@Fagles: Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
It's a BLP with no references. I can't find any confirmation he existed, so unless someone can come up with sources, it should be 'deleted. He is not either of the two Rugby players listed at John_Kelly either. Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Please don't strike-through my comments, my comment still stands irrespective. How do you know I was operating under a false premise? Chrisw80 (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Oiyarbepsy, you are quite right. It is a BLP, but I see no BLP issues. It makes some grand notability claims, without sources, and I fail to verify them using google. I would prefer to see it go through the normal Draft/AfC process. It is not the business of MfD to review every poor draft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- It's not an AFC page so there is not draft/AFC process at play here. If it's not the same person, it seems like a hoax then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Re Hoax? It is not a hoax, just yet another JPK footballer. I am pretty he is not Wikipedia-notable, but then I have a decided disinterest in WP:ATHLETE articles. I am tempted to say that most of them should be merged and redirected to list/table articles on teams by period. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Re: not an AfC page. I have never understood the distinction between an AfC page in DraftSpace and a non-AfC page in DraftSpace. I'm a bit surprised that there is a distinction. I am aware of controversy concerning third parties adding the AfC template to userpage drafts, but that's a userpage user ownership issue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- G13 applies to AFC pages period, regardless of namespace. It doesn't apply to non-AFC pages. Draftspace is just another namespace and so deletion there falls under the general deletion guidelines. This is what User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report was created to find, old drafts from draftspace that would not fall under G13 since they aren't AFC drafts (the expansion of G13 has been repeatedly rejected). Now the draft itself alleges that this person played for Exeter Chiefs for over a decade including numerous championships. Ignoring the fact that Exeter Chiefs is a top domestic rugby level team, for all the lauding and congratulations on the page, there is no mention of him anywhere. The biography, if accurate, would pass Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Rugby_union but again, very strange. As such, I think it's more likely a hoax and given that it is unsourced BLP with almost nothing of substance, I tend to vote delete because I find many people do care about the creation credit for pages and having a draft already in existence but poorly done will keep away the people who care about that versus deleting it (analogous to how you see WP:REDLINKS policy here). Nevertheless, I posted a comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union#Draft:John_Paul_Kelly asking for confirmation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's not an AFC page so there is not draft/AFC process at play here. If it's not the same person, it seems like a hoax then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Abandoned userspace drafts that do not meet existing CSD criteria are harmless and can be safely ignored. 166.170.46.82 (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as apparent hoax. If the claims made were true, some confirmation could surely be found, but although "he represented Exeter Rugby Club for over a decade" he is not mentioned in this history of Exeter Rugby Club, nor does Googling "John Kelly captain Devon rugby" find any confirmation that he "captained Devon to countless County successes". JohnCD (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
User:DMorpheus/Sandbox
- User:DMorpheus/Sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Time stamp for relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Draft from 2007 already covered by Operation Cobra. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Blank and add {{Sandbox notice}} and {{Inactive userpage blanked}} atop the page. North America1000 09:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- What about WP:UP#COPIES? That template implies that the editor should continue working on that draft even though a mainspace version exists. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682: Scroll down on the page and notice the "Normandy stub" section, which is not present in the main article. The entire sandbox page is not a copy of the article. North America1000 04:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's still a many year old draft. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to talk about WP:STALEDRAFT, is this page "entirely unsuitable"? A2soup (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's still a many year old draft. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682: Scroll down on the page and notice the "Normandy stub" section, which is not present in the main article. The entire sandbox page is not a copy of the article. North America1000 04:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- What about WP:UP#COPIES? That template implies that the editor should continue working on that draft even though a mainspace version exists. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- WP:UP#COPIES doesn't apply.
- Redirect and blank noting the mainspace article are basically the same thing. Why relist this? There never was a deletion rationale, and still has been none. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Rutglez/sandbox/Infobox/History
- User:Rutglez/sandbox/Infobox/History ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Time stamp for relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Another orphaned infobox for World War II. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with orphaned anything in userspace! The problem with this is probably that it is a pointless copy of an infobox in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- It's an infobox which to me is more akin to a template than an article when it's not used anywhere (some infoboxes show up in multiple places). At which point, if this was in template space, it would qualify for deletion under TFD based on non-use. Otherwise, fine, it's a draft for a portion of the World War II article when we already have that portion of the article in existence today at World War II right now in violation of WP:UP#COPIES. Do you think it should be kept? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Reasonable leeway and presumed responsibility for productive users to manage their own userspace. Nominating these things implies that you think leeway in userspace should be less that it is, and that these productive Wikipedians on wikibreak were irresponsible. In other words, deletion serves to alienate old Wikipedians. Entirely a negative action. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's an infobox which to me is more akin to a template than an article when it's not used anywhere (some infoboxes show up in multiple places). At which point, if this was in template space, it would qualify for deletion under TFD based on non-use. Otherwise, fine, it's a draft for a portion of the World War II article when we already have that portion of the article in existence today at World War II right now in violation of WP:UP#COPIES. Do you think it should be kept? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete since it seems to fall under WP:UP#NOTSUITED Legacypac (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Aegism100/sandbox
- User:Aegism100/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Aegism100/The Conjunctive Theory of Art ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Time stamp for relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
This term never caught on. It seems to be something coined in one book in 2007 and ignored by the world [20] The user never did anything but create these pages. There is no prospect this will be or should be improved or moved to mainspace. Basically a NOTAWEBHOST violation, not really hoax but definitely something invented with no RS backing it up. Delete both pages. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Reasonable draft idea, reasonable draft material including references. Verifiable, may be useful in other articles. This is not the sort of cruft that should be deleted as definitely worthless, it is OK indefinitely in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Stale, unreferenced stub. It does not appear that a reasonable case of notability could be made. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- To delete on the basis of questioned notability contravenes the clear consensus demonstrated at Wikipedia_talk:N#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F. To examine wikipedia-notability properly takes a lot of effort. At a minimum, the links provides at AfD should be presented. I'm thinking we need a WP:DfD, Drafts for Deletion. MfD is not set up for notability-analysis. Criteria for deletion of drafts are different to that for deletion of articles. Please stop these nominations and work with the community in developing a consensus for what to do with drafts of unclear potential, like this one. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- To be clearer: I think that this stub should be deleted because it is stale--created and abandoned in 2012 by a SPA editor who has also abandoned WP. That it also appears to be unnotable is a reason not to attempt to salvage the material, however miniscule. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as a stale draft that's extraordinarily unlikely to yield anything of use to the encyclopedia. ~ RobTalk 21:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - this is a good-faith, non-problematic draft. Its deletion provides no benefit to the project (or can someone point out a benefit?). A2soup (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Amol.Gaitonde/Bangalore Real Estate
- User:Amol.Gaitonde/Bangalore Real Estate ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not a viable article just a stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as nothing for a better acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 03:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Blank and apply {{Userpage blanked}} per WP:STALEDRAFT.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Albatalab/Comorian passport
- User:Albatalab/Comorian passport ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not enough for an article, too obvious. Likely covered elsewhere anyway. Old stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Blank and apply {{Userpage blanked}} per WP:STALEDRAFT.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep with a bias against blanking, as this sort of work should be encouraged. Agree it is probably insufficient for its own article, but I don't think the content is currently in Wikipedia. I get no hits searching "passport" on Comoros. Additionally, draft is as non-problematic as can be and no benefit is derived from deletion (or blanking, for that matter). A2soup (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Already exists Comorian passport. This userpage is redundant. Legacypac (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Whoops, I didn't even check for an article - since your nom stated "not enough for an article", I assumed there wasn't one. In any case, I still see no benefit to the project from deleting this good-faith draft. I would be okay with redirecting to the mainspace page (unless you intend to AfD it). A2soup (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
March 25, 2016
User:Raime/Skyline rankings
- User:Raime/Skyline rankings ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a userspace draft that has been around since 2007 but I'm not sure it's anything more than WP:OR to "rank" skylines in the United States. This isn't List of tallest buildings in the United States which is objective but the 500/295/"highrises" metrics here (and it's not clear what is the actual ranking based on) all seem subjective to me. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Skyline is one of the more, let's go with unique, articles I've seen in some time. As for this draft, it includes an interesting collection of images. Any potential use for it to be converted to a Commons gallery? VQuakr (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Compare to List of cities with the most skyscrapers which uses similar criteria. I think this draft needs a clearer intro. Legacypac (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Agravert/Ferdinand Gravert
- User:Agravert/Ferdinand Gravert ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Find sources: "Ferdinand Gravert" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)
The last MfD closed with the idea he invented anti-fouling paint. I was unable to confirm this with the few sources I found evidently copying this directly from Wikipedia. The idea he invented the paint was added without sources and interestingly with reference to the same Alex Gravert as having info to the paint article. I'm wondering is this is a hoax, or at best OR. After the last MfD it was moved to draft to expose the page to more editors and allow others to try to improve it, but that has been reverted in the silly season that MfD has become. Legacypac (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per criteria 2b and 2d; the nominator has explicitly stated that they opened this for bad-faith reasons. As noted by @Cryptic: in the history, the move to draft space was a disingenuous attempt to run around the previous keep consensus via G13.
The relevant guideline, WP:STALEDRAFT, says nothing about moving user drafts to Draft: space.VQuakr (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- "The relevant guideline, WP:STALEDRAFT, says nothing about moving user drafts to Draft: space." is false.
- I'm bringing new info about the paint situation, and that this has been found unsuitable even for draft space. A little education [22] [23] Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Why do you think the links to a WikiProject talk page are germane? VQuakr (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
Calling out 2b and 2d as the basis for your keep is a direct personal attack on me. Strike that too please. You can @Cryptic: all you want but Cryptic can't overrule policy that explicitly allows a move to draft space. Legacypac (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Historic figure, it is not prone to going stale. No good reason to place a time limit ultimatum, interested editors can get to it in their own good time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Move to draft space so "interested editors can get to it in their own good time". If you believe this actually had a shot to be an article (and it very well may, if reliable sources can be found), then it should be where more editors will find and work on it. Alternatively, it could be submitted to WP:AFC by any editor if it's good enough for inclusion. ~ RobTalk 22:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Also, to those claiming WP:STALEDRAFT contains nothing on this, you may want to re-read. "Unfinished draft articles may be moved to draft namespace or Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts for adoption by other editors if the original author no longer wants them or appears to have stopped editing." I didn't go back to find the exact time it was added, but it's been there since at least 2014. We can fundamentally disagree on what policy should be, but let's not also start disagreeing on what current policy says. ~ RobTalk 22:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- The text was added in August 2011]. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Move it into my personal space and then perhaps I'll agree to draftify it. Why would anyone demand it be kept in the editor's space if the editor isn't active here? Why make it impossible to actually find these things? If any of the editors who actually support this page are willing to adopt it, move it to their personal space and they can deal with it. Instead, how about moving it to User:Ricky81682/Ferdinand Gravert and I may consider draftifying it? Legacypac, you want to consider that in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Sounds like another disingenuous disruptive WP:GAME.
