Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Centralized discussion | |||
---|---|---|---|
Proposals: policy | other | Discussions | Ideas |
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
Note: entries for inactive discussions, closed or not, should be moved to the archive. |
|||
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)
- Files in the File namespace that have a local description pages but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
- Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.
Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.
Before nominating a page for deletion
Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:
Deleting pages in your own userspace |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
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 May 11, 2016
- 2.2 May 10, 2016
- 2.2.1 Draft:Ghost Attack
- 2.2.2 Draft:Jack Hogarth
- 2.2.3 Book:Knowledge
- 2.2.4 User:JonBroxton/Buffalo City FC
- 2.2.5 User:Zeecarbonell/Waldy Carbonell
- 2.2.6 User:Zagarten/LoS
- 2.2.7 User:Zackmadd/Band members of Imagine Dragons
- 2.2.8 User:Znexmaster/Electronic SmartPen
- 2.2.9 User:Δ/Example/Template:Rhymney Railway
- 2.2.10 User:יצחק דורש טוב/sandbox/Tuvia Steinharter
- 2.2.11 User:Simbaboy/DVplaza.co.ke
- 2.2.12 User:Scalhotrod/Flayderman's guide (book)
- 2.2.13 User:Scalhotrod/Humble Abode (company)
- 2.2.14 User:Scalhotrod/Christina Angel
- 2.2.15 User:Scalhotrod/Beverage taxes in the United States
- 2.2.16 User:VanishedUser sdu9aya9fs654654/Michael M Nikoletseas
- 2.2.17 User:AlesandraC/FELINO DOLLOSO
- 2.2.18 User:Alchemy213/Darryl "Daz" Coppins
- 2.2.19 User:Adsbond/Rugby Welsh Rfc
- 2.2.20 User:Saladbethf/Concrete Salad
- 2.2.21 User:Shadowpriest70/Wax (rapper)
- 2.2.22 User:ShannanMitchener/The Heart Rate Of A Mouse
- 2.2.23 User:ShamanBizarre/The Nerve Scheme
- 2.2.24 Draft:Robert S. Hunt
- 2.2.25 User:Nikita Reskakis
- 2.3 May 9, 2016
- 2.4 May 8, 2016
- 2.4.1 User:Urpunkt/Otto Buchwitz
- 2.4.2 Draft:The Debate Club, Chennai
- 2.4.3 User:In8oo/In-Goo Kwak
- 2.4.4 User:Baks/White Yacht
- 2.4.5 User:Usartalliance/Lightning Bolt Wonder
- 2.4.6 Draft:OpenSpy.net
- 2.4.7 User:Alienturnedhuman/Random Perspective
- 2.4.8 User:Amartiro/Djrbashyan
- 2.4.9 User:Amanly/Ron Manly
- 2.4.10 User:Godsy/sandbox
- 2.4.11 User:Anakha452/Mizuchi Shiki
- 2.4.12 User:Alison01s/Enter your new article name here
- 2.5 May 7, 2016
- 2.5.1 User:An3f/SNAP Scarborough
- 2.5.2 User:Amwisdx/Stevie Stone
- 2.5.3 User:Amw3yb-uva/Mary and Molly Bell
- 2.5.4 User:Amyvandevelde/September
- 2.5.5 User:AmyHebel/Android nation
- 2.5.6 User:Amyp2778/Facing the Dragon - How a Desperate Act Pulled One Addict Out of Methamphetamine Hell
- 2.5.7 User:Anarekey/Kathryn Camsey
- 2.5.8 User:AnastasiaDuke/Galleo
- 2.5.9 User:Anatolga/TeddyAndHisPatches
- 2.5.10 Wikipedia:Notable and Verifiable
- 2.6 May 6, 2016
- 2.7 May 5, 2016
- 2.8 May 4, 2016
- 2.8.1 Book:Meghan Trainor studio albums
- 2.8.2 Draft:Push and Shove (song)
- 2.8.3 User:Paxomen/Consanguinity (Buffyverse)
- 2.8.4 Draft:Sunshine Superman (2014 film)
- 2.8.5 User:Anonymousclit
- 2.8.6 User:Captainsamable/Honda Civic Tour 2011
- 2.8.7 User:Jwad/Don't Tell Me Promo Tour
- 2.8.8 User:Rudd103/Two Seconds/To Pass The Time
- 2.8.9 User:Technical 13/Drafts/Caroline Strong
- 2.8.10 Draft:Shyaway
- 2.8.11 User:AllanMarr/The Hypnic Jerks
- 2.8.12 Draft:Inside The Sea (band)
- 2.8.13 User:Valfontis/Aloha Trailer Company
- 2.8.14 Draft:Bagus Setiawan Purdiyanto
- 2.8.15 User:ASOTMKX/Simon Patterson (musician)
- 2.9 May 3, 2016
- 2.9.1 User:Valenti 17/Logan Stanton
- 2.9.2 User:Andieanderson/Michelle A. Monroe
- 2.9.3 User:Alik.ulmasov/April Smith and the Great Picture Show
- 2.9.4 User:Amit Kr Kushwaha/Mukteswar Temple (Murtiya)
- 2.9.5 Draft:Swordfish.es
- 2.9.6 Draft:Iowa Lakes Community College
- 2.9.7 Draft:Rosa Mystica Foundation
- 2.9.8 User:Alexfig floripa/Música de Cabresto Brasileira
- 2.9.9 User:Alexdalenberg/Blumsday LLC
- 2.9.10 User:Alexappacman/Daley (Singer)
- 2.9.11 User:Alexander Blinov/Russian Club in Singapore
- 3 Old business
- 3.1 May 3, 2016
- 3.2 May 2, 2016
- 3.3 April 29, 2016
- 3.4 April 27, 2016
- 3.5 April 17, 2016
- 3.6 April 26, 2016
- 3.7 April 25, 2016
- 3.8 April 22, 2016
- 3.9 April 19, 2016
- 3.10 April 18, 2016
- 3.11 April 16, 2016
- 3.12 April 14, 2016
- 3.13 April 13, 2016
- 3.14 April 12, 2016
- 3.15 April 10, 2016
- 3.16 April 9, 2016
- 3.17 April 6, 2016
- 3.18 April 5, 2016
- 3.19 April 2, 2016
- 3.20 February 8, 2016
- 3.21 March 29, 2016
- 3.22 March 28, 2016
- 3.23 March 26, 2016
- 3.24 March 25, 2016
- 3.25 March 24, 2016
- 3.26 March 23, 2016
- 3.26.1 User:Fsadiq/Insaf Research Wing
- 3.26.2 User:Aixporter/Kooboo
- 3.26.3 User:SBirdTVS/TransVault
- 3.26.4 User:S. Jennifer Gray Charnoe/The Celestial Synapse
- 3.26.5 User:S.V.Praveen in love with Jesus/Wikipedia;Articles for creation
- 3.26.6 User:Rysnes/Adrian Wareham
- 3.26.7 User:Ryrod99/The Annexation of Santo Domingo
- 3.26.8 User:RyersonU/Lauren Christoff
- 3.27 March 22, 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.
May 11, 2016
User:Alittlebitabouteverything/RanchoMargot
- User:Alittlebitabouteverything/RanchoMargot ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
6 years ago a User dropped this in their only edit. Lacks sources. Seems non-notable. Missing key info. Legacypac (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Addaren ross ( Lil Snupe)
- Draft:Addaren ross ( Lil Snupe) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Title is a combo of the repper's real name and birth name but the text appears to be nonsense. Topic covered via Lil Snupe which is redirected to info on his label's page. The 17 year old was killed a few months after being signed, so little new info is going to come out. Legacypac (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Brady Romberg
- Draft:Brady Romberg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This page was the only effort of the creater back in October 2015. No sources and no attempt at an article. Legacypac (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:142.217.93.147 |
---|
The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete. — xaosflux Talk 03:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC) User talk:142.217.93.147
Though this has been up for more than six months, this is potentially slanderous toward a living person with a searchable online presence. 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage 00:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
|
May 10, 2016
Draft:Ghost Attack
- Draft:Ghost Attack ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No claim of significance in this old draft bio Legacypac (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Jack Hogarth
- Draft:Jack Hogarth ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Junk Draft page. Any CSD for this kind of thing? Legacypac (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Book:Knowledge
- Book:Knowledge ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Test book? Contains only two things, entirely unrelated to each other, one now deleted. "Knowledge" is everything on WP so in theory could include everything which means it cannot be repaired or otherwise completed. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:JonBroxton/Buffalo City FC
- User:JonBroxton/Buffalo City FC ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 18:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
This is an rescued copy of an old revision of Buffalo City FC. Not sure if it should be deleted or redirected. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Zeecarbonell/Waldy Carbonell
- User:Zeecarbonell/Waldy Carbonell ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 18:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Unreferenced self BLP stale draft Legacypac (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Zagarten/LoS
- User:Zagarten/LoS ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 18:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable rapper stale draft Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Zackmadd/Band members of Imagine Dragons
- User:Zackmadd/Band members of Imagine Dragons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 18:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Redundant to Imagine Dragons and no point making an article about the members of the band. Legacypac (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Znexmaster/Electronic SmartPen
- User:Znexmaster/Electronic SmartPen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 18:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
a test edit by a non contributor followed by a drive by account that added a name. Delete the page as pointless Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Δ/Example/Template:Rhymney Railway
- User:Δ/Example/Template:Rhymney Railway ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 18:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
stale userspace copy of Template:Rhymney Railway Legacypac (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:יצחק דורש טוב/sandbox/Tuvia Steinharter
- User:יצחק דורש טוב/sandbox/Tuvia Steinharter ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 18:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Unsourced BLP in too glowing terms to be used. Likely not notable amd no one working on this stale draft Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Simbaboy/DVplaza.co.ke
- User:Simbaboy/DVplaza.co.ke ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 18:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Promotional draft about a website that I can't get to pull up, so maybe dead already. Legacypac (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Scalhotrod/Flayderman's guide (book)
- User:Scalhotrod/Flayderman's guide (book) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 18:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Moribund userspace draft, rather promotional if negligible text. Page creator has been permabanned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Scalhotrod/Humble Abode (company)
- User:Scalhotrod/Humble Abode (company) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 18:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Moribund userspace draft, no assertion of notability, all sourcing appears promotional. Page creator has been permabanned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Scalhotrod/Christina Angel
- User:Scalhotrod/Christina Angel ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 18:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Moribund userspace draft for BLP without assertion of notability or nontrivial reliable sourcing. Page creator has been permabanned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Scalhotrod/Beverage taxes in the United States
- User:Scalhotrod/Beverage taxes in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 18:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Moribund userspace draft, no meaningful content. Page creator has been permabanned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:VanishedUser sdu9aya9fs654654/Michael M Nikoletseas
- User:VanishedUser sdu9aya9fs654654/Michael M Nikoletseas ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 18:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Userspace draft from mid-2015. A later draft was created in January 2016 at Michael Nikoletseas which oddly has the same books sections but it's probably a coincidence. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:AlesandraC/FELINO DOLLOSO
- User:AlesandraC/FELINO DOLLOSO ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 18:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable actor stale draft Legacypac (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Alchemy213/Darryl "Daz" Coppins
- User:Alchemy213/Darryl "Daz" Coppins ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 18:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable musician page in stale draft category Legacypac (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Adsbond/Rugby Welsh Rfc
- User:Adsbond/Rugby Welsh Rfc ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 18:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Found unsuitable for mainspace. Restoring admin questioned if it would even be ready for mainspace [1]. User that requested restoration has failed to work on any of the pages they requested to be restored. Since the original author is long gone, this should be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Saladbethf/Concrete Salad
- User:Saladbethf/Concrete Salad ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 18:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Band without album, too soon Legacypac (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Shadowpriest70/Wax (rapper)
- User:Shadowpriest70/Wax (rapper) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 18:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Yet another non-notable rapper with a link farm at the bottom Legacypac (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:ShannanMitchener/The Heart Rate Of A Mouse
- User:ShannanMitchener/The Heart Rate Of A Mouse ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 18:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable fan fiction ad Legacypac (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:ShamanBizarre/The Nerve Scheme
- User:ShamanBizarre/The Nerve Scheme ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 18:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Another non-notable band Legacypac (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Robert S. Hunt |
---|
The result of the discussion was speedy delete (copyright violation). Huon (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Draft:Robert S. Hunt
Promotional draft created by Avalaunch, a web design/SEO company. It is a BLP with almost no sources. It's so fawning that if we want an article about this guy, we first need some TNT. BethNaught (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nikita Reskakis |
---|
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak per WP:G11. North America1000 19:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC) User:Nikita Reskakis
WP:FAKEARTICLE. Same material was posted to Nikita Reskakis. Whpq (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
|
May 9, 2016
User:Никита-Родин-2002/Sandbox
- User:Никита-Родин-2002/Sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stale draft in non-English of animated series allegedly created by the author. This user is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry, so no chance of returning. ~ RobTalk 09:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
May 8, 2016
User:Urpunkt/Otto Buchwitz
- User:Urpunkt/Otto Buchwitz ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a five-year-old stale draft copied from German encyclopedia but never completely translated. In 2009, the mainspace version of Otto Buchwitz was deleted (it was a single-line stub) following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe's debate about unsourced German-translated stubs. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - this article is neither unreferenced nor a stub, so the cited AfD and the deletion of the previous iteration of this article seem completely irrelevant. All this article needs is translation, and it will be ready for mainspace. It is completely unproblematic and no benefit to the project is derived from deletion. Indeed, this page is almost certainly a net positive. Not to mention the lack of policy-based reasons for deletion. Even given the (incorrect but nonetheless applied by some) idea that drafts need to cover notable subjects, this subject is clearly notable. Honestly, I'm really confused by this nomination. A2soup (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete it is stale. If someone was inclined to translate the German page they would be foolish to start with a 5 year old copy. They should go grab the current version from German Wiki that is hopefully improved over the last 5 years. Legacypac (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- The references available at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Buchwitz overcome the reason for deletion at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Draft:The Debate Club, Chennai