- Userspace pages are not hard to find. I don't have time right now but I would like to try. MfD should not be used to force others to fix things on someone else's timetable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to make accusations, go ahead but I'm actually looking for sources on the matter and not just accusing everyone else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I mean, as long as you leave a redirect and don't U1 delete it or play any other GAMEs (and I trust you not to), I don't see why not. Presumably SmokeyJoe and others could still work on it if they wanted. You also should probably tag it for Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts to keep it findable. It's an odd request though, given your apparent aversion to clutter. A2soup (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect, yes. U1 would be obvious gamesmanship but the question is, can I deposit it with AFC? It would then be subject to G13. After having seen WT:AFC, I wouldn't. If I deposit it in draftspace and don't work on it, it will show up in the draftspace backlogs and someone else may nominate it for deletion down the line, I can't help that. The point still is, if someone actually wants to work on this, why not personally suggest adopting the page? That makes a mountain more sense than keeping it in an inactive user's userspace where it's never going to be found. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- AfC is for creating articles, not processing articles, so depositing it at AfC when you don't think it should be created would be a subversion of both MfD and AfC and a clear GAME. Slower and less disruptive than moving to mainspace, but an equivalent practice. You can help it be found by tagging it for the project you set up (and thanks again for that). I don't see why immediate adoption is needed - presumably you set up the project so future adopters could find these things years down the line. A2soup (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect, yes. U1 would be obvious gamesmanship but the question is, can I deposit it with AFC? It would then be subject to G13. After having seen WT:AFC, I wouldn't. If I deposit it in draftspace and don't work on it, it will show up in the draftspace backlogs and someone else may nominate it for deletion down the line, I can't help that. The point still is, if someone actually wants to work on this, why not personally suggest adopting the page? That makes a mountain more sense than keeping it in an inactive user's userspace where it's never going to be found. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I added {{Find sources AFD}}. It seems to indication a lot of possible sources. This one is probably appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
Not really unless you're looking at circular ones. See User talk:Agravert/Ferdinand Gravert. The US Patent office and a US Senate report from 1899 aren't supporting this story. Given that the US Navy spent tens of thousands of dollars in the 1830s onward, I'm having a hard time imagining that the investor of this didn't get a patent nor even a mention by the Secretary of the Navy when he went to Congress. I suspect this is more of a thing that's been tried and guessed at since ships first were created out of iron and had fouling issues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)- Strike that. Don't care. This may be a white whale that can never be proven and so we never actually disprove it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps this "don't care" thing would be a good attitude to adopt towards all the good-faith, non-problematic userspace drafts out there. A2soup (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Don't care referred to arguing about the fact that the "lot of possible sources" aren't actually sources and arguing about their legitimacy. It's precisely why I support deleting the drafts that aren't going anywhere: because it takes a lot of work to do this right and just moving pages around and piling them up into backlogs does nothing in terms of focusing the people who are here now who actually want improve stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ricky, is this our fundamental difference? If in doubt of potential, keep or delete? You say delete, I say keep. We agree that it takes a lot of work to assess notability. I think that to have a reasonable discussion/debate, at least one person has to be playing the advocate for yes, and that picking on draftwork of inactive users you are doing the wrong thing. Take similar drafts in the userspace of active users, apply the same arguments, and then you get productive, precedent setting discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I see what you might mean by circular. Google pulls up sources referencing Wikipedia. I can't find where the specific information originally was on Wikipedia. There is a lot of noisy signal connecting to anti-fouling paint, but I can't verify or find an original unreliable source. This came from somewhere unknown. Made up, or in an real old fashioned book or journal? Most unhelpfully, Anti-fouling_paint#History is essentially unsourced, unsourced for its core material. It still say "Keep", there is no indication of hoax, or promotion, and it is entirely historical. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Don't care referred to arguing about the fact that the "lot of possible sources" aren't actually sources and arguing about their legitimacy. It's precisely why I support deleting the drafts that aren't going anywhere: because it takes a lot of work to do this right and just moving pages around and piling them up into backlogs does nothing in terms of focusing the people who are here now who actually want improve stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps this "don't care" thing would be a good attitude to adopt towards all the good-faith, non-problematic userspace drafts out there. A2soup (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- The claim came from Alex Gravert - his name is attached to the claim most of the time. It's self promotion. Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Strike that. Don't care. This may be a white whale that can never be proven and so we never actually disprove it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I oppose a move to someone else's userspace because there's zero benefit from keeping it in someone's userspace and a possible benefit of other editors finding and editing this if it's in the draftspace. ~ RobTalk 11:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Frankly the best way it will be found if it's tagged with the proper WikiProjects and the project shows interest in it. I highly doubt that people actively will search for this name or antifouling paint or whatever and check the box to search Draftspace (or userspace for that matter as neither are defaults). The two MFD pages are easier to find. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
March 24, 2016
User:Alexsutherland3/Enter your new article name here
- User:Alexsutherland3/Enter your new article name here ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unsourced BLP Page promoting Alex Sutherland, a school boy who likes to run, by Alex Sutherland. Would never survive in mainspace for one second. Contested CSD so now we get to vote. Legacypac (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. No policy-compliant reason given for deletion, and page is not in any way problematic. As it says at the top of WP:MFD, 'we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace.' Thparkth (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Non-viable abandoned draft about an athlete. Would not survive in mainspace. Permanently retaining personal information is problematic for non-public figures like this person. Generally violates WP:NOT. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Specifically, how does it violate WP:NOT? VQuakr (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- WP:NOTPAPER, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I would also point to your argument as squarely in violation of WP:NOTSTUPID: Wikipedia is flat out not the place to do something that's a terrible idea, like permanently keeping article drafts about topics that will never be suitable for mainspace. It is not a notability question, it is not a cleaning up userspace question, it is a matter of what belongs or does not belong on Wikipedia. This is in the latter category. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Mendaliv: I am having trouble reconciling "it is not a cleaning up userspace question" with the rest of your response. It seems that the fundamental deletion argument for this and several other recent MfDs has very much boiled down to cleanup. The problem is that these nominations run specifically contrary to our existing guidelines. I think an excellent case could be made for changing that guideline and some of your arguments could inform that case, but the guideline change should be done prior nominating tens of thousands of subpages for deletion. If the community determines that user drafts should be cleaned up, I suspect a less process-intensive method than MfD could be developed for articles such as this one. VQuakr (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Maintenance categories have long existed for stale drafts and editors work them. This might be new to you, but not Wikipedians who toll in the backrooms cleaning up. You also are quoting half a sentence of the the instructions for MfD - forgetting that there are MANY reasons clean up userspace referenced by that sentence. Legacypac (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Classy. Anyways, as you well know, your push for broad-spectrum deletion of user space drafts is, relatively speaking, brand new. Get consensus first, if for no other reason than to optimize the process. VQuakr (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- WP:NOTPAPER, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I would also point to your argument as squarely in violation of WP:NOTSTUPID: Wikipedia is flat out not the place to do something that's a terrible idea, like permanently keeping article drafts about topics that will never be suitable for mainspace. It is not a notability question, it is not a cleaning up userspace question, it is a matter of what belongs or does not belong on Wikipedia. This is in the latter category. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Specifically, how does it violate WP:NOT? VQuakr (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability guidelines do not apply to user space. VQuakr (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Thparkth abd VQuakr. Page is non-problematic, and there is no benefit gained from its deletion. There are perhaps mild concerns with implied promotion, so blank+template with {{Userpage blanked}} would be appropriate. A2soup (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:User lpl-N
- Template:User lpl-N ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
You can't be a native speaker of a language invented in 2010. Le Deluge (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Substitute at User:Chabi1 and then delete. It's only used by one person who has both lpl-N and lpl-3. I don't even know why this matters as that's the only editor in the entire Category:User lpl set-up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Alexander1112/List of tallest buildings in Australia
- User:Alexander1112/List of tallest buildings in Australia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User dropped a copy of List of tallest buildings in Australia & 50 & Counting Tour in userspace and than never touched them again. Violates WP:UP#COPIES. Legacypac (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:UP#COPIES. This should be a CSD criterion, honestly. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Akapuraa/ShipConsole
- User:Akapuraa/ShipConsole ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Non-notable app. Would not survive in mainspace and is a stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Looks to be a WP:FAKEARTICLE created to promote an app whose article would never survive in mainspace, given it was categorized at one point. If not a fakearticle, it's simply an abandoned draft about a non-viable subject that would never survive in mainspace. As such, it is fundamentally at variance with the concept of a Wikipedia draft, and thus retention is a violation of WP:NOT. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sayerslle/Goliath (band) |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC) User:Sayerslle/Goliath (band)
WP:GARAGE Legacypac (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
|
User:Cadams90/Flashback (with Craig and Jess)
- User:Cadams90/Flashback (with Craig and Jess) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
College radio show. No notability and very stale draft from Jan 2010. Legacypac (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
User:AmericaHistory/Hitler's Last Days
- User:AmericaHistory/Hitler's Last Days ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stale Draft about Hitler from 2010. Author left in 2011. Not good enough for mainspace and this topic is well covered already in various articles, including articles covering books on this very topic. Legacypac (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Four year is not a break. If the editor returns, they can request restoration. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lester Randolph Ford Award |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Draft:Lester Randolph Ford Award
Word-for-word copy of de:Lester Randolph Ford Award. Not a UP#COPY because it's not in userspace, and not an A2 candidate because it's not in articlespace. Maybe we could call it a G12 violation since there's no attribution? In any event, it's long abandoned, and thereby an abuse of draftspace. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alangpdaly/Gerry Daly (Gardener) |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC) User:Alangpdaly/Gerry Daly (Gardener)
BLP with no sources, by subject's son. User left in 2012 just after starting this. See WP:MEMORIAL We should deleted unsourced BLPs. Legacypac (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
|
User:Alaaddinlamp/Miniatures postmodern
- User:Alaaddinlamp/Miniatures postmodern ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A term made up by an artist. This is so badly written it is unclear what is being asserted. Stale Draft Legacypac (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems to be a mix of two ideas but still a made-up term. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Aklein1/Big Mean Sound Machine
- User:Aklein1/Big Mean Sound Machine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:GARAGE with no sources Legacypac (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Akronbrian/Freez-R-Burn
- User:Akronbrian/Freez-R-Burn ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:GARAGE Legacypac (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Rainer Mueck/Gothic Blues
- User:Rainer Mueck/Gothic Blues ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No references, not notable invented by Tim_Scott_McConnell where this is covered in the lead. Legacypac (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Add User:Rainer Mueck/Ledfoot with same issues. Legacypac (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability guidelines do not apply to user space. VQuakr (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Gothic Blues: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and all this is is a dicdef. Abandoned draft as well. No hope of being improved. No hope of being mainspaced. Delete Ledfoot: Redundant to Tim Scott McConnell, which the same editor also worked on before going inactive. No content worth salvaging. No hope of being improved. No hope of being mainspaced. Also fails WP:NOT. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Blank and apply {{Userpage blanked}} per WP:STALEDRAFT.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Draft:C.A.C.