- Draft:The Debate Club, Chennai ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft from February 2015 for what looks like a non-notable student-run debate in Chennai India. Creating this and adding this to the school's article was the editor's only edits here over a year ago. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Not stand-alone notable (Note Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_58#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F, and ongoing discussions at WT:UP that do not support deletion of drafts), but probably worth merging into the School article. MfD is not the right place to manage old drafts, deletion is not needed for any reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
User:In8oo/In-Goo Kwak
- User:In8oo/In-Goo Kwak ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 17:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 12:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Completely fails N and V. Maybe a test page, but of no use to anyone. Legacypac (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Prefer to blank with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. It is the user's autobiography. At least he made a couple of other edits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom - No evidence of notability fails GNG (Personally I think it's pointless in blanking something that'll never be revisted again and something the creator won't ever do anything with again, Better off deleted IMHO). –Davey2010Talk 19:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's pretty promotional, and only follows the subject through high school. There are a some published reports about him: NY Times, and an accompanying video, an opinion piece, and articles from two university papers,here and here. Notability for an article is not there at this time. User biographies are supposed to be about their editing activities and areas of interest, so this shouldn't be saved for that reason. Blanking or deletion would be acceptable, but it shouldn't be left visible.—Anne Delong (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Baks/White Yacht
- User:Baks/White Yacht ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 17:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
While the first paragraph and infobox are already covered at Bela lađa, the rest of the draft is a old usercopy of The Shield. The only difference is a changed reference. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Usartalliance/Lightning Bolt Wonder
- User:Usartalliance/Lightning Bolt Wonder ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 17:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Promotional page on an artist by an account who only came here to promote this artist years ago. NOTAWEBHOST Legacypac (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Blank per WP:STALEDRAFT #4. No MfD was needed on this. It does seem promotional to have the address in there, but the blanking will fix that. There are some potentially useful sources in the draft such that it would be a net loss to WP to delete. VQuakr (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom - The article doesn't make much sense and plus I cannot find one reliable source on him anyway (both cites in the article doesn't even mention the person), Pointless blanking something that'll never be revisted again so better off deleted. –Davey2010Talk 19:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as promotion. Of the references and external links, the only ones that work are promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Draft:OpenSpy.net
- Draft:OpenSpy.net ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 17:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTWEBHOST; google searches reveal zero reliable secondary sources, and it's highly unlikely a private game server will ever become notable. ~ RobTalk 14:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Good faith drafting, not promotion or webhosting. Just blank, do not hide the user contributions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as no evidence of notability, pointless blanking something that'll never be revisited again, Better off deleted IMHO). –Davey2010Talk 19:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Now that we are here, yes, but deletion was not worth its administrative overhead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well I think so far all of the MFDs I've !voted Delete in have been deleted instead of blanked so I would say it was worth the "administrative overhead", The creator was an IP so I'd imagine they've gained a new IP address ... either way the article won't ever be seen nor edited after this MFD ... then there's the problem of this could easily be vandalized and no one would ever know which is why deletion is better than blanking. –Davey2010Talk 13:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: SmokeyJoe means that we all had to review and comment on the nomination and an admin had to assess our comments, close the discussion, and delete the page. The fact everybody played their roles does not make it any less wasteful, given that deletion does not accomplish anything that blanking (which takes 1 non-admin 15 seconds) does not. A2soup (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well I think so far all of the MFDs I've !voted Delete in have been deleted instead of blanked so I would say it was worth the "administrative overhead", The creator was an IP so I'd imagine they've gained a new IP address ... either way the article won't ever be seen nor edited after this MFD ... then there's the problem of this could easily be vandalized and no one would ever know which is why deletion is better than blanking. –Davey2010Talk 13:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Now that we are here, yes, but deletion was not worth its administrative overhead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Alienturnedhuman/Random Perspective
- User:Alienturnedhuman/Random Perspective ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userfied in 2013 from mainspace when concerns about notability were raised. User abandoned it shortly thereafter and has not been back. Legacypac (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Amartiro/Djrbashyan
- User:Amartiro/Djrbashyan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Russian version of Mkhitar Djrbashian not edited since 2010 amd editor long gone. Looks like editor contributed to the English article so presumably this Russian copy has no value. Legacypac (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Davey2010: What do you mean by "No evidence of notability"? Does the existence of an article on the subject (as noted by the nom!) not constitute evidence of notability? And, in any case, what is the relevance of notability in userspace? A2soup (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Legacypac has given a good account of the situation, but I reason differently from what he describes. I would say "Looks like editor contributed to the English article so presumably..." they were productive, good-faith contributors on this subject and accordingly should have their personal notes on it left alone. A2soup (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Amanly/Ron Manly
- User:Amanly/Ron Manly ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dropped here 6 years ago by a SPA that made a single edit. Account shares a name with the subject. I can't find any coverage to justify passing WP:ACTOR. Legacypac (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Godsy/sandbox |
---|
The result of the discussion was keep. LegacyPac's grudge against Godsy is well known, resulting in one pointed page note and at least two Ani fillings already, with sysops already talking about blocking him. Closing down as keep and frivolous as hell. KoshVorlon 19:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC) User:Godsy/sandbox
Godsy is maintaining a hit list against my edits here. Legacypac (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
|
User:Anakha452/Mizuchi Shiki
- User:Anakha452/Mizuchi Shiki ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stale userspace copy of Lim Dall-Young maybe intended to be used for drafting of another article. Prohibited by WP:UP#COPIES if not being worked on. Legacypac (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Alison01s/Enter your new article name here
- User:Alison01s/Enter your new article name here ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stale unreferanced BLP that would be PROD'd in mainspace. No indication this judge is notable or reason to develop this further. Legacypac (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to User:Alison01s/Alison01s, and consider moving that page to mainspace. Verifiable public official, a Utah Judge, plausibly notable. No serious BLP concerns. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
May 7, 2016
User:An3f/SNAP Scarborough
- User:An3f/SNAP Scarborough ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Promotional page, likely by the publisher of a magazine that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Author's intitials match publisher name on page. Legacypac (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, but should only blank, no need for the administrative cost of MfD. Delete not that we are here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Amwisdx/Stevie Stone
- User:Amwisdx/Stevie Stone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page on another non-notable rapper. No sources, would be PROded in mainspace. Editor that created it is long gone. Legacypac (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Notability is irrelevant for drafts. No evidence that editor is gone, there's no retired tag on their page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.122.70 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- This nomination statement is either really incompetent or really dishonest.
-
- "non-notable ... no sources" - Really? I see a citation on the fact about having an album on a national chart. You know, the fact that makes this subject meet WP:NBAND.
-
- "would be PROded in mainspace" - Well, go ahead and PROD it then.
- Redirect to Stevie Stone and trouts for the nominator and delete !voter, who either didn't even bother to look at the page (much less investigate the subject) or deliberately misrepresented it. A2soup (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- A2soup - There's nothing incompetent or dishonest about it - I somehow just didn't find anything and until now wasn't even aware they had an article .... which meets GNG grin, Well seeing as we have the article redirecting this would be pointless as the creator's buggered off anyway..... –Davey2010Talk 13:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- No problem, just be more careful in the future - you can't always take the nom's word for it. Redirecting is preferable to deletion in cases like this for two reasons. 1) If the creator returns, they get the message to work on the mainspace article instead of the message that their work is not valued, and 2) it saves everyone's time since we don't need to have this discussion at MfD and an admin doesn't need to close it. In addition, there is no benefit to deletion not also served by redirecting. A2soup (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Userspace Page under debated created July 2012 [4]
- Sept 2012 the present mainspace page created as a redirect [5]
- 5 May 2013 User:Joshhhjonesss creates a page over the redirect. [6] (and next links)
- Several hours later User:Qwyrxian redirects the page to the label saying "Undid revision 553704212 by Joshhhjonesss (talk) person does not appear to be notable per WP:ENT)"
- User:Speedfish recreates the page
- 6 May 2013 User:Qwyrxian (Reverted 3 edits by Speedfish (talk): This still does not overcome the prior AfD discussion--non-notable.)"
I've not been able to find the AfD but User:Qwyrxian is an experienced editor and did not make it up. At the time this userpage was created and for the rapper was not notable per AfD. I suspect this page is a WP:UP#COPIES of the deleted article, but can't quite prove that. Legacypac (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Redirecting is not keeping the content, so it doesn't matter even if it is a copy of the deleted article. It's also worth noting that, experience or not, Qwyrxian was wrong. WP:ENT is not the appropriate guideline for a rapper - the appropriate guideline is WP:MUSIC (WP:ENT even refers you to it). If this draft is indeed the deleted page, it has a cited claim of a charted album that makes the subject meet WP:MUSIC (seriously, how does everyone miss this?). So the original deletion/redirecting was wrong. A2soup (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Amw3yb-uva/Mary and Molly Bell
- User:Amw3yb-uva/Mary and Molly Bell ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stale Userspace WP:UP#COPIES of Mary and Molly Bell Legacypac (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Amyvandevelde/September
- User:Amyvandevelde/September ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unsourced page about a film that we t streight to DVD. Stale draft Legacypac (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
User:AmyHebel/Android nation
- User:AmyHebel/Android nation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stale draft with no sources. Basically a definition Legacypac (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Amyp2778/Facing the Dragon - How a Desperate Act Pulled One Addict Out of Methamphetamine Hell
- User:Amyp2778/Facing the Dragon - How a Desperate Act Pulled One Addict Out of Methamphetamine Hell ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sure looks like copyvio Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Anarekey/Kathryn Camsey
- User:Anarekey/Kathryn Camsey ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unreferenced BLP about a non-notable actress. Stale since 2011 and written by someone that did not otherwise contribute meaningfully to the project. Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
User:AnastasiaDuke/Galleo
- User:AnastasiaDuke/Galleo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Looks like nonsense - stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Anatolga/TeddyAndHisPatches
- User:Anatolga/TeddyAndHisPatches ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another non-notable band page - a prohibited use of userspace (NOTAWEBHOST violation). Legacypac (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Unsigned comment added to the talk pages says "I don't agree they are "non-notable". They were featured on Warner Bros. Records' Psychedelic 40 Collection along with other influential bands of the 1960s. They may have only had 1 hit, but this isn't some garage band either. There are references to articles and, if read, will show they indeed have influence in the psychedelic-rock genre. The truth is, I had intended to include much more on this page, but have not yet done so. If there's a way to mark this page as non-public (which I thought I did) while it's worked on, I'll do that.".
My response: If someone is actually working on it and notability can be shown, that is great, but we don't allow pages to hosted indefenately where no path to mainspace exists. Legacypac (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. The user whose userspace the draft is in asks you to not delete the draft, points out that there are references literally on the page, says they intend to work on it, and you still want to delete it? Goodness, MfD has gotten out of hand while I was away. A2soup (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Additionally, this case is a good example of why non-problematic stale userspace drafts should not be deleted. The editor has not made any edits since 2010, hasn't edited anything but this draft, and yet was fortuitously around to say that they still intend to work on their unfinished draft. What if they hadn't checked Wikipedia this week and the page had been deleted? There's a potential contributor thoroughly bitten - and for what benefit? A2soup (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
More likely they have email notifocation enabled. After 6 years of inactivity I doubt they will really work on it, but hey maybe. The unicorn user that comes back can always request undeletion, but in the mean time we will continue clearing non notable bands and other nonsense from userspace like has been done since the start of wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect as it turns out there is already a page for Teddy and His Patches. The long absent editor is welcome to go edit that page and this one is redundant. I've already copied over the three external links and will create a redirect at Teddy & His Patches which is how the page refers to them, causing me to not find the mainspace page earlier. Legacypac (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect per the above. The draft is redundant to the article (in terms of subject; I haven't evaluated content to see if there's anything worth merging). ~ RobTalk 11:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep (in some form) per A2soup.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notable and Verifiable
- Wikipedia:Notable and Verifiable ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Single-handedly created guidance essay that looks like it duplicates the scope of WP:Core content policies. - HyperGaruda (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
May 6, 2016
Draft:ARMagLock
- Draft:ARMagLock ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft article written by a WP:SPA that was spamming the link for the company across multiple articles. Hasn't touched the article or edited in a couple of months. Article submission was rejected. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Draft:White Touch
- Draft:White Touch ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:NOTWEBHOST ~ RobTalk 07:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
May 5, 2016
User:Blackout0189/Circle of Friends
- User:Blackout0189/Circle of Friends ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Usercopy of an old revision of Circle of Friends (Dexter) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Tsapat turahe/List of Haskell Indian Nations University People
- User:Tsapat turahe/List of Haskell Indian Nations University People ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Old stale draft by an editor that is essentially devoid of info. Just a lead and some headings Legacypac (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - All headings & fuck all else, nothing worth saving. –Davey2010Talk 00:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Good-faith draft, no benefit derived from deletion. In addition, there is precedent for this sort of article (e.g. List of University of Michigan alumni), so this could actually become a valid article. We don't delete userspace drafts that are non-problematic and plausible articles because they are incomplete and stale. There is no reason, either in policy or rational argument, to do so. A2soup (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- The creator has buggered off so it can't become a valid article, It'll just sit there unknown until someone patrolling sandboxes/userspaces comes across it again.... where it'll no doubt be deleted, We do delete incomplete and stale userspace stuff and have done for years. –Davey2010Talk 14:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Trite97/Kuza
- User:Trite97/Kuza ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Yet another non-notable band page Legacypac (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Valkyriesrugby
- User:Valkyriesrugby ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:FAKEARTICLE using userspace named for the topic. No sources. Legacypac (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
*Delete per nom - non notable rugby team, Nothing worth saving. –Davey2010Talk 00:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Ya know, it's sometimes nice to google something before you declare it non-notable (not that notability applies in userspace anyways, but that's another can of worms). Here are three independent sources about the Minnesota Valkyries rugby team, and here is a source that describes them as "one of the top female rugby teams in the country". I don't know whether I'm more surprised that the Minnesota Valkyries don't have a mainspace article yet or that a non-problematic, good-faith draft on them ended up at MfD. A2soup (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Still a WP:FAKEARTICLE in userspace, so notability does not matter. If sent to mainspace Godsy would revert and slam me at ANi etc. If you want to go build out an article on the topic A2soup go do it. This page has pretty much nothing worth keeping though. Legacypac (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Still a WP:FAKEARTICLE" + has {{Userspace draft}} at the top = ???
- "has pretty much nothing worth keeping" + "was founded in 1984 and was originally a part of the University of Minnesota Women's Rugby Club until the club's split in 1990" = ???
- There are options for good-faith non-problematic userspace drafts besides sending them to mainspace and deleting them. Leaving them alone works. It doesn't deserve deletion just because no one is willing to work it up for mainspace in the next seven days. A2soup (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Still a WP:FAKEARTICLE in userspace, so notability does not matter. If sent to mainspace Godsy would revert and slam me at ANi etc. If you want to go build out an article on the topic A2soup go do it. This page has pretty much nothing worth keeping though. Legacypac (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep per the sound reasoning given by A2soup. There is no harm in retaining it.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deleteper WP:CSD#G11.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Glad you finally clued in (maybe you want to go clean up your criticisms of stuff I miss?) - Looks like an article about the rugby club but is actually a userpage about the rugby club - type of Fake Article. It is a prohibited username too but since they have no edited in 5 years and once this page is gone there will be nothing with that name, I've not bothered to report that. Legacypac (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Godsy: What? I've removed your G11 tag. With an independent source or two (I linked four above), this would be a valid stub - it certainly doesn't need to be "fundamentally rewritten" to not be promotional. What part did you find at all promotional? I just don't understand. A2soup (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @A2soup: {{Db-spamuser}}: "a userpage being used only for promotion or publicity, with a username that promotes or implies affiliation with the entity being promoted. The use of one's userpage for advertising or publicity is considered spam and is not a legitimate use of one's userspace. Furthermore, promotional usernames are forbidden by the username policy and are blocked as spam." I think it reasonably meets those conditions. There are no references present, only an external link, and that is the only edit the user whose space in which this resides has ever made.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Calling a very short and plain description of an unquestionably notable rugby team and its founding that has {{Userspace draft}} at the top "promotion" is probably the greatest lack of good faith I've ever seen here. Do you disagree that this would make a valid stub if it had references? As for the username, this is the wrong forum - take it to WP:UAA if you're concerned. (But consider: would you find User:RedSox editing Boston Red Sox to be problematic if their edits showed no clear bias or promotion?) I get your thought process, but you went waaay down the wrong path. A2soup (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @A2soup: Taking your point that this could easily be converted into a stub (though I didn't personally look into the sourcing much) and is neutral, how about moving this to the draft namespace, and I'd even concede to leaving a redirect here (though in this case given the potentially promotional username, I think deleting it would be reasonable, though your point on that subject isn't unreasonable as well). UAA wouldn't take any action on the account because of guideline number 7 (i.e. "Do not report a username unless it has been used in the last 2-3 weeks. Older accounts are likely abandoned and reports of such users will be summarily declined.").—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm usually leery of userspace --> draftspace moves because draftspace is easier to delete than userspace (it actually does create clutter unlike userspace, and also isn't used for private notes), and if the deletion occurs, the user is just as (possibly) bitten as if you had deleted their userspace. In this case, however, I've pretty much decided to put it in mainspace soon anyways, so do whatever you want besides deleting it. Thanks for offering a compromise. A2soup (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @A2soup: Taking your point that this could easily be converted into a stub (though I didn't personally look into the sourcing much) and is neutral, how about moving this to the draft namespace, and I'd even concede to leaving a redirect here (though in this case given the potentially promotional username, I think deleting it would be reasonable, though your point on that subject isn't unreasonable as well). UAA wouldn't take any action on the account because of guideline number 7 (i.e. "Do not report a username unless it has been used in the last 2-3 weeks. Older accounts are likely abandoned and reports of such users will be summarily declined.").—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Calling a very short and plain description of an unquestionably notable rugby team and its founding that has {{Userspace draft}} at the top "promotion" is probably the greatest lack of good faith I've ever seen here. Do you disagree that this would make a valid stub if it had references? As for the username, this is the wrong forum - take it to WP:UAA if you're concerned. (But consider: would you find User:RedSox editing Boston Red Sox to be problematic if their edits showed no clear bias or promotion?) I get your thought process, but you went waaay down the wrong path. A2soup (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @A2soup: {{Db-spamuser}}: "a userpage being used only for promotion or publicity, with a username that promotes or implies affiliation with the entity being promoted. The use of one's userpage for advertising or publicity is considered spam and is not a legitimate use of one's userspace. Furthermore, promotional usernames are forbidden by the username policy and are blocked as spam." I think it reasonably meets those conditions. There are no references present, only an external link, and that is the only edit the user whose space in which this resides has ever made.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Move to draft namespace per above discussion.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:New Age Retro Hippie/Super Mario Bros. 3: Super Mario Advance 4
- User:New Age Retro Hippie/Super Mario Bros. 3: Super Mario Advance 4 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a major usercopy of an old revision of Super Mario Bros. 3: Super Mario Advance 4 with a few lines missing. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
May 4, 2016
Book:Meghan Trainor studio albums
- Book:Meghan Trainor studio albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete Little content to justify a book plus seems to be sufficiently covered in Book:Meghan Trainor. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete ... Well fuck me I've been here 3 years and have never even known about the "Bookspace" .... You learn something new everyday!, Anyway delete as non notable book. –Davey2010Talk 00:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Push and Shove (song)
- Draft:Push and Shove (song) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 22:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Two year old non-AFC draft that was already covered by Push and Shove (song) when it was already created in 2012. Seems unnecessary to have another draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ignore and let G13 take its course, or redirect, or contribute ideas for agreeable CSD#D* criteria. It is less unnecessary than this MfD nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- There can't be a G13 since it's a non-AFC draft. There is no current consensus for CSD#D criteria so can we deal with the pages as they are now? If that passes, then I'm on board with you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Again, to reiterate, there is no G13 for non-AFC drafts so if left alone, it'll remain in draftspace until it's taken to MFD again (which could as soon as tomorrow or six months from now or in a decade). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously, the process problem should be fixed. Either modify G13 to include all draftspace drafts, or apply the AfC template. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- That's great and all but your !vote is to ignore it until and unless someone comes up with a G13-type thing for draftspace? Is there a discussion about a CSD#D criteria I haven't seen? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously, the process problem should be fixed. Either modify G13 to include all draftspace drafts, or apply the AfC template. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Again, to reiterate, there is no G13 for non-AFC drafts so if left alone, it'll remain in draftspace until it's taken to MFD again (which could as soon as tomorrow or six months from now or in a decade). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- There can't be a G13 since it's a non-AFC draft. There is no current consensus for CSD#D criteria so can we deal with the pages as they are now? If that passes, then I'm on board with you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 22:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant since we're already here, and both of you, please calm down. Ricky81682, SmokeyJoe's right that a redirect would have immediately fixed this, and wouldn't have required extra effort from anyone else (namely me, and SmokeyJoe, and NA1K, and anybody who comments here after me, and whoever ends up closing this). SmokeyJoe, Ricky81682's right that no speedy deletion criterion that covers this draft, and those that would come closest have exemptions specifically carved out for this sort of page. Yes, new speedy criteria would be ideal and I think they're warranted, but all the proposals along these lines have gone down in flames because they were poorly framed, poorly championed, or both. If you're both serious about making a new criterion happen, I'd suggest working on it together somewhere other than WT:CSD. That page is still dominated by the last couple failed tries, and there's little hope for a new proposal at this time unless it's already in a more-or-less final form, with probable opposing arguments anticipated and answered. (The most obvious one: why is deletion necessary, instead of blanking or redirecting?) —Cryptic 09:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Yes Cryptic. A perfect place for conversation is Wikipedia talk:Managing drafts, but even that should wait until Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring is closed, which may be any day soon. There is no great rush, old harmless pages won't harm anything for a little longer. In the meantime, I ask Ricky and others to stop cramming these things into MfD, it is obviously a net negative contribution. I predict, however, that there will never be a CSD criterion for redundant drafting because deletion is an administrative overhead without need, there being no harm and some benefit to conversion to a redirect. DraftSpace should not be a source of administrative overload. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete What needs to be ignored is SmokeyJoe's "vote", not the draft. 103.6.159.91 (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Paxomen/Consanguinity (Buffyverse)
- User:Paxomen/Consanguinity (Buffyverse) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 22:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Nine-year-old userspace draft. According to the header this was a former draft but the first edit is a giant page dump so I suspect it wasn't a formal userification but I can't find the history for this. The mainspace version has been a redirect since December 2006 (six months after the creation of this page). Ricky81682 (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 22:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Sunshine Superman (2014 film)
- Draft:Sunshine Superman (2014 film) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 22:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Old draft from October 2015. Notability is not clear as there's no article at Sunshine Superman (disambiguation) but I note that the editor also created a slightly better draft in their userspace at User:Verlaine10003/sandbox so I think there's no need for a draftspace duplicate of one already in userspace at least. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Looks likely notable. The duplicates can be merged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 22:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Anonymousclit
- User:Anonymousclit ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
name of the user page doesn't fit with wikipedia policy. Clearly a naughty word and a violation. Ilikeguys21 (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and this is a username violation. Legacypac (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wrong forum - @Ilikeguys21: you're looking for WP:UAA, since this is a username violation. However, there is no policy against naughtily-named userpages and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, so keep here. A2soup (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oh yes there is a policy against "naughtily-named userpages" — which I assume is a complicated way of saying "naughty" usernames, as the userpage has the name of the user. We block genitalia-related usernames every day. I've blocked this one; just a softblock, they're free to create a new name without hassle. As for deleting the userpage, I have no opinion, I don't understand the text on it. Bishonen | talk 16:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC).