- Draft:C.A.C. ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:NOTWEBHOST. Foreign language, so can't tell if it's gibberish or a bad machine translation, but it's clearly not encyclopedic. ~ RobTalk 04:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. User created page in December 2014, no other edits anywhere, and not a single edit after the day of the page's creation. 68.107.181.186 (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Onel5969 TT me 17:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Quillen metric
- Draft:Quillen metric ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A single inline reference and one end reference with zero content explaining the topic or giving any potential demonstration of notability. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Moduli stack of elliptic curves for similar draft with zero content Hasteur (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as not useful. Legacypac (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep; author is active and says he finds it useful; that is enough for any draft that doesn't have larger issues. VQuakr (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: It's an abandoned draft that just happens to lack the AfC template. Not viable as an article in its current form or any form reasonably likely to occur. WP:NOT should control here. Wikipedia is not a collection of references lacking any content. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The idea of drafts is to encourage editors to work on topics. Having almost empty, incomprehensible drafts runs contrary to that aim. I can easily imagine that it would actually discourage other editors from starting articles on these topics, because someone else is already "working" on them. There is no useful encyclopedic content to these drafts, and the "Draft" namespace is not Taku's personal sandbox. If he wants to keep collections of notes like these, he can do that in his own userspace. The draft namespace is for article drafts. Sławomir
Biały 11:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC) - Keep: The same reason as before. I'm tired of repeating myself. -- Taku (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Userify to User:TakuyaMurata/Quillen metric if the author wants it or delete. It seems like it's abandoned for all intents and purposes and if the author is interested, they can keep a userified version for their own work. Otherwise, draftspace shouldn't deal with the equivalent of domain name hoarding by the first person who picks a name and puts something there. If the author does not have any further interest in their own work, I suggest that, after userification, they include it with WP:Abandoned Drafts for others to work on if they so desire. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Richmond, Ca./Atchison Village
- User:Richmond, Ca./Atchison Village ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
December 2006 version of Atchison Village, Richmond, California created around the same time that this was the operative version floating around. It doesn't seem to be a copy of anything but it's also largely unsourced so I don't see the need for any merger. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete inappropriate WP:UP#COPIES Legacypac (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- WP:UP#COPIES means that you can point to a mainspace history version that was copied, can you? If not, there is nothing "inappropriate" here. Editors are allowed to draft independently of each other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, in favour of Atchison Village, Richmond, California. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Mahaveer Group - RSPL
- Draft:Mahaveer Group - RSPL ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Created by user who has since been blocked for sockpuppetry.
Not using CSD because it was created before the block. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete inappropriate and deleted before. Legacypac (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This is what drafts are for. It's fairly clear that what happened here is that a new user tried to post promotional articles about himself and his company, and when they were deleted found a friend with a little previous WP experience to help. They are going about it quite the wrong way and seem unwilling to take advice, so I salted the article title and told them to work on the draft. The present draft is hopeless (trimmed back to almost nothing in reaction to being told that previous ones were too promotional) but the company exists and may be notable; the author is only blocked for a week, and we should be encouraging the use of drafts by COI authors. JohnCD (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Let's not give a head start to the next editor they hire to write their promotional article. Thparkth (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep If the creator had been indeffed, I might have said delete. But since the block was only for one week, we can hope that this is a learning experience for the new user. Drafts are cheep. —teb728 t c 04:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This isn't in userspace so other people could work on the draft. We can come back to this page if say nothing has been done in six months or even a year. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand the initial nom for deleting, but in light of the comments by JohnCD, I think this is the appropriate way to deal with this COI article. 68.107.181.186 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Onel5969 TT me 17:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per JohnCD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Hyperbole/Gerald Gallego
- User:Hyperbole/Gerald Gallego ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft from April 2006 that seems to have been some sort of draft for what came to be created at Gerald and Charlene Gallego six months later in October 2006. The draft here has been edited over the years repeatedly as well as the mainspace one (the Gerald Gallego redirect was created in 2007) with this last edited in 2009. Rather than continuing to let the draftspace one continue on, I think it's best to delete it and if the editor returns, they can work on the mainspace one as could have been done from this version onward. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete inappropriate parallel article in draft space. Legacypac (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (excellent explanation, thank you). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Ftheyukuza/The Orphan
- User:Ftheyukuza/The Orphan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WEBHOST violation. Not even clear who this is about, but not being used in an article and user is long gone. Contested U5 CSD. Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - no indication from nominator why they think this user page is being used as a web host. VQuakr (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
This user has made several hundred edits to their userspace to keep these lists updated for some reason unrelated to wikipedia. They have only edited one actual article a few times. Classic WebHost violation. Then they stopped doing anything in 2012 making this all stale. Legacypac (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- A classic webhost violation would be a restaurant updating their specials daily, and directing customers to their user space on en.wiki to check them. Most definitely not the case here. "Stale" is not a policy-based reason to delete a draft. VQuakr (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I suspect the user is record keeping for their own use. You obviously don't understand webhost. Legacypac (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- WP:AGF applies. Your suspicions are irrelevant. VQuakr (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Evidence shows no on wiki purpose, and the effort suggests an off wiki purpose. You have evidence to the contrary? Legacypac (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Evidence shows collating information on a person who may or may meet WP:N in the effort of building an article. This is a reasonable usage of WP user space and is not at odds with the goals of this project. It's AGF, not ABF - the onus is on you to show that a page is being used as a webhost. VQuakr (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Evidence shows no on wiki purpose, and the effort suggests an off wiki purpose. You have evidence to the contrary? Legacypac (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- 'Delete Editor is keeping track of Matt Hughes (fighter)'s individual bouts (check the first two UFC match pages) which is fine and all but it's already at Matt_Hughes_(fighter)#Mixed_martial_arts_record. If the editor wants to include that or create a split, then the editor can make a suggestion to do so. Otherwise, it's a WP:UP#COPIES of current content. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete in favour of Matt_Hughes_(fighter)#Mixed_martial_arts_record. Nomination completely inept. Not so serious a WP:UP#COPIES issue as it is only a table (not copyrightable), using a table to "keep track of" developing facts is OK, but as it is now years abandoned, yes, delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
March 23, 2016
User:Fsadiq/Insaf Research Wing
- User:Fsadiq/Insaf Research Wing ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dropped in userspace back in 2010 by an editor that never did anything else. No 3rd party references and I question notability. Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. It's a research wing of the political party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and is covered better at Pakistan_Tehreek-e-Insaf#Insaf_Research_Wing_.28IRW.29. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Pakistan_Tehreek-e-Insaf#Insaf_Research_Wing_.28IRW.29. No reason to delete, better to keep contributions undeleted by default. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Aixporter/Kooboo
- User:Aixporter/Kooboo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Old stale draft judged not ready for mainspace. No one is working on it, so it should be deleted or allowed to be tested in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Kooboo per WP:STALEDRAFT criterion #5. VQuakr (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Turns out this material is already covered in a section of Koodoo and is redundent. Unless someone wants to do a merge a redirect is pointless. Legacypac (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I linked the guideline that states a redirect is the correct course of action. If you disagree, I suggest seeking consensus to change the guideline at Wikipedia talk:User pages. VQuakr (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. It is not a draft of a copy-pasted article so WP:STALEDRAFT 5 is irrelevant. There is no evidence that this version was later copied here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Kooboo, as the obviously most useful thing to do for User:Aixporter, and because there is no need for deletion (and no need to list things like this at MfD). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Zionboy/Nicolas-Patience Basabose
- User:Zionboy/Nicolas-Patience Basabose ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
unsourced bio that does not assert real importance. Legacypac (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- No reason to delete given, A7 and WP:V do not apply in userspace. In any case, significance is certainly asserted and notability is possible, noting that relevant sources may not be in English. Blank+template with {{Userpage blanked}} may be appropriate for promotional concerns. A2soup (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The only assertion of notability relates to assertions about LeCongo Hebdo which this editor also created (and abandoned) in 2011 at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LeCongo Hebdo. As such, the only thing we have is a statement that this is an entrepreneur of an investment group with two locations which is more akin to an inappropriate U5 situation than a usable draft. If the editor returns, the newspaper would be a better starting point via WP:REFUND. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - cursory Googling shows no evidence of notability. This is a WP:BLP; the requirement for information about living persons to be cited inline applies to all pages on the project. I don't see much evidence for notability for the newspaper either, all of the hits I get are from Google cramming "le congo" together with "hebdomadaire". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability guidelines do not apply to user space. No contentious information in the draft that would trigger WP:BLP concerns; citation requirement for BLPs only applies to articles. VQuakr (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- WP:BLPREMOVE and other sections apply here. It's most likely a self promo situation given the same editor tried to draft the newspaper page. The referenced RfC does not trump policy, common sense or WP:IAR. We are trying to improve this project here. Legacypac (talk) 06:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Abandoned draft, hinging on promotional, about a non-viable subject. Wikipedia is not the place for such unencyclopedic writings. Fails WP:NOT. That it's a BLP only gives it yet another shove past any hurdles that might otherwise prevent its deletion. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per WP:U5 via WP:STALEDRAFT point #4 (i.e. "If the material is promotional, or otherwise unsuitable, and the author was never a serious Wikipedia contributor, consider tagging for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#U5").—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- How do you think policy gets written? Legacypac (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Changes to existing policies and guidelines are made through proposal on the appropriate talk page or at the village pump, so they can gain community consensus, especially if they're controversial in nature (which is clearly the case here).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- How do you think policy gets written? Legacypac (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Delete as an unsourced biography that seems profoundly unlikely to yield anything of use to the project. ~ RobTalk 23:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Wickham01/new article name here
- User:Wickham01/new article name here ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
At the bottom you can see this is WP:OR Not suitable for the project. Stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- OR is definitely not a deletion reason for a userspace draft. There may still be good reason to delete... --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- History merge into Mike Stuart Span. This was created in January 2010 and that version was obviously from somewhere and I suspect this page ("Several grammatical and textual changes, plus additionaal research" is not an edit summary for a new article) or both are stealing from another place but it's not clear where. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- History merge into Mike Stuart Span. I does very much look like the userpage was copied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:SE19991/Move Management
- User:SE19991/Move Management ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stale draft and not enough to build an article from. A TNT situation. Legacypac (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - TNT makes no sense for drafts because the purpose is to allow the article to be rewritten better from scratch without vainly attempting to improve the existing crud. This makes no sense at all for drafts, since they are not the main article on the topic. Draft is on a potentially legitimate subject and is completely non-problematic even if not blanked, WP:STALEDRAFT states deletion is only indicated if the page is problematic even if blanked. A2soup (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:DEADLINE. VQuakr (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Nonsense, there is a limit to how long we keep SPAM around here. Legacypac (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hogwash. WP:G11 is for spam, but a draft isn't spam just because you say so. VQuakr (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Its not a serious attempt an an article. They were careful to put that SEO link in through. Legacypac (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Noindex it if you are concerned. It's called WP:ELOFFICIAL, not WP:SEOLINK. Again, AGF. VQuakr (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Its not a serious attempt an an article. They were careful to put that SEO link in through. Legacypac (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hogwash. WP:G11 is for spam, but a draft isn't spam just because you say so. VQuakr (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nonsense, there is a limit to how long we keep SPAM around here. Legacypac (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
You might expect an official link on an article, which this is not even an attempt at one. I know a lot about SEO, this was created for that link. Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Cool, let's talk shop. What's suspicious about the link? Don't spare the technical details on my account. VQuakr (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Since the article is not about a company how can it be an WP:ELOFFICIAL link? Legacypac (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, which is all that's here: A dictionary definition of a bit of jargon of questionable relevance. There's nothing to integrate into any other article. It's stale, and appears solely to have been created to get a spam link on Wikipedia (though evidently in vain considering it's not supposed to be indexed). There's no encyclopedic content here to be salvaged. Wikipedia is not a webhost. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Mendaliv and per nom. A dictionary definition won't ever be an article so why keep it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Dictionary definitions won't become articles, but that is no reason to dissallow recording definitions in userspace. In userspace, the notes are specifically for the user's purposes alone. The use of the AfC template tells me that AfC is sucking too much in, the editor was clearly not writing an article, just putting a toe into Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:SBirdTVS/TransVault
- User:SBirdTVS/TransVault ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No independant sources show notability. Seems like a run of the mill company trying to promote itself on wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Good faith article drafting that will not pass WP:CORP. We need better guidelines for this stuff. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Draft from October 2013 that does not seem to pass WP:CORP. If the editor returns or someone else thinks there's a chance, they can request restoration but it's basically a skeleton to work off and not much more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
User:S. Jennifer Gray Charnoe/The Celestial Synapse
- User:S. Jennifer Gray Charnoe/The Celestial Synapse ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A single music event in 1969... Does not justify an article. Stale draft from an editor that has not edited since 2010. Legacypac (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Selective Merge to Fillmore West § Events per WP:PRESERVE. North America1000 16:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep based on the editor's comment here. We can look at this again in say a year. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to a new section at Talk:Fillmore West. A selective merge looks appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:S. Jennifer Gray Charnoe/Harbingerites
- User:S. Jennifer Gray Charnoe/Harbingerites ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
As noted by another editor on page NOTDIC. Legacypac (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Although the editor commented here, it's a dictionary definition and not feasibly into an separate article. It can be go somewhere but it's unsourced it seems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Harbinger, which is where this interest should be directed (that page or pages linked there). No reason to suppress the user's ideas. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:S. Jennifer Gray Charnoe/Harbinger Community
- User:S. Jennifer Gray Charnoe/Harbinger Community ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stale draft 2010 from someone who has not edited since 2010. The place does not seem notable to me. Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep based on the editor's comment here. We can look at this again in say a year. It's possibly notable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Blank only. Perfectly reasonable newcomer drafting. I don't see how anyone can be sure that this is a non-notable topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:S. Jennifer Gray Charnoe/Frontiers of Science Fellowship
- User:S. Jennifer Gray Charnoe/Frontiers of Science Fellowship ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Maybe a webhost violation. Seems to include copy vio. Not really clear what it is about. Stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Very weak keep based on the editor's comment here. We can look at this again in say a year. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Blank only. Perfectly reasonable newcomer drafting, although not a picture of a suitable article, there is sourced material suitable for tangential topics. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:S.V.Praveen in love with Jesus/Wikipedia;Articles for creation
- User:S.V.Praveen in love with Jesus/Wikipedia;Articles for creation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Person does not pass notability guidelines. Old stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete There's no way that would ever become a plausible draft. At best it could go into some "List of fastest mental calculators" article but that's not even totally appropriate here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Blank. Quality sourcing for a winner or a mental calculation competition, while unlikely to ever be a biography, it is material appropriate for an article on the competition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Rysnes/Adrian Wareham
- User:Rysnes/Adrian Wareham ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not a notable athlete. Stale draft. No reason to keep. Legacypac (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Blank with template:inactive userpage blanked. I'm guessing this is more like Trampolining which is a sport and while this is unsourced and likely non-notable WP:ATHLETE could change so I can see it becoming a plausible draft. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Blank and add {{Inactive userpage blanked}} atop the page, per point #2 of WP:STALEDRAFT. North America1000 06:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, blank as inactive. Plausible assertion of notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Rysl31/Monica Rose
- User:Rysl31/Monica Rose ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No strong claim to notability. Sourced to a blog. Stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete IMDb does not even list her as a crew member on the Daily 10 unless she is actually Mollie Rose and then a one-time production assistant isn't going to be notable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Ryrod99/The Annexation of Santo Domingo
- User:Ryrod99/The Annexation of Santo Domingo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User developed this here then placed it all in mainspace under the same title. Attribution is therefore not an issue, this is just a stale draft copy of the first version of the mainspace article and should be deleted as redundent. Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete' as unlikely needed. SwisterTwister talk 19:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Annexation of Santo Domingo. No reason to delete. A desire by, by the author or anyone else, to review the early versions is reason to keep. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Blank with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. There could be any number or worthwhile purposes related to this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rynsnsn/sandbox |
---|
The result of the discussion was Keep, reset sandbox. — xaosflux Talk 23:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC) User:Rynsnsn/sandbox
This looks like nonsense to me. Stale draft Legacypac (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
|
User:RyersonU/Lauren Christoff
- User:RyersonU/Lauren Christoff ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Non-notable singer. Legacypac (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Blank with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. No evidence that anyone has done a notability analysis, and notability doesn't apply to userspace anyway. Blanking deals with any concerns of webhosting or promotion --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
March 22, 2016
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User fb-4 |
---|
The result of the discussion was Delete. — xaosflux Talk 23:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Template:User fb-4
In 2008 User:HannesJvV created fb-3 and -4 but not the rest of the FreeBASIC hierarchy, used it briefly himself but even he deleted it from his user page back in 2009. Either we want the full hierarchy or none at all, and these orphan templates seem pretty pointless.Le Deluge (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
|
Draft:Vision 2015
- Draft:Vision 2015 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This draft has been around since 2009 but this doesn't seem like a notable conference or presentation (it's not exactly what this is about). Out of the sources, excluding the actual references to the documents themselves, only two are independent, somewhat, but the Georgetown one is basically on the speaker itself and the other one is from the agency. It's possibly that this could be merged into something at Director_of_National_Intelligence#Office_of_the_Director_of_National_Intelligence_.28ODNI.29 but I think that's a stretch. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as no current signs of convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Plausibly notable, instead seek input from Talk:Director_of_National_Intelligence, although that may be fruitless due to that being a quiet place. Prefer to redirect to Director_of_National_Intelligence. At AfD I would vote to smerge and redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Templates for deleted categories
- Template:User es-0 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User it-0 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User kg-0 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User kk-0 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User rw-0 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User st-0 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User zu-0 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:User rw-0 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
{{User_es-0}}, {{User_it-0}}, {{User_kg-0}}, {{User_kk-0}}, {{User_rw-0}}, {{User_st-0}}, {{User_zu-0}} are all templates of incomprehension, whose categories were either explicitly or implicitly banished with prejudice in 2007 (or here for rw-0). {{User_cu-N}} is for Wikipedian native speakers of the long-dead Old Church Slavonic whose category was nuked here. I may be back for more.... Le Deluge (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep/procedural close: I don't think this is the right venue for this discussion. WP:BABEL seems to indicate that they support incomprehension userboxes, even if there's a long-standing consensus against categorizing such users. If and when a discussion happens at WT:BABEL that concludes incomprehension userboxes are unhelpful as well (a lot of people seem to use them) then we might consider deletion. I would have no objection to deleting certain silly ones (e.g., native comprehension of long-dead languages), but I think they'd have to be subject to their own nom. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Actually this is the correct place to me as WP:MFD explicitly covers "Userboxes (regardless of namespace)". The location of these templates are irrelevant but this needs to be better formatted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, my point is it seems that Le Deluge is arguing that the entire swath of xx-0 templates should be deleted rather than just those which were listed above. I think the problem is (1) there appears to be a longstanding consensus that these are fine even though the cats were not (as articulated at WP:BABEL), and (2) the nom is malformed in that it doesn't list all the templates being named. Anyhow, if my speedy keep isn't actioned, my !vote is keep based on the longstanding consensus that xx-0 userboxes are helpful, and that deleting just these would disrupt the entire babel userbox hierarchy. I would, however, be amenable to an argument that we should merge all the xx-0 through xx-5 and xx-n templates into a single xx template that takes parameters (i.e., you'd use
{{User en|0}}
). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)- For clarity - my intention is to resolve the contradiction where we have template pointing at, and closely identified with, categories that have been deleted by overwhelming consensus. I came across these because the categories do not exist, either because they were deleted (es, it, rw) or were never created in the first place, so they are extreme examples of the genre. But the fact that even "big" languages like Spanish and Italian have only one user-0 each rather belies the suggestion that there's a "lot" of users.(Edit - hmm, OK, es-0 has 450 transclusions but only one is in the category, not sure what's going on there) My personal view is that on en.wiki the only one that matters is en-0 and the rest are cruft, but I recognize that editors like their cruft in userspace. <g> So I'd prefer to delete but could live with changing the template to not categorise -0 users, I just want to resolve the paradox of the status quo.Le Deluge (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- On closer examination, the es-0 and it-0 categories were not the result of the templates but by people substing them. But kk-, st-0 and zu-0 do seem to be putting users in categories directly. I'm not enough of a template guru to understand what the difference is, although I wonder if it could be something to do with the need to do a WP:NULLEDIT to get changes in transcluded templates to "take", and it/es have attracted an edit since something was changed with the categories, but kk/st/zu have not. Or is there a lookup table somewhere telling the template that es/it categories were deleted? Le Deluge (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK, this is making more sense. I was confused because of the it-0 and es-0 categories being assigned by what looked like their respective templates, so I didn't actually check the source code of the userpages involved, I just went straight to the templates. But having discovered they were substing, I've emptied those categories, and the remaining ones are being categorized using usercategory in the templates, so I've been able to empty them by editing the categories out of the templates. So that's my itch scratched, but I think it's probably worth letting discussion continue... Le Deluge (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- For clarification, I've listed only the templates that were linked above. I suggest not adding any more and seeing how this discussion resolves itself. If there is support for deletion (or even a support for some deletion, some not, you never know), then propose a new deletion for the remaining ones. It will simplify the closing admin's job since you'd only want to delete those where there is some notice about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- On closer examination, the es-0 and it-0 categories were not the result of the templates but by people substing them. But kk-, st-0 and zu-0 do seem to be putting users in categories directly. I'm not enough of a template guru to understand what the difference is, although I wonder if it could be something to do with the need to do a WP:NULLEDIT to get changes in transcluded templates to "take", and it/es have attracted an edit since something was changed with the categories, but kk/st/zu have not. Or is there a lookup table somewhere telling the template that es/it categories were deleted? Le Deluge (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- For clarity - my intention is to resolve the contradiction where we have template pointing at, and closely identified with, categories that have been deleted by overwhelming consensus. I came across these because the categories do not exist, either because they were deleted (es, it, rw) or were never created in the first place, so they are extreme examples of the genre. But the fact that even "big" languages like Spanish and Italian have only one user-0 each rather belies the suggestion that there's a "lot" of users.(Edit - hmm, OK, es-0 has 450 transclusions but only one is in the category, not sure what's going on there) My personal view is that on en.wiki the only one that matters is en-0 and the rest are cruft, but I recognize that editors like their cruft in userspace. <g> So I'd prefer to delete but could live with changing the template to not categorise -0 users, I just want to resolve the paradox of the status quo.Le Deluge (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, my point is it seems that Le Deluge is arguing that the entire swath of xx-0 templates should be deleted rather than just those which were listed above. I think the problem is (1) there appears to be a longstanding consensus that these are fine even though the cats were not (as articulated at WP:BABEL), and (2) the nom is malformed in that it doesn't list all the templates being named. Anyhow, if my speedy keep isn't actioned, my !vote is keep based on the longstanding consensus that xx-0 userboxes are helpful, and that deleting just these would disrupt the entire babel userbox hierarchy. I would, however, be amenable to an argument that we should merge all the xx-0 through xx-5 and xx-n templates into a single xx template that takes parameters (i.e., you'd use
- Actually this is the correct place to me as WP:MFD explicitly covers "Userboxes (regardless of namespace)". The location of these templates are irrelevant but this needs to be better formatted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. It seems like when the categories were deleted, these templates were not and while it's possible to support the template sans the category, it seems silly to have any template that alleges a non-use of a language. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Comment I listed the English language-0 one at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User en-0. It's somewhat similar than this one but the same issues apply: there's no technical violation to having them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete arguments convince me. Legacypac (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep These templates are not the only way of putting user pages in the deleted categories. The CFDs referred to all seem to be from 2007, long before the babel system was standardised across wikis. The cats are now part of the babel system, which is not local to English Wikipedia, but is used by all Wikipedias. So if a user page has e.g.
{{#babel:es-0|it-0|kg-0|kk-0|rw-0|st-0|zu-0}}
it will be placed in those categories regardless of whether we have templates for them or not. The idea is that a user who is active on more than one Wikimedia project (as I am) should be able to use identical babel boxes on all of them without having to work out which codes are valid locally. Users do want to advertise non-understanding, see for example lij:Utente:Redrose64 or pa:ਵਰਤੋਂਕਾਰ:Redrose64. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Still, just because the template is used across multiple wikis doesn't mean it should be used here locally. I recall a series of templates in Japanese used for Japanese city articles (the mark up was itself in Japanese) that were expressly rejected even though they were part of the same system and used across many other wikis to simply copy over the templates so that all the Japanese city articles had the same background citations and formatting for populations, age information and the like (information that itself is clearly most likely in Japanese). Here, there seems to be a rejection of class-0 babel language categories and I presume templates and since this is English wikipedia, it doesn't seem necessary to have templates that reflect that as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. There's simply no need to have these templates on the English Wikipedia. It adds no value, and the argument that other Wikipedias use them isn't convincing. Other projects do plenty of things that we've decided not to. ~ RobTalk 17:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Good for completeness, and useful when considering that the most uncompleted task is translation of articles from one language to another. This task will surely involve editors visiting en who have no English. Unified login accounts also call for these userboxes to exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep to support unified logon pages, I can easily see someone having a string of these an when a -0 gets hit on enwiki we should be able to support it. — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
March 21, 2016
Draft:Riley Knight
- Draft:Riley Knight ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant draft article and main article has now been created at Riley Knight. Flickerd (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Histmerge needed? The draft predates the mainspace article, but also has all the hallmarks of being copied from something in mainspace itself (has cats and a full-blown infobox). I suppose it's possible the IP just took the framework from someplace else, but I'm just not sure. I think some further investigation is needed before we can say for sure. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, hmm. So I think what happened is the IP took the article framework from someplace else: When created in July 2015 it had
{{Use Australian English|date=April 2015}}
and{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2015}}
at the top. But it actually didn't have cats in the initial edit. So I think if we can verify that the mainspace version wasn't copied-and-pasted from draftspace, we can safely delete this without needing a histmerge. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, hmm. So I think what happened is the IP took the article framework from someplace else: When created in July 2015 it had
- Delete. The histories aren't connected and I don't think a history merge is needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom, WP:UP#COPIES applies. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Dominicpaul993
- User:Dominicpaul993 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userspace draft from July 2015 that was later re-created at List of highest-grossing Malayalam films which has since been merged into List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films&redirect=no#Highest-grossing_Malayalam_films. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Highly rude and disruptive, editor in good standing and is actually useful to the project unlike the nominator. 166.170.45.134 (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of highest-grossing Indian films per nom. No need for deletion or MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Blank: I don't agree with the redir since the content has since been merged, and it's not a particularly helpful redirect in that case. Leave a notation in the edit summary linking the article that was created. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as an unlikely needed version. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom, WP:UP#COPIES applies. But not impartial to blanking the page either. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Pardhu on wiki/Srikanth Addala
- User:Pardhu on wiki/Srikanth Addala ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Four year old userspace draft already covered by Srikanth Addala. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect. No advantage to deleting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Meh: I feel kind of bad about this one. This editor beat the mainspace article creator the punch by about 6 months, but isn't the mainspace article creator because he/she did the right thing and did a userspace draft. I'm not a fan of redirecting because it doesn't look like any content from here was ever integrated into the mainspace article. Blanking might be better. In essence this draft works out in the same way as a content fork in userspace... though it's not a very meaty one, and probably not a controversial one either. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- If you blank without comment or even with Template:Inactive userpage blanked, doesn't that mislead the editor into thinking that they can restore their version and continue? Wouldn't it be better if they came back, saw their talk page has a link to this discussion (same with the deletion rationale if they go find their user page again) and saw that there was a mainspace version created after the fact, and that they should go there? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as unlikely needed. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- User:SwisterTwister, you are routinely using these extremely weak sounding rationales. Could you explain your definition of "unlikely needed"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom, WP:UP#COPIES applies. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Independent creations are not covered by WP:UP#COPIES. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- You appear to think redundant versions should be automatically deleted? This is explicitly opposed by myself and Blueboar at Wikipedia:User_pages/RfC_for_stale_drafts_policy_restructuring#Should_drafts_be_moved_across_namespaces_or_submitted_for_AfC_without_the_author.27s_explicit_permission_.28B1.29. Maybe comment there? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Jayadevp13/List of highest-grossing Malayalam films
- User:Jayadevp13/List of highest-grossing Malayalam films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userspace draft already covered by List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#Highest-grossing_Malayalam_films. There is no need for a separate, outdate table of the same information. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Blank: Got beat to the punch by the editor from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dominicpaul993 it seems, only by a few weeks too. The two appear to be wholly independent creations. I don't see an advantage to redirecting, particularly given the Malayalam films list article got merged: It'd kind of violate the principle of least astonishment we're supposed to follow with redirects. We might put a notation in the edit summary explaining that it's redundant to a mainspace article. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Blank with a helpful note in the edit summary is a very good solution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, {{Userpage blanked}} might also be helpful. You could leave a suggestion to work on the mainspace version in the |reason= parameter. A2soup (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom, WP:UP#COPIES applies. But not impartial to blanking the page either. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: I am the user who had created the page. I don't have any problem with the page being deleted. I no longer edit or update it. - Jayadevp13 09:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
March 20, 2016
User:Universal Hero/Tamil actresses