User:Captainsamable/Honda Civic Tour 2011
- User:Captainsamable/Honda Civic Tour 2011 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 19:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Old stale userspace draft that was later independently created at 10th Annual Honda Civic Tour. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Jwad/Don't Tell Me Promo Tour
- User:Jwad/Don't Tell Me Promo Tour ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 19:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
August 2008 draft that was allegedly a merger from something. It seems to be about the Drowned World Tour which seems to have been delayed from November 2000 here to the June 2011 actual tours. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Rudd103/Two Seconds/To Pass The Time
- User:Rudd103/Two Seconds/To Pass The Time ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 19:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
2006 userspace draft that was already created at To Pass The Time after that page was nominated for deletion but before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Seconds closed. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Technical 13/Drafts/Caroline Strong
- User:Technical 13/Drafts/Caroline Strong ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Three-year-old userspace draft for a potentially notable but possibly non-notable actress. Editor has been ARBCOM banned since last year with possible COI issues here (editor also uploaded the image at Commons) so this may be a WP:TNT and let someone do it or draftify if someone thinks it's a potentially notable actress situation. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Shyaway
- Draft:Shyaway ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page has been resubmitted four times for review with no real improvement to the referencing. It's just an advertisement for the company. I took a look for references and could not find anything that would come close to showing notability. /wiae /tlk 12:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's also been speedied twice: once here (after three more submissions and declines), and once (by me) in mainspace. The current version is better than those were, but not by a whole lot. Even if the subject has any potential—I haven't searched myself—nothing in the current contents or history would be helpful in making a proper article. Delete. —Cryptic 20:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I don't know what to do with people who simply do not learn. But I do know that they waste a lot of people's time, and that's not ok. This article has 1) almost no content 2) zero references and 3) after 11 edits consists of 8 sentences. LaMona (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
User:AllanMarr/The Hypnic Jerks
- User:AllanMarr/The Hypnic Jerks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another band, no sources, no claim to pass WP:NMUSIC and no path to mainspace from stale draft status Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Inside The Sea (band)
- Draft:Inside The Sea (band) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
5 month old band, no sources, not hint of notability. No released album. Fails WP:NMUSIC Is a NotaWebHost violation. The label and all the members names are redlinks. Wikipedia is not the place to write up your own band. Legacypac (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok if you want to delete the page its fine. I wasn't writing up my own band I was just trying to make a page for something I was interested in (Local band in area) - sorry if i caused you any inconvenience Josh2221 —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep 2b. I draftified this not fifteen minutes previously at the author's request so that he could show notability (which, yes, seems unlikely to me also). Nomination is painfully obvious harassment directed at me in vengeance for previously blocking him. I invite anyone to give me any possible reason why I shouldn't block again for disruption. —Cryptic 07:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as it is a draft it allows the editor the opportunity to improve the article, provided it the editor continues to improve it, and once notability is established move it to the mainspace. I'm not certain about Cryptic's comments that the nomination is harassment but can not see any obvious reason why this draft should be deleted.Dan arndt (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I regularly review and MfD drafts. This nomination has nothing to do with User:Cryptic but his comments are a full on attack against me and should be withdrawn (we don't drag up old blocks in MfD discussions for example).
-
- Based on the content this is clearly WAY WP:TOOSOON and even if it was in Userspace fails WP:UP#GOALS as "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (For example in the latter case, because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons." It fails WP:GARAGE. I also suspect a WP:COI based on the similarity between band member Josh Wilson and User:Josh2221 who created the page and the intimate detail in the content that only a person in the band or very close to it would have. Also applicable is WP:PROMO "Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you." Legacypac (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per the first sentence of the rationale given by Cryptic.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep (or Move to Draft:Inside the Sea (band) per MoS:Titles). Reasons for keep: its a Draft let it get improved.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Cryptic. Looks like more disruption by the nom from the edit history on this page. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- kimdly remove your personal attack Lugnuts. Comment on the topic not other editors. Legacypac (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- There's no personal attack. Another editor has pointed out your disruptive nomination regarding this MfD. Have you also warned them on their talkpage? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- You worry about what you say. I've not removed your attack - though that is my right. Legacypac (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- It isn't your right to edit anyone's comments, esp. when you're being disruptive in the first place. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- You worry about what you say. I've not removed your attack - though that is my right. Legacypac (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- There's no personal attack. Another editor has pointed out your disruptive nomination regarding this MfD. Have you also warned them on their talkpage? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- kimdly remove your personal attack Lugnuts. Comment on the topic not other editors. Legacypac (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Snow Keep – Premature and bitey MfD nomination, nominated for deletion around 20 minutes after the request for draftification was performed (see also this diff). Better to allow time for the user who requested draftification to actually work on it. North America1000 19:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Valfontis/Aloha Trailer Company
- User:Valfontis/Aloha Trailer Company ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Godsy effectively deleted this stub by moving it back into the userspace. I think it could be built into a good little article by interested wikipedians, but as long as a single editor insists on relegating it to the basement to be forgotten, let's at least discuss what we want to do with it. Legacypac (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I had no idea anyone was moving things from my userspace to main space. Of course this isn't ready for main space! Because: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aloha Travel Trailers. I've been here a long time and I admit I'm not used to this whole "userspace draft" thing. So supposedly I can't let stuff hang around in my "basement" forever. So what do we do with this?
- If there is precedent (and if someone would kindly link to the MfD guidelines here because I'm extremely busy in real life and won't go hunt them up otherwise--Ive never had any of my userspace stuff deleted before), just delete it. Otherwise, "what to do with it" means researching and expanding it.
- My research involved going through the card catalog at the Oregon State Library, for starters, and from there I lost interest, for various reasons but as far as I know, "follow through" is not a pillar of the Wikipedia community, thank goodness. I preserved the article so I could use the resources on the talk page. This was before I was an admin. If it's deleted, I can certainly keep it around as a redlink but "out of sight, out of mind" is going to effectively make it so I never get around to doing it. Which isn't anyone's problem so someone can certainly feel free to take the project over.
- I haven't checked online in the six years since this article was created by a trailer enthusiast who I promised to help out and let down, but it's likely creating a viable article on this company is going involve a lot of library research in Oregon, as evidenced by the extensive and thoughtful AfD discussion by several longtime experienced Wikipedians. I no longer live in Salem and the State Library is no longer as publicly accessible as it once was, but feel free to try.