- User:Universal Hero/Tamil actresses ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft from 2008 already covered by Shriya Saran. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- ignore or redirect. Is of no problem in userspace. Was a valid and proper use of userspace. User is a 30K+ edits productive user, it is rude to imply that they did not manage their userspace responsibly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- It was never a valid use. The mainspace version was created in 2006. If I nominated this the day it was created, it should have been deleted under WP:UP#COPIES. Seven years later, it's still an inappropriate use. And what difference does it make that the editor was productive years ago? They haven't been here since 2011. If this was the editor's only edit, it would still the same problem as if this was Jimbo himself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Shriya Saran mainspace page 17:19, 22 August 2008 does not look like User:Universal Hero/Tamil actresses 13:53, 24 August 2008. Flagrant disregard to the details. It is not a "copy". WP:UP#COPIES does not apply. ignore or redirect is the solution to this non-problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Keep. Nominator's blatant lying about the details deserves sanctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.141 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Blank the section The draft portion of this page contains text lifted directly from this revision of Kirsten Dunst, evidently intending to be used as a framework for rewriting the early life section of Shriya Saran. It's not a UP copy in the strictest sense, so blanking the offending section is probably fine. It looks like this editor was keeping a list of Tamil actresses in his or her userspace... like as a minor watchlist? See the initial revisions of the page and edit summary. I think that part of it is fine. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Blank the section as per Mendaliv. Their listing of actresses is obviously fine. The duplicated content is not. ~ RobTalk 22:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete frankly as unlikely needed. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as super stale draft and copy of existing article (OK, not in content but in topic, and editor should be encouraged to edit mainspace article). We don't need to keep super old stuff indefinitely. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Ripeforchange/Jed Riffe
- User:Ripeforchange/Jed Riffe ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No context on this stale draft. Nearly blank. Legacypac (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. No related history, this was created just two days before the mainspace version. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as nothing better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- If deleted, it should be deleted with explicit mention of, linking to, the superior mainspace article Jed Riffe. That result is for all purposes the same as an initial redirection to Jed Riffe or blanking with an edit summary linking to Jed Riffe. For this reason, this nomination was an inefficient waste of time, and it is irresponsible to encourage editors wasting time with frivolous nominations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Or the editors that oppose deletions of stuff that will never go to mainspace are wasting everyone's time... Legacypac (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Redirect or blanking page as per User:SmokeyJoe would have been fine, but now that the nomination process is already underway, let's complete it by deleting it. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
User:RilusMaximus/City of Sacramento
- User:RilusMaximus/City of Sacramento ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stale draft redundant to existing articles. Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Blank as a proper userspace test, but a tentatively productive Wikipedian. Not a good new article topic, per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. No reason to be rude. Nothing lost with this copy. 166.170.45.134 (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Editor has not edited since 2012. Blanking only leave the page to be vandalized in the future. Legacypac (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The topic is fine. Blanking or blanking with template:inactive userpage blanked would mislead the editor into thinking that this page is actually appropriate. If the editor was actively (and say aggressively) working on this page rather than say Government of Sacramento, California which is the appropriate page, they would be directed to go edit the mainspace version and this would likely be deleted. It seems counter-intuitive that we do the opposite because the editor isn't actively here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- It seems counter-intuitive that we do the opposite because the editor isn't actively here. That is an extremely important point. Launching this large offensive against traditional leeway in userspace, but only doing it where the user in question isn't here to explain, is a problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- What is intuitive about blanking a page to direct an editor to the history to undo the blanking when if the editor was actively editing the page, we could then take the page to MFD and delete it because it already exists here? I'm all about leeway but again, if the editor was actively here, there a little leeway about working on their own version of something that already exists but if they insisted upon doing that, it would be deleted and the editor would be asked to actually work on the encyclopedia which is the point here. If this page never came to MFD and the editor returned tomorrow and started again work on this and someone then took it to MFD, it would be deleted and they would be directed to the mainspace version. So why mislead editors in the name of "not aliening or not insulting or not being rude" that because they weren't here when the page was created, they'd shoudn't just be told to go work there? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete at best as not needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as a (near) duplicate topic of Government of Sacramento, California. Editor (doubtful if (s)he ever comes back) should be encourage to edit mainspace article. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Portal:Current events/Calendar box
- Portal:Current events/Calendar box ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This portal is currently not transcluded on any pages. The month links at the top now redirect to the year article and the previous history of these pages is now under subpages of Portal:Current events per an archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 11#Using archives of Portal:Current events for month articles. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Mark as historical and/or redirect to Portal:Current events? It was used before and I don't like the idea of deleting actually used project pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Archive per Ricky. Don't delete things once used. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and tag atop with {{Historical}}. North America1000 07:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Aj45218/Dynamic modeling
- User:Aj45218/Dynamic modeling ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I can't figure out where this stale draft is trying to go. It lacks context and references. We don't have Dynamic modeling or Dynamic Modeling as articles. I suggest we delete this. Legacypac (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. There is no need for someone not interested in the topic to try to figure it out. It is a good draft, with references, and there are no time limits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Not a copy of State diagram. Viable options are to redirect to State diagram (implying that the user should work there instead) or replace with {{Inactive userpage blanked}} or do nothing (keep). There is additional material in this draft, and the information is not stale. Remove the AfC template if that is the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not a copy. Fine in userspace indefinitely. If it were in DraftSpace, I would say "Merge and redirect to a new section at Talk:State diagram, consistent with the policy WP:PRESERVE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- "It's not a copy, but it also doesn't add anything useful". That is an opinion. Opinions like this belong on talk pages. Merge and redirect to talk:State diagram. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as a stale draft of a user who has not edited in 5 years and as a duplicate of State diagram, so there's no useful information being lost. ~ RobTalk 14:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's not a copy, but it also doesn't add anything useful. There may even be some copyvios concerns - at least one sentence is a direct copy from one of the sources. And there is simply no substantive difference between placing {{Inactive userpage blanked}} on a page versus deleting and mentioning WP:REFUND in the deletion message. ~ RobTalk 22:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. It's the same topic. If a separate draft were to be created, it would be subject to deletion because it would be a duplicate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't leave old stale draft lying around indefinitely. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Nilocia/Transformice
- User:Nilocia/Transformice ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userspace draft from August 2010 of Transformice. The original version was created, deleted in July 2010 by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformice and this fork was created. The mainspace version was recreated here so there's no need for this page. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as a probably WP:UP#COPIES violation, probably reposted from an offline save of the deleted page, though I am not sure. I think to be sure one would need to access the deleted page revisions. I have some suspicion that a history merge should be considered, despite the new article's first edit claim. For the benefit of Nilocia, refer to the article Transformice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom and SmokeyJoe. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Mpolson92/2014 Rose Bowl
- User:Mpolson92/2014 Rose Bowl ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userspace draft from September 2012 that is already covered by 2014 Rose Bowl. No connected history, editor's single edit was this page. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect. Redirection does not imply attribution, it just sends the returning editor to the relevant place, and does not require community review. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Ricky81682. - I can't find anything to show that a redirect should be considered for a userpage. If I'm mistaken about that, I have no issue with a redirect being created. Onel5969 TT me 15:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No redirect necessary, if editor will ever be back (not likely considering only 1 edit back in 2012), (s)he should be encouraged to edit mainspace. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
March 19, 2016
User:Fryfrmry/Fry Brothers Golf
- User:Fryfrmry/Fry Brothers Golf ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I'm not seeing this as an encyclopedia article. A single purpose account connected to the family build and abandoned it years ago. Legacypac (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Replace with template:inactive userpage blanked. There's no CSD issues and it doesn't look like it's a deleted mainspace version or the like. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Replace with template:inactive userpage blanked. Historical matters, 1923-1980, are not great promotion concerns to be responded to so decisively, like is current promotion. This looks like a family history interest, but it is an interest, and it well may have Wikipedia-notable aspects. It is fine to be let accessible in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Blank and add {{Inactive userpage blanked}} atop the page, per point #2 of WP:STALEDRAFT. North America1000 07:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Fsbof/Leader Garden
- User:Fsbof/Leader Garden ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A 428 Unit condo development is not likely to be a notable article regardless of how many references show a piece of real estate exists. Legacypac (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Based on Category:Condominiums by country, the premise is wrong in that it is possible/likely to happen. This is just a poor example. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Blank with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. A once productive editor, this page is probably unlikely to be ever suitable for mainspace, but this is not certain. Similar buildings in New York are considered notable. It is a well worked draft, and we should not hide the user's edits from himself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as stale draft that is "unlikely to be ever suitable for mainspace". -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Bahria Town’s Grand Jamia Masjid
- Draft:Bahria Town’s Grand Jamia Masjid ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft from July 2015 that was created following some sort of dispute at Grand Jamia Mosque, Lahore. It seems to already be covered at Bahria_Town#Karachi and at Grand Jamia Mosque, Karachi so it seems like the editor should instead work on the mainspace versions rather than use draftspace to complain and post unsourced statements. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Not sourced or substantiated, if it were I'd say add it to the article's talk page. The author should be encouraged to express opinions on mainspace pages on their talk pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bringing an end to all that stupid "Coup" POV
- Wikipedia:Bringing an end to all that stupid "Coup" POV ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I'd like for this page to be moved into User space and out of Wikipedia space. Essays reflect the viewpoint of their authors but they typically concern the project of editing on Wikipedia, not Egyptian politics. Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Alright then? Did you really read the article deeply yourself? Well, it's not about Egyptian politics itself, but about how you can improve Wikipedia's coverage of modern (2013–present) Egyptian politics. I think one of the numerous problems is that Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptian politics is too biased in favor of the Brotherhood. NPOV should be taken into account and the pro-Brotherhood, anti-government bias should be removed. Yeah, it's an essay, reflecting my own views. I've put it into my userspace for now. See User:Zakawer/Bringing an end to all that stupid "Coup" POV. Zakawer (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- History merge the Wikipedia page into the userspace one and let's move on. Zakawer, Liz isn't arguing over the view within the essay itself, just its location at the moment. And essays typically proscribe issues with behavior on Wikipedia not particular content. Conduct an RFC or other mechanism on the Egyptian pages and work your point involving some points like WP:TERRORIST ("coup" can be contentious) rather than this essay. There is a parallel I can see but your essay does not help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Okay, Ricky81682. I can understand that. I've done an RFC on the talk page for the article I feel is the primary problem. See Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état for more details. Zakawer (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Userfy at minimum (following Ricky81682 above), but I'm leaning toward delete per WP:SOAPBOX. (By the way, this sort of statement is not encouraging, in view of the rest of the content of the essay: "I, for example, modified the entirety of Rabia sign to remove a lot of POV". The changes made to that article should be reviewed.) —Nizolan (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Userfy. Fair user essay, not by far, but fair. Clearly intended for project purposes, fair opinion of the author. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
March 10, 2016
User:Olly836/Ian Olliver
- User:Olly836/Ian Olliver ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Autobiography of a musician found in stale draft list. No sources and no strong claim to notability. Maybe qualifies for NOTAWEBHOST. Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:NOTWEBHOST does not apply since the page is clearly written to be an encyclopedic article and can serve no other purpose. Tone is not promotional. WP:V and WP:N are irrelevant in userspace. No reason to delete exists. Per WP:MfD: "we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Please only nominate pages that are problematic under our guidelines." To remove this page from the stale draft category, recategorize into maintenance category and blank+template are better options that I would be fine with. A2soup (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: It's a WP:STALEDRAFT, and contains unsourced claims about BLP subjects, not only the actual subject. STALEDRAFT #2 says that we should consider blank+template. I don't think that's adequate in this circumstance. STALEDRAFT #4 only applies if there's "some potential". I see no potential for this. From all appearances the only claim to notability this subject has is that he was one of the three members of the PJ Harvey Trio (which has no article, though PJ Harvey does); everywhere else he doesn't seem to have been a prominent member, or the band wasn't prominent. So I have a pretty strong suspicion this wouldn't survive AfD anyway... meaning no potential. In fact, STALEDRAFT #3 suggests we might consider U5: While it's not promotional, it is "otherwise unsuitable" (unsourced BLP), and Olly836 was never a serious Wikipedia editor. Even so, I think a straight delete is better here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- That's a very odd reading of WP:STALEDRAFT, seeing as the only point in that guideline that directly references non-U5 deletion is #6, which reads: "if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion." I can accept the no potential, but what here is problematic even if blanked? Note that BLP issues are specifically given as an example of when blanking would be appropriate. A2soup (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- "Consider" does not mean "you must". I considered it and I disagree that blanking is sufficient to address the BLP issues here. None of the other alternatives appear reasonable for this situation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- If any BLP issues can be addressed by blanking, these can. They are about as minor as BLP issues can get - the draft is dully factual and makes neither positive nor negative nor extraordinary (or even very interesting) claims. Are there any cases in which blanking is sufficient to address BLP issues? If yes, what do those cases look like? If no, then you just disagree with the guideline. A2soup (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- "Consider" does not mean "you must". I considered it and I disagree that blanking is sufficient to address the BLP issues here. None of the other alternatives appear reasonable for this situation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's a very odd reading of WP:STALEDRAFT, seeing as the only point in that guideline that directly references non-U5 deletion is #6, which reads: "if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion." I can accept the no potential, but what here is problematic even if blanked? Note that BLP issues are specifically given as an example of when blanking would be appropriate. A2soup (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep but blank with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. Some weak claim to notability, some decent content, this is not the sort of worthless of draft that needs deletion, could be useful, does no harm in userspace, and less harm if blanked. Anyone else interested will find it via its title in a Wikipedia userspace search. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- There is an evident COI here. It's promotional in tone. It would not survive AfD, and yes I know that A2soup does not consider GNG to apply on a case like this, but if this is kept, it should be tested in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- ...but no one wants it in mainspace in its current state. It's obviously not ready for mainspace - that's why its still a draft. Why should it be tested in mainspace? Also, can you give a quote from the draft that you find to have a promotional tone? I don't see any. A2soup (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- are you offering to adopt it and improve for mainspace? It is not going too be the creating editor, or a mythical future editor, so if not you, then why keep it? The user made three edits total, on one day in Sept 2011, and the other two were to add unsourced info to another related article. [25]. How long should we keep this... another year, two, 50 years? The existence of the page is promotional as it covers a person that fails GNG and the guy wrote it about himself. Legacypac (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- I see, it's not the content of the page but its existence that is promotional. I don't agree with that application of promotion - see for example WP:COIATTRIBUTE, which seems to suggest draftspace as a place for COI edits to be drafted for copying to mainspace by other editors. In any case, the promotion here, if it exists, is so mild that blanking is more than sufficient. Re "why keep it?" - because deletion is a worse option that the alternatives - see my long post here, to which has also been added the additional alternative of recategorizing to an informative maintenance category. A2soup (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- are you offering to adopt it and improve for mainspace? It is not going too be the creating editor, or a mythical future editor, so if not you, then why keep it? The user made three edits total, on one day in Sept 2011, and the other two were to add unsourced info to another related article. [25]. How long should we keep this... another year, two, 50 years? The existence of the page is promotional as it covers a person that fails GNG and the guy wrote it about himself. Legacypac (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- ...but no one wants it in mainspace in its current state. It's obviously not ready for mainspace - that's why its still a draft. Why should it be tested in mainspace? Also, can you give a quote from the draft that you find to have a promotional tone? I don't see any. A2soup (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is an evident COI here. It's promotional in tone. It would not survive AfD, and yes I know that A2soup does not consider GNG to apply on a case like this, but if this is kept, it should be tested in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as none of this suggests the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- What notability is "applicable" in userspace? A2soup (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project" See WP:UP#GOALS and WP:UP#PROMO since it does not pass GNG is is unrelated to the goals of Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- What notability is "applicable" in userspace? A2soup (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability guidelines do not apply to user space. VQuakr (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Again - if kept it will be tested in mainspace. We don't keep stuff with no potential, so vote accordingly. Legacypac (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- And again, WP:POINT. VQuakr (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- This is just a reminder that when this practice was discussed, it was condemned by literally everyone who participated in the discussion except yourself. A2soup (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Discussed by a small group of editors with an agenda based on a faulty reading of an RfC. In other places it has been widely supported that a Keep at MfD is an endorsement of the content going to mainspace sooner or later. Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Legacypac: Can you provide a link to one of these "other places"? A2soup (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Start with the ANi thread you participated in. Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)~
- I mean, I wasn't going to mention it, because you would probably call it a personal attack, but in that thread I see an admin sanctioning you for the move. Liz condemns the move. The Voidwalker seems to have a problem with your supposed thought process, but doesn't reach a conclusion. Robert McClenon says it's not a conduct issue, but recommends reversing the move, which is certainly not an endorsement. SoftLavender says that moving pages useful to the encyclopedia to mainspace is fine. Rob says the move is WP:POINT. Ricky says most of your moves seem fine, but doesn't endorse the practice of moving to mainspace drafts not suitable for mainspace. Mendaliv is the only one to support the move, citing IAR. SmokeyJoe and I of course condemn the move. Then the discussion veers into policy and away from your moves in particular. So I count 6 editors (Martin, Liz, Robert McClenon, Rob, SmokeyJoe, and I) disagreeing with the move (and one sanctioning you for it), 3 (The Voidwalker, Ricky, and SoftLavender) not giving a definite view, and 2 (Mendaliv and yourself) supporting it. You're going to have to forgive me if I don't see moving pages into mainspace that you know are not suitable for mainspace being "widely supported" in that discussion. Any other discussions you want to point out? A2soup (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Start with the ANi thread you participated in. Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)~
-
- @Legacypac: Can you provide a link to one of these "other places"? A2soup (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Discussed by a small group of editors with an agenda based on a faulty reading of an RfC. In other places it has been widely supported that a Keep at MfD is an endorsement of the content going to mainspace sooner or later. Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Again - if kept it will be tested in mainspace. We don't keep stuff with no potential, so vote accordingly. Legacypac (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment this page was evidently written by the subject in 2011. It was one of three edits, all to insert himself into Wikipedia, within a few minutes. The editor was not here to build an encyclopedia. There are no references. No verification. Nothing that suggests this article or any article on this person would survive in mainspace. The keep comments here are just noise and nonsense for the sake of disruption. Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I understand that is your opinion, but there is not clear consensus that it matches the opinion of the community. Dismissing others' opinions as disruption and promising to nominate thousands of similar articles regardless of the actual content of our guidelines is a problem. VQuakr (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Fails WP:MUSICIAN, and as a "autobiography" it is also WP:UP#PROMO. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
February 28, 2016
User:A Second Man in Motion/Marcy Winograd
- User:A Second Man in Motion/Marcy Winograd ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stale draft evidently created to support a high school teacher's failed efforts to get elected. Being a perennial failed political candidate not get a person past GNG. Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as I believe I also encountered this and may've planned to nominate, there are no convincing signs of a better article. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Close to "promotion", but not offensively so. Good attempt as sourcing and appropriate writing. The GNG is not relevant to userpages. No reason for deletion has been given. If an editor thinks these userpage is unlikely to be ever useful to anyone, then that editor could blank the page with an explanation in the edit summary. Keep. This nomination is a misuse of MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- SmokeyJoe gives no rational as to why this should be placed in mainspace or how it benefits the project therefore his keep vote is a misuse of MfD. Blanking is a unilateral decision, and if a lot of blanking happens other editors will be up in arms about other editors acting without community input. Mocking the nomination by saying 'no reason for deletion has been given' is offensive and disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- No rationale for placing the page in mainspace is given because SmokeyJoe is not suggesting that the page should be put in mainspace. Where do you see that suggestion in his comment? A2soup (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- He wants to keep it so must feel this will benefit the project as keeping a stale draft is not going to improve the project. At least there will be no objection to questioning how it stands up to GNG when in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Benefit the project" ≠ "Move to mainspace in its current form". Also, "unilateral action" is what editors are supposed to do (within reason). We do make a big deal out of telling people to WP:Be bold. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- He wants to keep it so must feel this will benefit the project as keeping a stale draft is not going to improve the project. At least there will be no objection to questioning how it stands up to GNG when in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- No rationale for placing the page in mainspace is given because SmokeyJoe is not suggesting that the page should be put in mainspace. Where do you see that suggestion in his comment? A2soup (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe gives no rational as to why this should be placed in mainspace or how it benefits the project therefore his keep vote is a misuse of MfD. Blanking is a unilateral decision, and if a lot of blanking happens other editors will be up in arms about other editors acting without community input. Mocking the nomination by saying 'no reason for deletion has been given' is offensive and disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: This item shouldn't be deleted because the subject might not meet the GNG. It should be deleted because the creator of the draft hasn't been seen in four years. If SmokeyJoe wants to move this to his OWN userpage, and commit to turning this into a mainspace article within a short period of time, I'm all for that. Ravenswing 06:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- So, you want to write off the possibility of the user returning, create barriers if they do return, set up a self-fulfilling prophesy that ex-editors don't return? And what is the benefit of hiding of the material from non-admins? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- If the editor returns, they have been notified about this discussion with the names of people involved here. They can ask and have it restored with much objection. Advocate for a soft delete or something if that's your concern. You don't have any justification for keeping it where it is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