- And although I am extremely busy in real life right now, I do get an email when someone drops me a note on my user page, so feel free to ask me next time anyone decides to move stuff out of my user space. Which yeah, I know I know, I don't "own" that stuff but it would have been a courtesy. Because this "single editor", who has contributed 100s of articles to the project, feels that the statement that I am "insisting" on relegating this to the basement is a teensy bit rude. Your mileage may vary. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- keep, there's no need to rush with something like this, and obviously Valfontis (an elected admin) knows the criteria for moving to main space. Seems to me a simple discussion would have been more productive than a nomination. -Pete (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep for now per Valfontis's wishes. But I've hung out at WP:REFUND for long enough to have seen the message that the various draftspaces are "not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" a few hundred times now, and that should apply here within some bound. That said, Valfontis is an admin and can resurrect the content at any time. Finally, trouts to both @Godsy: and @Legacypac: for performing their respective actions in an admin's userspace without consulting them first. --Finngall talk 17:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Bagus Setiawan Purdiyanto
- Draft:Bagus Setiawan Purdiyanto ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I am nominating this purely as an unsourced biography of a living person. Article was created a week ago and no edits since. Additionally, appears to be either an autobiography or CSD. There is an article on the subject at the Indonesian Wikipedia and after reviewing it, it seems extremely unlikely this individual would ever satisfy the notability guidelines for the English Wikipedia. I would note that if this is sourced to a reliable source to satisfy BLP requirements, I will be willing to withdraw this MfD, as my primary reason for nominating this is because it is a BLP violation in its current form. Safiel (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
User:ASOTMKX/Simon Patterson (musician)
- User:ASOTMKX/Simon Patterson (musician) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 22:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 07:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 22:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
May 3, 2016
User:Valenti 17/Logan Stanton
- User:Valenti 17/Logan Stanton ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Fails WP:NMODEL and very stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Andieanderson/Michelle A. Monroe
- User:Andieanderson/Michelle A. Monroe ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Non-notable student Legacypac (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Alik.ulmasov/April Smith and the Great Picture Show
- User:Alik.ulmasov/April Smith and the Great Picture Show ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Garage band. No sources stale draft Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Amit Kr Kushwaha/Mukteswar Temple (Murtiya)
- User:Amit Kr Kushwaha/Mukteswar Temple (Murtiya) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stale draft from account that made 4 or 5 total edits. No references and not enough to build an article off. English is a little muddled (which is understandable). A TNT situation. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect - Good-faith draft, no benefit derived from deletion. Legacypac has clearly not even googled the subject, since it already has a fine article at Mukteshvara Temple, which should be the redirect target. In this context, citing TNT, which recommends deletion in order to clear the way for someone else to do it right and therefore already doesn't make any sense to apply to userspace, makes even less sense here. A2soup (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Swordfish.es
- Draft:Swordfish.es ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Would have qualified as A7 (web content) had this been an article. Either way, this isn't a notable game. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- WP:A7 means that there is no evidence that the article subject is notable, but the whole point with the draft namespace is that the article is in a too early state to be in the article namespace. For example, evidence of notability might not yet have been provided. A7 for drafts is therefore inappropriate. Do you have evidence of the opposite, i.e. that the article subject is not notable? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- It hasn't been covered in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have a reliable source saying that it hasn't been covered in reliable sources? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- [7]. Essentially, searching for "Swordfish.es" results almost entirely in false positives. The article states that the game was only released this year, so it's not exactly surprising that sources for it are lacking. At best, this could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Google is not a reliable source that reliable sources do not exist. Showing that reliable sources exist is not the same thing as showing that reliable sources do not exist. Do you have a reliable source saying that the author doesn't, for example, have reliable offline sources? The idea with the draft namespace is that pages in the namespace aren't ready yet. This means, for example, that the author might not yet have included the parts of the article which demonstrate notability, and we shouldn't delete pages before the author gets time to add this information. Can you prove that this draft never will be ready to be moved to the main namespace? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Look, I'm all for writing articles and having a space for articles which aren't ready yet (I myself used to use userspace drafts when writing articles), but this game hasn't been covered by anything at all. Not even by reliable sources, there's pretty much nothing online about the game at all. The article admits that the game was only invented in 2015, so it's extremely unlikely that even offline sources exist. If this were an article, it would have been deleted as A7 quickly and we wouldn't be having this XfD. Being in the Draft namespace is not a free pass for keeping things on topics that aren't notable neough for the encyclopedia. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Google is not a reliable source that reliable sources do not exist. Showing that reliable sources exist is not the same thing as showing that reliable sources do not exist. Do you have a reliable source saying that the author doesn't, for example, have reliable offline sources? The idea with the draft namespace is that pages in the namespace aren't ready yet. This means, for example, that the author might not yet have included the parts of the article which demonstrate notability, and we shouldn't delete pages before the author gets time to add this information. Can you prove that this draft never will be ready to be moved to the main namespace? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- It hasn't been covered in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Iowa Lakes Community College
- Draft:Iowa Lakes Community College ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Abandoned draft. Because never formally submitted to AFC, doesn't qualify for G13 speedy. There is a better draft at User:Kurtisokc/Iowa Lakes Community College that I would like to move in place of this abandoned draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Are you requesting deletion of the draft space item so that the user space item can replace it? If so, why not simply accept the the user space draft and move it to article space? It's short but decently written. Placing it in article space would allow more visibility for improvement. -- Whpq (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Done Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- The existing draft can still be deleted, because it has been superseded by a better start article.
- Delete per above. New article could perhaps do with some more independent refs, but for me it looks OK. Better than the one I deleted as promo. Peridon (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - we can delete Draft:Iowa Lakes Community College (the version in Draftspace) as it is now Redundant... there is an actual article on the school in Mainspace (See: Iowa Lakes Community College.) As for the version in Kurtisokc's userspace, ask him/her if it is still needed/desired and act accordingly. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Yes, I accepted Kurtioskc's draft by moving it to mainspace. The redirect from user space to mainspace is in my view harmless and can be left there unless the user requests deletion. The only question at this point in my mind is whether to delete the stale draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Rosa Mystica Foundation
- Draft:Rosa Mystica Foundation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Promotional article by an organization that has been blocked as promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as spam. The "article" is just a copy of their web page. -- Whpq (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Alexfig floripa/Música de Cabresto Brasileira
- User:Alexfig floripa/Música de Cabresto Brasileira ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User draft in portugese with no refs. only thing the user did back in 2011 so unlikely they are coming back. Something about Brazilian music but hard to know what type of music exactly from autotranslate. Legacypac (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Alexdalenberg/Blumsday LLC
- User:Alexdalenberg/Blumsday LLC ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Looks like a dot com bust with a blogger now using the domain. Legacypac (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Alexappacman/Daley (Singer)
- User:Alexappacman/Daley (Singer) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Stale BLP with no sources that fails to assert notability. Legacypac (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Alexander Blinov/Russian Club in Singapore
- User:Alexander Blinov/Russian Club in Singapore ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2011 draft from an SPA about a non-notable club. Legacypac (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Old business
May 3, 2016
User:AndreaFarjat/Edenial
- User:AndreaFarjat/Edenial ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Non-notable band Legacypac (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Linda Joan Allan
- Draft:Linda Joan Allan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I moved this to draftspace from the mainspace way back in June 2015. Since then, no work has been done on it whatsoever. There's not enough information here to figure out the intended subject. Google searches turn up nothing. If I hadn't moved it to draftspace in an attempt to save a possible work-in-progress it would have been speedy deleted as per A7, so it seems proper to delete it at this point. ~ RobTalk 05:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Alligators1974/Murder of William Hudnall
- User:Alligators1974/Murder of William Hudnall ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:NOTNEWS Legacypac (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Alexander.karlstad/The Choice Lab
- User:Alexander.karlstad/The Choice Lab ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userfied back in 2013 from mainspace. Original author never touched again. To references. Should have been deleted from mainspace on the PROD Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Ttina2894/Kane
- User:Ttina2894/Kane ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page on a local radio personality seems unlikely to be sent to mainspace. Stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Ttlfc/Ivan
- User:Ttlfc/Ivan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Since Ivan Smolović is protected from creation, a userspace draft BLP is not likely going to be headed to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Ttlmfao/FPS Russia
- User:Ttlmfao/FPS Russia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Non-notable youtuber stale draft Legacypac (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
User:VictoriaJusticeFan1/Make it Shine
- User:VictoriaJusticeFan1/Make it Shine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
"01:46, 19 May 2011 Boing! said Zebedee (talk | contribs) blocked VictoriaJusticeFan1 (the creator of this page) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (repeatedly creating articles for non-notable songs) which does not give me confidence we should keep this stale draft around. Legacypac (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
May 2, 2016
User:Sgsorrenson/Penguin Prison
- User:Sgsorrenson/Penguin Prison ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Musician with no album yet Legacypac (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to the main namespace article at Penguin Prison. Also, "musician with no album yet" is not a particularly valid rationale for deletion. North America1000 18:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
April 29, 2016
Wikipedia:Nannies Wanted
- Wikipedia:Nannies Wanted ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 12:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
A little-used (to be specific, once-used) annex to the Adopt-a-typo system. The related template, {{User TypoNanny}}, should also be considered. APerson (talk!) 16:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Mark as inactive or historical. It seems like a project that never took on any interest but I don't think deletion is needed. As to the template, list it at TFD if you would like but it's only used on one editor's page so I'd suggest possibly substituting and deleting it but that's not for here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Upon further consideration, mark as inactive or historical. North America1000 20:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Butter chicken/Comments
- Talk:Butter chicken/Comments ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Talk: subpage; contains one comment, contents now merged to main article Talk: page Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 11:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Talk:Butter chicken. North America1000 18:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- It looks like the 'bot which merged the contents with the main article Talk: page has now implemented a redirect. As such, I am happy to withdraw the MfD. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 18:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
April 27, 2016
User:David.snipes/Cage Rulers
- User:David.snipes/Cage Rulers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Five year old stale promotional draft for a non-notable MMA organization. Editor also uploaded the logo and other parts of this draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and U5 should apply to this - the fact a bot added a box that includes the wor Draft is irrelevant. Legacypac (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Plausibly notable, or suitable to be covered within another broad topic. {{Inactive userpage blanked}} was made, and is recommended, for this sort of thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Blank and apply {{userpage blanked}} same as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:David.snipes/sandbox 8.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:David.snipes/sandbox 8
- User:David.snipes/sandbox 8 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Five year old userspace draft for a non-notable MMA organization. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as plausibly notable proper drafting in userspace. {{Inactive userpage blanked}} was made, and is recommended, for this sort of thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete along with the related pages nom'd. Not notable, user is indeffed so not going anywhere userful. Blanking just hids it and leaves the page available for vandalism. User notified of discussion, so they will not wonder where it went. Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- "user is indeffed"? Evidence? The user has a clean block log. "Blanking just ... leaves the page available for vandalism", is that per WP:ABF? If you want proper editor oversight, perhaps your place is at Citizendium? I note, again, your words can't be trusted on face value, and ask you to take more care. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Blank and apply {{userpage blanked}} per SmokeyJoe. The user is not indefinitely blocked.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Dcanning/Sandbox
- User:Dcanning/Sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userspace draft from 2008 that was immediately thereafter created at Ron Craddock which was prod deleted in August 2010. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Correction: I misread the deleted history. The mainspace version was created, nominated for A7 and then blanked by Dcanning in February
20132008 before any CSD analysis could have been, all within a day just after this page existed. Another draft on a different Craddock was created and prod deleted in August 2010. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)- Ricky, I can't see what you are talking about, Feb 2013? The log shows two actions, 10 August 2010 and 23 February 2008. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- 2008. All of Dcannings edits were in 2008 within days. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ricky, I can't see what you are talking about, Feb 2013? The log shows two actions, 10 August 2010 and 23 February 2008. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Correction: I misread the deleted history. The mainspace version was created, nominated for A7 and then blanked by Dcanning in February
- Keep. Ron Craddock and Ron Craddock Karate Academy are plausibly notable, or suitable to be covered within another broad topic. {{Inactive userpage blanked}} was made, and is recommended, for this sort of thing. It is not promotion. The expired Prod and
laterpreceding G7 are not evidence that the community has decided to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC). - Delete along with the related pages nom'd. This is a sandbox, so we could also just clear it. Legacypac (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
April 17, 2016
User:Piotrus/Sandbox/Dzikie Pola
- User:Piotrus/Sandbox/Dzikie Pola ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There is a decade old page about game mechanics for a role-playing game that was still being updated last year. Wikipedia is not a game mechanics website. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- While some of the content could be merged to Dzikie_Pola_(role-playing_game)#Mechanic, I agree there is little here that has encyclopedic value. An artifact of old age, do with it what you will. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not grossly offensive. Remind Piotrus of any relevant policies before bringing his subpages to MfD. Wikipedians are responsible for their own userspace. Come back if there is conflict. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
April 26, 2016
User:SuperFurryOcelot/zacharticle
- User:SuperFurryOcelot/zacharticle ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userspace draft from 2008. May be promotional as editor's only deleted edit was uploading the image. It could possibly be notable depending on whether being on The Contender Asia is sufficient. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to The Contender Asia#Contestants. The same as per Alain Sylvestre, as decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alain Sylvestre. No need for deletion. The material of these non-individually notable contestants may well be spun out in a The Contender Asia contestants, so keep all the material in the history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The subject already exists as a Redirect to The Contender Asia#Contestants. Kim Khan Zaki was created by the same author as a copy paste from this article and was changed to a redirect after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Khan Zaki. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
April 25, 2016
User:Scalhotrod/Ray Lambrecht
- User:Scalhotrod/Ray Lambrecht ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Old userspace draft for a permabanned user that was later created at Ray Lambrecht. There is no linked history here and while there's slightly interesting unsourced content, of the four links provided, two here are to the auction bit (not relevant), one is to a blog that probably isn't a reliable source and the final is one of the same as the 11 sources provided so there's nothing to merge. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as clutter and not useful. Legacypac (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
April 22, 2016
User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Nat Soc
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Nat Soc ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This was deleted way back as part of a mass cull of politically-motivated userboxes, which were restored after a convincing consensus at this 2006 DRV. The restorer's edit summary was "restored by DRV by strong consensus as part of en masse DRV -- yes, I know what I'm undeleting -- I expect somebody will MfD this, but I worked for the ACLU, so my stomach can take it." The following year Herostratus deleted it again with edit summary "spray with Nazi-B-Gon".
In considering it, note that the original userbox included a swastika, File:Nazi Swastika.svg, which is not currently shown because it is on the MediaWiki:Bad image list. If the userbox is kept, an exception would be need to be made in the Bad Image List to allow the swastika to be displayed as part of the user box.
Undeletion was requested at WP:REFUND#User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Nat Soc. In view of the DRV consensus I restored, notifying Herostratus, who tagged it as vandalism. I don't think this is vandalism, so I have declined the speedy and bring it here. I personally favour keep on the grounds of WP:NOTCENSORED, but this needs a community view on the balance between that and WP:POLEMIC. JohnCD (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments
- Delete. Not a useful page for the project. We are a publishing organization, not a bunch of college students sitting around a bong going "Woahhhhh.... dude, think about this.... you can't prove Hitler was bad, you know? It's just opinion, woahhh...". This page does not help us publish an encyclopedia. I'll expound on my reasons below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 15:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. The editor who deleted it seems to not want to engage in a serious discussion on this. I see no moral reasoning that would make this userbox particularly problematic, because userboxes for Stalinism, Mass Execution Fans, Social Darwinists, Facists, Torture Fans, people who believe the US is the leading terrorist force in the world, National Bolshevists etc. also exist. --Laber□T 15:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Entirely missing: "Should be kept because its a net positive toward our goal publishing an encyclopedia because _______". Fill in the blank (which I'm betting you can't, or anyway not well). Herostratus (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. My initial sense is that userboxes, quite frankly, usefully reflect the editing biases (and sometimes areas of expertise) of the editor in question. However, no editor actually uses this userbox, so it is useless for either purpose. bd2412 T 17:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, because it was deleted. --Laber□T 17:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Can you point to instances of users who had it on their pages before it was deleted (and not as a joke)? bd2412 T 19:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, but it was deleted a long time ago. Also, if you look at the transclusions of many other political userboxes, a lot of people seem to use ones that would seem far to extreme to be actually used, and in a seemingly serious manner. --Laber□T 19:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, there was User:Blind14. It didn't stay there long. —Cryptic 19:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Can you point to instances of users who had it on their pages before it was deleted (and not as a joke)? bd2412 T 19:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete because it's an unused userbox. We don't need to keep these around for the academic exercise of "perhaps a Nazi (or just a fan of Nazism) will edit here and want to put a userbox on their page." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep If Nazis are editing Wikipedia (which lets face it they are) I'd much rather they out themselves as Nazis, than go undetected. Brustopher (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Except this is currently an unused honeypot. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah and we don't really want nazis here. You can't really be a good nazi and a good editor because you're a sworn enemy of objective truth about race, history, and much else. Also, you're a nasty piece of work who believes in getting your way through brute force, because all nazis are nasty pieces of work by definition, so you probably won't be collegial. Also our tolerating your presence will drive away good editors. Also its a potential embarrasment for the project. So we don't want you. So this userbox could, more usefully and with less trouble for everyone, be replaced with one reading "This user requests to be banned". Herostratus (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Herostratus: You may find this ANI thread informative (and downright horrifying when you realise how many of Wikipedia's "Good Articles" on Nazism he claims to have written). Brustopher (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah and we don't really want nazis here. You can't really be a good nazi and a good editor because you're a sworn enemy of objective truth about race, history, and much else. Also, you're a nasty piece of work who believes in getting your way through brute force, because all nazis are nasty pieces of work by definition, so you probably won't be collegial. Also our tolerating your presence will drive away good editors. Also its a potential embarrasment for the project. So we don't want you. So this userbox could, more usefully and with less trouble for everyone, be replaced with one reading "This user requests to be banned". Herostratus (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Except this is currently an unused honeypot. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Nazi affiliation of editors is not ok. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The most likely use for this userbox is trolling; it obviously offers no benefits to Wikipedia. (The suggestion above that it will help us to recognize the bias of Nazi editors willing to self-identify is, I hope, not offered in seriousness.) Frankly, the undeletion of this userbox and the insistence on having this deletion discussion borders on meta-trolling. JohnCD's misuse of NOTCENSORED and his suggestion that we would need to whitelist a swastika to properly restore the userbox certainly doesn't refute that hypothesis. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- I note that there has still been no (plausible) argument offered which illustrates how this box benefits the project. The only arguments in favor seem to boil down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is a terrible (and terribly weak) rationale. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Since political useboxes are allowed (unlike in some Wikipedias), I don't see why there should be selection on those political views. I know several respected editors with a communist userbox, the ideology which resulted in genocide in Russia, Ukraine, China and Cambodia, so moral issues shouldn't come into play either. --Pudeo' 14:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:USERBOXES. Quoting from the guideline, "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." This clearly is both, as this discussion shows. ~ RobTalk 23:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, it's a needlessly-divisive polemic. As for the userboxes for "Stalinism, Mass Execution Fans, Social Darwinists, Facists, Torture Fans, people who believe the US is the leading terrorist force in the world, National Bolshevists etc.," then we can certainly consider deleting those too. GABHello! 20:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- The divisive policy is something I didn't knew, and if I take said policy into account, I may be in favor of deletion. --Laber□T 18:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
Well, User:JohnCD knows perfectly well that the policy WP:NOTCENSORED applies only to articles, so this is the giveaway that he's just trolling. I understand people get bored or tense and need to indulge in an occasional bit of trollery from time to time. Fine, OK, got it. (This is above and beyond the old and generally true observation that even for article space "When an editor invokes WP:NOTCENSORED he's usually up to no good").
As to the merits, don't be silly. There are limits for anything and this page is beyond the limits. We don't allow userboxes to the effect of "This user believes uppity niggers should be lynched"... "This user believes women should be seen and not heard" or just pick whatever you want.
As I said, there's the adolescent postion "Whoaa, nooooo.... you can't set limits, man, because.... get this... like who's gonna set the limits... it's like... whoa, where's my lighter, man..." and so forth. Of course serious adult people set limits all the time based on complicated but sound moral reasoning, which I can't teach here to people who don't have it, and this page is over any reasonable limit and is purely inflammatory. Stop it.
Unless the people involved are actual nazis, in which case they should be in a lot more trouble here than just for some minor trollery. We don't want and cannot have actual nazis here -- nazism is inimical to the very basis of this project, and for every person we allow to proclaim that they are nazis we lose potentially hundreds or thousands of normal people, and so forth. But I'm confident that the only use of this page is for pure trollery. Trouts to User:JohnCD for wasting our time on this.
Also to remind the person closing that this is not a vote. There are many people here who are callow, and many who are up for a bit of fun, and many who are on the spectrum. It doesn't matter. It's not a vote. Article rules such as NOTCENSORED and NPOV and so forth don't apply to how we run our organization internally. We need an argument "This page enhances rather than retards our mission of publishing a great encyclopedia because ____________" that is stronger than the argument "This will be mainly used for trollery, will enrage and drive away decent people, cost us editors, engender endless sterile contention, and bring shame to the project". Unless proponents can come up with a stronger counterargument, the proposal should be closed as delete on strength of argument. It's not a vote. Herostratus (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- What is more problematic about a userbox saying that you are a Nazi than about a userbox saying you're a facist, or that you support torture? --Laber□T 17:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well obviously shouldn't have those either. By all means sent those to WP:CSD too, and if bounced from there then send them to WP:MFD. "This user supports torture" is not a userbox we should have. As to your other concerns, I'll address them in a separate section below where we won't interfere with the work of the MfD.
Special section for discussing moral reasoning, if anybody wants to
(Putting this down here to avoid getting this more general topic convoluted with the actual work of this MfD, which is just discussing this this one userbox.)
A user (User:Laberkiste, who very much wants this userbox to exist I gather), wrote ""I see no moral reasoning that would make this userbox particularly problematic" and, like most people would, I responded in a fair but somewhat acerbic manner; User:Laberkiste, being unable to respond, instead deleted my text, which is generally frowned upon, but which I'm not suprised. But out of deference to this person's sensibilities I'll put it here in a separate section. What I wrote was:
- "I see no moral reasoning that would make this userbox particularly problematic" tells us something about the person saying it, but doesn't really bear on the issue. It is helpful when the person openly admits this, though, so we don't have to spend further effort considering his arguments.
- And there's not anything shameful about not having fully developed moral reasoning, if the person is young -- moral reasoning requires subtlety of mind which is the last part of the brain to develop, in one's late twenties (look it up) and it takes time to get it set up. There's not necessarily anything shameful about it if the person is just wired differently (although the person should then maybe self-examine to determine if this is true, and then consider relying heavily on external cues). But these sort of questions are, and need to be, discussions among people who do have moral sense, otherwise we can't arrive at conclusions that will befit the project moving forward.
All that's accurate and I stand by it... It'd be possible to make the case "This is morally abhorrent, but I guess we should put up with because [some reason]". But that's not what the user said. He said it's just fine, so I think "There's not necessarily anything shameful about [saying that]" is being quite generous, since there actually is something shameful about it, to be honest.
Anyway, the user's full argument was "I see no moral reasoning that would make this userbox particularly problematic, because userboxes for Stalinism, Mass Execution Fans, Social Darwinists, Facists, Torture Fans, people who believe the US is the leading terrorist force in the world, National Bolshevists etc. also exist"
To which the counter is threefold:
- Well some of those shouldn't exist either.
- And if you're making the argument that any userbox should be permitted, that's silly, and you've already lost -- we have banned and will ban many userpage statements here. The Wikipedia is not a suicide pact.
- And so there are limits to things. Finding the limits takes moral reasoning, which is hard, and requires subtlety and acuity of mind. Even then, there seldom is a black-and-white cutoff point. Some userboxe are maybe marginally OK, others not. You have to use your wits to find the best solution to these questions. You have to take in account various complicated, shifting, and difficult-to-know factors such as current mores and so forth. However, for your pretest on Moral Reasoning 101, "Is being a nazi permitted in polite society", the answer is "No", and it is certainly possible to explain why, but tedious and time-consuming, and I'll be willing to (try to) explain why, if the user will engage instead of also deleting this. Herostratus (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Okay, so you are saying that there may be some political userboxes that one could consider disruptive. So far, my line of thought was basically that userboxes are kept no matter how extreme the content, and that this Nazi Box was "disposed" because people wanted to "hide" the drawbacks of said policy. If deletion of political userboxes is justified if they are considered too disruptive, then we could delete this box; however, I still think the reason for deletion was not well formulated, and it should have been discussed beforehand. --Laber□T 22:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Alright. I get it. We understand each other better now. Obviously nazzism is a contentious subject, so I apologize on my part for being overly acerbic.
- Okay, so you are saying that there may be some political userboxes that one could consider disruptive. So far, my line of thought was basically that userboxes are kept no matter how extreme the content, and that this Nazi Box was "disposed" because people wanted to "hide" the drawbacks of said policy. If deletion of political userboxes is justified if they are considered too disruptive, then we could delete this box; however, I still think the reason for deletion was not well formulated, and it should have been discussed beforehand. --Laber□T 22:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Right, the question of what limits if any should be place on user's own pages comes up. And no doubt there's some people who believe that there shouldn't be any limits, probably on free speech grounds I guess.
-
-
-
-
-
- So leaving aside the moral questions, and just going on a practical basis (they are intertwined to some degree, but deciding what's practical is easier), this is veryt small minority position. We are publishing company, and free speech simply does not apppply, either to our articles and especially not to our internal workings. We are not a goverment so we are not bound by the First Amendment.