* Delete. The editor has been gone for four years and absent any indication that someone else is interested in this abandoned drafts, there is no need to keep there around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Striking that. I like SmokeyJoe's move and redirect option below. In the minute chance someone searches for this person, this will find the relevant information here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and blank the page. There is nothing in that page that requires blocking access for editors to read it, so there is no need for administrative action. If the author returns, or any one decides to retake the article for any reason, they could recover it from the page history without requiring a second unneeded administrative action to revert the first unneeded one. Of course, the GNG is absolutely irrelevant to pages that are not located at Article space. Diego (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability guidelines do not apply to user space. VQuakr (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't need to keep WP:STALEDRAFTs indefinitely. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Move to Marcy Winograd and redirect to California's_36th_congressional_district_special_election,_2011#Democratic_Party. Almost notable, possibly notable, but not yet demonstrated. Content plausibly suitable and WP:V satisfying. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
January 26, 2016
User:Aakheperure/Khaled Abol Naga draft
- User:Aakheperure/Khaled Abol Naga draft ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Aakheperure/Tarek Naga draft ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Editor has not edited on Wikipedia since 2011. Does not want this moved to mainspace. See talk for reasons, However, since this is not going to mainspace it should be removed, Legacypac (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect the Khaled Abol Naga page as Khaled Abol Naga already exists. The draft is a clear violation of WP:UP#COPIES. Per WP:STALEDRAFT and WP:OWN, I suggest we move the Tarek Naga page to draftspace. It seems notable but requires a lot of cleanup. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- Remove delete as it seems like they were related, I didn't look in the right history. A history merge seems messy so a redirect seems sufficient. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - regrettable that this editor never returned, and maybe a sad commentary on our support for editors with disabilities. I think it may be worthwhile to hear from Petrb here. He adopted this user back in the day. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- Expanding: Khaled Abol Naga seems to be a cut-and-paste copy of the mainspace article from an older revision, which Aakheperure was intending to work on, and since it got bumped to main space at some point there are contribs from other editors. This might require a messy history merge. On the other hand, Tarek Naga seems to have been a frequent target of a sockpuppeting editor who liked to cut-and-paste userspace drafts to main space to steal credit for them; it's already been histmerged at least twice. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- History merge the Khaled Abol Naga draft with Khaled Abol Naga per my comment above; move the Tarek Naga page to Draft:Tarek Naga per Ricky81682. I'm sympathetic to the desire of an impaired editor to create and work on articles in the way that works best for them, so long as that is in the best interests of Wikipedia (and it often is), but Wikipedia is a collaborative project and nobody owns pages, not even in their user space. They've evidently retired, and someone else should have a chance to work on these pages. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- I should have made more clear - I'm very sympathetic to the editor's desire to edit in draft space given his visual impairment. I just bring the stale pages for appropriate action. Legacypac (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- And honestly I hope we can work on the draft and take it to mainspace. If the editor returns, I hope they appreciate that someone did look after the work, not just let it sit there ignored. :/ -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- So ok to ignore the author's request not to move the draft? Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- WP:OWN. They agreed to give up their total rights when they edited here under the GFDL. We've had editors come here, and someone changes their page or renames it and they start demanding retraction of their edits and deletions of everything and they're told, either you follow these rules or you're treated for the disruption you're causing. If not, we could delete it but I don't think that's ultimately productive and frankly I don't like the precedent of "this is content, Wikipedia can only have it if I get to decide what happens to it." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- On the other hand, if the editor does return and wishes to edit using their process of downloading the article, editing offline, and then uploading their revised version, I think we can be sympathetic to that. As long as they're actively editing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- So ok to ignore the author's request not to move the draft? Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- And honestly I hope we can work on the draft and take it to mainspace. If the editor returns, I hope they appreciate that someone did look after the work, not just let it sit there ignored. :/ -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- I should have made more clear - I'm very sympathetic to the editor's desire to edit in draft space given his visual impairment. I just bring the stale pages for appropriate action. Legacypac (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- History merge the pre-23:40, 22 January 2011 versions of the draft to the mainspace article. Delete the subsequent draft versions. Content forks, even in different namespaces, are a very bad idea and not allowed.
- RE reasons for wanting to edit elsewhere for visual impairment reasons. Editing a copy elsewhere is always welcome, short term. Usually about a week max, and it gets really complicated if you take longer than others' edits to the mainspace article. Do not keep copies any longer than required, they are an attribution compliance hazard. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Still argue for the history merge of the older versions, but later versions do have worthwhile improvements. A careful repair of the forking is required, I am not sure how this is best done.
- User:Aakheperure wrote in big on the top of the draft:
-
- "Please do not move this draft without asking the author!
- If you see this draft elsewhere in Wikipedia, please do not histmerge. Chances are it was taken from Aakheperure without his consent. Thank you."
-
- That explicit assertion of WP:OWNership should be repudiated. "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with ..." is not easily missed. User:Obsidian Soul was wrong to defer to User:Aakheperure's assertion of ownership when he moved this page from mainsapce back to userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- For those who don't know the history of this article. This was originally a planned draft by a new editor who was being pestered by another user who keeps moving his drafts from his userspace before they were finished. He asked for help from #wikipedia-en-help connect in IRC for this. But he was already pretty angry and desperate by that time, so it was probably too late to stop him from completely giving up on Wikipedia.
-
-
- Just because we don't own anything, doesn't mean it's totally alright to disrupt someone else's work process (especially given that User:Aakheperure was visually impaired and could not work directly on mainspace). People work in userspace so they can have more room for half-finished stuff without having to worry about edit conflicts. Asserting that that's WP:OWN is ridiculous. This was not a long-term "content fork" either. It was only one day-old before the disruptions started happening. He was planning to merge it properly when it was done. And as as far as I recall, this also happened to the rest of his drafts.
-
-
-
- User:Aakheperure was a good editor and would have likely contributed more if this had not happened. It has nothing to do with WP:OWN, more with basic editing etiquette. That said, given that he seems to be gone for good, a Merge seems to be the only option, as the draft is still in better shape than the mainspace article.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Merge The mainspace page is currently suffering from a lack of references, which the draft page seems to have more that can help it. Deletion is not the only tool in the chest. If the editor has departed the WikiVerse in protesst, then they've effectively given up their exclusive editing right to a page. Hasteur (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Ideally, I think this should be merged into the mainspace page. If other editors decide that this should not be merged into the main page because of the original editor's objections, then this should still be kept. At the very most, it could be blanked. Please reread WP:STALE: it says that stale drafts should only be deleted as a last resort if "problematic even if blanked," which is not remotely true here.Fagles (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merge Khaled Abol Naga to existing mainspace article. Anyone having a vague idea of a history merge will know that a history merge is not possible here, because of parallel histories. Merge is appropriate as the draft has plenty of refs compared to just one in the mainspace article. And Keep Tarek Naga draft. 103.6.159.83 (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Ivanvector and SmokeyJoe: 103.6.159.83 (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Don't keep these drafts as that helps no one. I'm happy with a merge. Legacypac (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merge Khaled Abol Naga along the lines indicated in WP:PV, though I'm not convinced a histmerge is impossible (just that the result would be confusing and as such, probably inadvisable). The mainspace article wasn't edited at all during the active period this draft was edited; the result would be that all the added text would then appear to be removed by the first edit in May 2011. If we just go with the
{{copied}}
-type fix, I'm not such a big fan of leaving the history in userspace. The instructions at PV provide an alternate option that might be considered (keeping the history in a subpage that redirects to the article itself), but I think we should leave that for the admins who monitor WP:REPAIR. Draftify Tarek Naga draft, for now anyway. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC) - Move Tarek Naga draft to main space and leave a redirect in case Aakheperure does return, however unlikely that is. I've done some cleanup and I think the article is sufficiently referenced for mainspace. It does need some more work, but we have far worse biographies in article space. I'll also point out that the "please don't move this page" notice was actually added by Obsidian Soul ([26]). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- As for the Khaled Abol Naga draft, I agree with Mendaliv that a history merge wouldn't be terribly messy, since all of Aakheperure's edits to the draft fall into a period where there were no significant edits to the mainspace article. There would just be one edit on 12 May 2011 that looks like a mass-reversion, but that's not terrible. That makes attribution simple if anyone decides to use Aakheperure's content from the draft. The two more recent edits could be left attached to the draft page, which would become a redirect to the article, in case the editor ever returns to look for it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Agree. A history merge is desirable, significant edits in two histories is worse that what sounds likes only a mildly messy history merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand how a histmerge is appropriate as I have never seen it done wherever parallel revisions arise. I have already done the text-merge and added the {{copied}} template on the article talk page Anyway, let us ping Graham87 and Jenks24 for expert advise. 103.6.159.82 (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have now performed the merge of User:Aakheperure/Khaled Abol Naga draft to Khaled Abol Naga. The userpage was converted to a redirect and {{copied}} was added to article talk page. 103.6.159.82 (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think the merge and the use of the copied template are completely adequate in this case. I only merge parallel histories in cases of extreme desperation; this one doesn't fall in that category. Graham87 13:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Closed discussions
For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.
|