-
-
-
-
-
- Maybe think of it like this: the Wikipedia is an "office", and our user pages are like our "cubicles". The user pages belong to the project not to use individually. So... what would be OK stuff to hang in your cubicle? Some offices are pretty strict about this, but most aren't, especially in high tech, and this is sort of a high tech organization, culturally.
-
-
-
-
-
- So fine, you have Star Trek posters, and I Love Golden Retrievers, and "Vote For Chtulu: Why Choose The Lesser Evil?" and really a very wide range. A cross or Buddhist symbol and like that. Lots of stuff. Political stuff, well, not so much.... it depends on what it is, how prominently its displayed, and whether anyone complains. A little GOP elephant statue or whatever you will probably get away with. A swastika, not so much. Not so much because its just going to introduce sterile contention. Its going to make your Jewish colleagues (and really all your decent-minded colleagues) harder to work with. And if they complain (and they will) and nothing is done, they will quit, and then you've lost good employees. And for what -- to cater to a nazi (unless hes just a troll)? If your're publishing an encyclopedia, how good an employee is a nazi (who by definition is a sworn enemy of enlightenment values such as objective truth about race, history, and much else) going to be? It's objectively destructive to the organization.
-
-
-
-
-
- So we don't allow it. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Anything that detracts from this we don't want.
-
-
-
-
-
- On the morality side, its' harder, and one reason its harder is because people like to play "there is no such thing as morality, its all just a construct" here (even though in their real lives few live by that, and a good thing too). But there is such a thing as morality, but proving it through moral philosophy exercises is difficult and actually above my pay grade. However, consider that displaying this userbox will cause people justified emotional distress, for no commensurate gain. Causing people justified emotional distress for no commensurate gain is basically part of the dictionary definition of "evil", and evil is bad. Herostratus (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
April 19, 2016
User:Aliasforme/Robo Roos
- User:Aliasforme/Robo Roos ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 00:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable kid's team. No path to mainspace Legacypac (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Plenty of reliable sources, many news ghits, a significant organisation, it is quite plausibly notable and suitable for sandboxing. On the "non-notable" claim, the nominator should re-read the well participatedWikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_58#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F where he was unanimously disagreed with. Ignoring that thread and continuing to nominate per "non-notable" is disruption. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete No plausible chance at being considered notable. I'm not seeing said sources but if they exists, then we can userify or draftify it. There's no need to keep it stored in the userspace of someone who hasn't been here in three and a half years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to FIRST Robotics Competition. I appear to have misread the draft previously, the draft is about a team, not about the competition. The competition is covered at FIRST Robotics Competition. It is plausible that more individual teams might be covered there. There is at least one source covering this team. Agree that it is implausible that this individual team would warrant a stand alone article, but that doesn't mandate deletion. Dropping a note at Talk:FIRST Robotics Competition might be a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why would it redirect to the competition? The team is one of thirty-nine Australian team (as of 2016), and that presumes that the team is around today. There's over 3100 teams. If it's not still active, is it really appropriate to redirect all past team names to the competition page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- I presume I understand correctly that this competition is the main competition the team plays (played) in. The redirect is a strong hint that if they are interested in the topic of robot competitions, this topic is probably a good one to start with, instead of their old team. Redirect does not imply attribution at the target, or that content should be merged, although it is possible that content may be merged. "Delete with a suggestion to improve FIRST Robotics Competition" is effectively the same thing, but requires an administrator to be involved. Requiring administrators (or other administrators) to be involved with such petty things is a waste of administrator resource. But I don't oppose "delete now that we are here". Indeed, this team has no plausible chance, beyond a possible mere mention, as a team, on the competition page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why would it redirect to the competition? The team is one of thirty-nine Australian team (as of 2016), and that presumes that the team is around today. There's over 3100 teams. If it's not still active, is it really appropriate to redirect all past team names to the competition page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- It would be deleted from mainspace, but redirection from userspace to the well related article is suitable, carrying a clear message to the author and preserving edit history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
April 18, 2016
Draft:John Baldwin Gourley
- Draft:John Baldwin Gourley ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This will possibly be deleted in two months but it keeps getting postponed but either way, there is already John Gourley created separately after the last edits here but before the G13 postponement in November. There's nothing here directly sources in terms of the language other than the giant table that is actually a table of the band's work and not his personal work to me. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect and protect. Advise the author to discuss at talk:John Gourley about potential work on John Gourley. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Technically the author created this draft first, the mainspace version was later created and then someone else here postponed the G13 deletion without probably checking on mainspace. I'm not sure protection is necessary and there's no related or connected history that requires a redirect. We'll disagree on the redirect obviously but protection I think we can agree is overkill. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- My reading of your nomination statement (which I find a bit hard to parse), is that someone is persisting in doing something with this draft, and looking at it, there could possibly be something of worth in it. I presume that you want to delete to hammer the person persisting; protection can do that for you. As it is not definite that the contents are entirely worthless, WP:PRESERVE applies, and redirection is appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- The draft existed in May 2015. The mainspace one was created in June 2015 by someone else and yet this version was postponed in November 2015 by someone else entirely. In retrospect, I could have just put a comment on the draft page about the mainspace version but it then would have taken another six month for G13 to process and I didn't want someone to postpone it again in the future even though a mainspace version exists. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- OK. I still think that inferior redundant versions should be redirected on discovery. There are some tiny possibilities of benefit in having the redirect with the history retained, and no advantages in creating the MfD discussion. Coming to MfD creates more work, more data, more visibility. Six months is not a long time. Redirect. There is an RfC somewhere, and I predict that sometime this year we will agree that all draft pages, including redirects, will be deleted by default unless marked for preservation. Personally, I would shut down and delete all of DraftSpace, but until then individual discussions on random little things only exacerbate the time sink problem of AfC and DraftSpace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- The draft existed in May 2015. The mainspace one was created in June 2015 by someone else and yet this version was postponed in November 2015 by someone else entirely. In retrospect, I could have just put a comment on the draft page about the mainspace version but it then would have taken another six month for G13 to process and I didn't want someone to postpone it again in the future even though a mainspace version exists. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- My reading of your nomination statement (which I find a bit hard to parse), is that someone is persisting in doing something with this draft, and looking at it, there could possibly be something of worth in it. I presume that you want to delete to hammer the person persisting; protection can do that for you. As it is not definite that the contents are entirely worthless, WP:PRESERVE applies, and redirection is appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Technically the author created this draft first, the mainspace version was later created and then someone else here postponed the G13 deletion without probably checking on mainspace. I'm not sure protection is necessary and there's no related or connected history that requires a redirect. We'll disagree on the redirect obviously but protection I think we can agree is overkill. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
April 16, 2016
User:Allycat1208/Hope Witsell
- User:Allycat1208/Hope Witsell ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 08:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Worth story to memorialise. Has meanings and learning. Is not an enclopedic topic. Refer to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets.
- NB. BLP* policy is not applicable to non living persons.
- Lists, if not notable lists, are only for listing notable topics. A merge to a list is not suitable unless others include entries like this in lists. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge usable content with Cyberbullying for historical value in resolving the problem.
User:Peidu/Space Conflict
- User:Peidu/Space Conflict ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 08:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
April 14, 2016
User:Popeye4buzz/Steven Hall (comedy dancer)
- User:Popeye4buzz/Steven Hall (comedy dancer) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 06:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Unjustified relist, given that there was no rationale for deletion, noting the unambiguous conclusion of Wikipedia_talk:Notability#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F. Wikipedia:Speedy keep#1 applies. MfD is burdened by this busywork. Leave it alone, or merge to the talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
User:ZaciOne/Korenje
- User:ZaciOne/Korenje ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I believe this is in Polish and translates as "Carrots is a garden plant, or a form of garden vegetables. There are several types of carrots, however, as the carrots usually seen plant with about 50cm tall orange leaves and thick roots. The latter is also the part that is commonly used as human nutrition. Carrots can be enjoyed both raw and cooked." so it has no use to the project. Maybe put in place to support the two possible spam links I removed. Legacypac (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Harmless experimentation in the proper place, by a later contributing Wikipedia. Leave it alone or redirect to http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navadno_korenje at most. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Not harmless - I believe created to support spam links. Why possible value to the project does a few lines in polish about carrots have? Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Possibly the biggest most important remaining task is the translation of Wikipedia articles from one project to another. This page is associated with that. For that reason alone, it should not be deleted. Translation of articles between different language Wikipedias is far more important a task than yours and Ricky's mission to clean out userspace. I disagree that you removed two spam links, they are sources for the topic. Even if spam, spam should be removed from worthwhile pages, not used as a random deletion reason. I agree no good reason for the redirect, no good reason to do anything but leave the page alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I already translated the page above to English. Would you like to start another carrots article based on two spammy Polish sources? Or maybe these lines should be added to Polish Wikipedia if you think our friends in Poland can't write facts about carrots that every 4 year old knows. Seriously SmokeyJoe, sometimes I can't follow your thought processes. Legacypac (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not harmless - I believe created to support spam links. Why possible value to the project does a few lines in polish about carrots have? Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. No reason for cross-wikis redirect. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete – per WP:FAKEARTICLE. North America1000 20:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Davidcannon/Incubator1
- User:Davidcannon/Incubator1 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:UP#COPIES violation (of MtDna haplogroups by populations, now deleted). Content is a textbook WP:NOTSTATS/WP:RAWDATA violation itself. Appears to be a mere restatement of the supplementary data tables from the single study it references. Really doesn't seem likely Davidcannon is ever going to do anything with this considering his pattern of contributions. I know I might get criticized for nominating this so soon, but there really isn't any objectively reasonable likelihood that this will ever become an article. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The page is full protected oddly enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep user is a current administrator and page creation notes indicate that it will be for an article, "too soon" for this nomination - if it goes stale for a year it MIGHT be worth revisiting. — xaosflux Talk 02:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Except it violates WP:NOT and violates WP:UP#COPIES (and moreover violates WP:ATTREQ; it wasn't easy to find what he copied this from). We're not talking about a stale draft here. This is a straight-up copy-paste move of mainspace content that was never even touched. It is not and never has been used "for short-term, active drafting or experimental purposes" (WP:UP#COPIES). That he's a "current" admin isn't germane, though I'll point out that this is an editor with a track record of going almost completely inactive for years. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment : I intend to use the data in a table/article of my own — an article that will be the counterpart of the one of Y-chromosome haplogroups. David Cannon (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Any article incorporating this massive table would surely violate WP:RAWDATA. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't intend to incorporate the table itself in the article. I intend to glean information from it for use in a table of my own, which will be only a part of the article. The reason why it's here is that when I'm writing the article, I want it at my fingertips.
- Any article incorporating this massive table would surely violate WP:RAWDATA. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Besides, whilst it is in my user space, I suggest you worry about things that are in article space instead. There's plenty of rubbish there to keep you busy. If and when I move something to article space that you object to, then you'll have valid cause to complain. But a clipping I've got in my own space for the purpose of research? I wish I had time on my hands to worry about stuff like that. David Cannon (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I'm not sure why it's protected but fine, it is. It's still an unattributed copy so it's going to be remade into something else, the original version will have to be restored and merged into it. I'd call this a userification attempt and I say restore the original mainspace edits and move it to this page so that the full history is intact. After that, no one will care unless and until David brings it back into mainspace. Being an administrator doesn't give carte blanche to randomly protect your own subpages and to ignore attribution requirements. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Ricky + nom. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
April 13, 2016
User:Adammw/Sandbox/List of characters in The Simpsons
- User:Adammw/Sandbox/List of characters in The Simpsons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userspace copy of List of The Simpsons characters from around April 2011. Seems to have been for some test linking but the editor has been inactive for more than a year now. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Blank as is standard for a duplicate article that someone might come back and want to work on. Hobit (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Why would you want to encourage anyone to work on a duplicate? It seems like encouraging them to waste time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- There are lots of people here who do lots of things that are just a waste of time. Not our job to stop them. And we all have different ideas of time wasting. I think that trying to clear out user space of stale drafts and the like wastes a LOT of people's time (and probably is a net negative for the encyclopedia), but folks can still do it. Hobit (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Blanking does not encourage them to work on what was blanked - I would imagine it certainly discourages it. But it leaves them the option of working on it, which is their prerogative.
- Why would you want to encourage anyone to work on a duplicate? It seems like encouraging them to waste time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Blank with {{Userpage blanked}} per Hobit and my comment above. A2soup (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
April 12, 2016
User:TexiDNA/Free mary jane
- User:TexiDNA/Free mary jane ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Based on an essay by the author. See note at the bottom about uploading it. Legacypac (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Blank. Plausibly a notable topic. No reason to delete until someone can show that it is not even plausibly notable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment when did we start placing the burden of proving a negative on nominators? 100% of things fail notability unless proved to be notable. Wikipedia is not a place to write about stuff you dreamed up one afternoon, yet this is exactly what this page is. Legacypac (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Per WP#NOT you can't put your essays or in this case an essay about your essay in Wikipedia. this is an advocacy piece not an encyclopia topic. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Essays unrelated to the project are not allowed, no. In this case, the first case is plausibly about an advocacy movement, and it is plausibly notable. However, the second paragraph moves towards repeating the advocacy lines, although it is not unashamed advocacy. On balance, I call it "about a movement" not "advocacy by the movement".
- "100% of things fail notability unless proved to be notable"? I read that as absurd. Are you talking about WP:N. You don't seem conversant on it.
- "stuff you dreamed up one afternoon, yet this is exactly what this page is". Well that is not true. The movement verifiably exists. It is plausibly notable. Lots of blogs though, and not to be confused with Mary Jane Veloso. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. It's a draft from March 2012 with no sources and no indication of notability. If the editor returns, they can request restoration. If someone here thinks that there's a chance that it's notable, then we can move it to their userspace or draftify but I don't see the point of keeping it where it is or blanking it right there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
April 10, 2016
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)
- I'm sorry if I was rude in my comment. I was mostly surprised by you calling the English portions "sort of English" and "nonsense" - do you really think that? And how is the presence of non-English relevant at all? This encyclopedia is in English; userspace is not the encyclopedia, it is people's personal drafts - they should be allowed to draft in whatever works for them. WP:TNT is used to get rid of articles that are such a mess that it would be better for someone else to write them from scratch. This makes sense in mainspace, maybe in draftspace, but not in userspace, since this page is not forcing anyone to improve it rather than start their own version. Userspace drafts are not judged by WP:V unless they are hoaxes. I am not going to work on it since I have very little background in Indian history and also little time, but a keep !votes are not contingent on the !voters personal willingness to improve the page (see WP:VOLUNTEER). I just don't see a reason for deletion, sorry. A2soup (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I can read Indian English words just fine and I stand by my point this is very poorly written. Dumping this here was the only activity ever [8] by the person who dumped it here - and that was in Jul 2012. If you get past your philosophical and incorrect view of userspace belonging to individuals and therefore untouchable, you might be able to see there is less than zero chance this page has any use or any potential use. Legacypac (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'm sorry if I was rude in my comment. I was mostly surprised by you calling the English portions "sort of English" and "nonsense" - do you really think that? And how is the presence of non-English relevant at all? This encyclopedia is in English; userspace is not the encyclopedia, it is people's personal drafts - they should be allowed to draft in whatever works for them. WP:TNT is used to get rid of articles that are such a mess that it would be better for someone else to write them from scratch. This makes sense in mainspace, maybe in draftspace, but not in userspace, since this page is not forcing anyone to improve it rather than start their own version. Userspace drafts are not judged by WP:V unless they are hoaxes. I am not going to work on it since I have very little background in Indian history and also little time, but a keep !votes are not contingent on the !voters personal willingness to improve the page (see WP:VOLUNTEER). I just don't see a reason for deletion, sorry. A2soup (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Any potential use for this subject would require a basic WP:TNT of the page itself and given the absolute amount of pure nonsense that permeates the Indian caste history articles, very good reliable sources are required and there is no evidence of them here. Even if the editor returns, and writes this in English, it will require a lot more work to even become something close to usable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. {{Inactive userpage blanked}} is preferable to deletion if there are bad faith assumptions to be made. This disapproval of non-English in userspace is not good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
April 9, 2016
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)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 01:05, 19 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)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Soft delete. If the editor returns, they can request a WP:REFUND but it's unlikely to have moved past promotional. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. No reason to delete from userspace. {{Inactive userpage blanked}} was created and recommended for pages like this. No reason to discuss every such page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 27 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)
-
- Are you arguing that the result of this discussion will change whether an editors who hasn't been here since February 2013 will return? Their only major edit was to create another A7 violating page at Alexander Ross Armstrong which was promptly deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Am arguing that deletion of their contribution history makes the user less likely to feel welcome if they return. This edit seems to contradict your last statement. People updating a page is something explicitly desired. Granted, the editor was not an example of a prolific contributor, whoever it is not a good idea to kick volunteers on passing. In the future, it is possibly that the most valuable volunteers will be people who dabbled early in their life. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Are you arguing that the result of this discussion will change whether an editors who hasn't been here since February 2013 will return? Their only major edit was to create another A7 violating page at Alexander Ross Armstrong which was promptly deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Blank and apply {{userpage blanked}} per SmokeyJoe.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wgoodman1/Krewe of Neptune |
---|
The result of the discussion was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 18:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC) User:Wgoodman1/Krewe of Neptune
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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
|
April 6, 2016
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)
- Redirect to Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management. North America1000 01:06, 19 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 [9] 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)
- Redirect to Aarhus University, School of Business and Social Sciences. North America1000 16:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
April 5, 2016
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)
-
- SmokeyJoe what do you consider processed like any other draft? AfC or what? Legacypac (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- There appears to be a completely screwie interpretation that a DraftSpace draft without the AfC template is not a draft. An obvious fix has been proposed by DGG at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G13_Drafts, but the discussion derailed and stalled. Put the AfC template on it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe what do you consider processed like any other draft? AfC or what? Legacypac (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Since it's not an AFC draft, there is no "process" for it and thus it would never be deleted without a discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:40, 16 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 2, 2016
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)
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)
February 8, 2016
User:WGTBrett/World Golf Tour
- User:WGTBrett/World Golf Tour ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Single unsourced sentence from November 2009 that is already at World Golf Tour. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I suppose one could quite reasonably say "delete as promotion, unsourced, by an otherwise non-contributor", but in hindsight it was a valid draft and such things should be redirected to the now existing mainspace article. The editor checking for his contribution history, and any external bookmarks, should lead to the mainspace article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Why redirect it if there's no redirected history? There's be a lot of redirects to every article, which is more work if the article is ever moved or the like. Most likely, the editor would check his or her talk page first and not their contributions necessarily and see this discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- why redirect?
- (A1) The editor checking for his contribution history. Hiding his history is an unwelcoming thing to do to a returning editor. (The likelihood of the editor returning and doing this is really not the point)
- (A2) It hides the old unwanted content from archivers, mirrors, etc, replacing the content with blank or redirect, as opposed to deletion that causes archives and mirrors to preserve the last known version;
- (A3) It means it can be dealt with without using MfD.
- "There's be a lot of redirects to every article, which is more work if the article is ever moved or the like." Firstly, redirects are cheap, lots of redirects to an article are of negligible cost. If the target is ever moved, a redirect will almost be certainly left behind, and, contrary to what some think, double redirects are not a problem. If, as sometimes happens, the target is to be moved without leaving a redirect, such a move requires incoming links to be checked and updated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- His history isn't hidden. Having his article redirected somewhere when it wasn't actually used somewhere is hiding it. His talk page will inform of this discussion, and he'll have people to ask what happened. The problems are that simply blanking an article doesn't mean it stays blanked. What's to done with POV forks that people create? Or people who created versions of fictional character articles before they got merged away? If they are blanked, maybe they don't return and reinstate it but if they do, we come back and see the article again and again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- So you don't trust editors? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I see it as a cost-benefit. If the editor returns and is the kind we want, they can see this discussion, see that there is an article on the subject and work there. If it's not, then they can recreate it anyways or if they ask someone about it, they'll be informed that there is a mainspace version. Either way, we're better off. If I wanted to redirect it, I could have but I didn't because WP:UP#COPIES policy isn't "blank or redirect separate versions" but they aren't appropriate at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is not a WP:UP#COPIES case, why do you bring that up? WP:UP#COPIES refers to material copied from mainspace, or a retained version of deleted material.
- I do not think you are weighing the cost of an MfD discussion into your equation.
- The degree to which you trust editors tends to be self-fulfilling. Trustworthy editors are not tempted back if they see they are not trusted to comply with the obvious. Redirecting to the superior mainspace version is a simple message that any trustworthy and competent editor will understand. Deletion tells the old editor that there are new kids managing things now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- UP#COPIES doesn't state anything about material copied from userspace. It just says that UP isn't for pages that look like articles in mainspace. There's plenty of copies that are created separate from mainspace. If nothing is going to be used at the mainspace one, keeping it solves nothing and deleting is in line with the belief that these pages should not be here. Are you arguing that if it was copied from mainspace, it can be deleted but if I create a page that says "Mark Zuckerberg is the owner of facebook" without copying anything more, it should be kept indefinitely? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- There has been a lot of fiddling, and it never was well explained. WP:UP#COPIES is for things that are direct copies from mainspace, including of deleted content. Users unhappy with deletion often would repost (unattributed) the material just deleted, or just about to be deleted. Soemtimes with the comment "safeguarding" or similar.
- Pages that "look like" mainspace articles are covered as "FAKEARTICLES". It was User:Gigs formulation. You are the first to get it confused. In one sense it doesn't matter because both are good reasons to for deletion (or blanking). Recently, I have discussed with you the creation of a CSD criterion to enable speedy deletion of direct copies. FAKEARTICLES have proved less clear cut. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are talking about. The section for both is titled "User pages that look like articles" and just says "Userspace ... should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." Whether or not it was copied from mainspace seems irrelevant to me. If copied, then attribution is required and can be done afterwards by edit summary. To me, the question is what to do if you aren't supposed to indefinitely host this type of page. We could blank it or redirect and essentially force editors to agree to that blanking or redirecting or we just could delete it if the contents aren't used elsewhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- UP#COPIES doesn't state anything about material copied from userspace. It just says that UP isn't for pages that look like articles in mainspace. There's plenty of copies that are created separate from mainspace. If nothing is going to be used at the mainspace one, keeping it solves nothing and deleting is in line with the belief that these pages should not be here. Are you arguing that if it was copied from mainspace, it can be deleted but if I create a page that says "Mark Zuckerberg is the owner of facebook" without copying anything more, it should be kept indefinitely? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I see it as a cost-benefit. If the editor returns and is the kind we want, they can see this discussion, see that there is an article on the subject and work there. If it's not, then they can recreate it anyways or if they ask someone about it, they'll be informed that there is a mainspace version. Either way, we're better off. If I wanted to redirect it, I could have but I didn't because WP:UP#COPIES policy isn't "blank or redirect separate versions" but they aren't appropriate at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- So you don't trust editors? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- His history isn't hidden. Having his article redirected somewhere when it wasn't actually used somewhere is hiding it. His talk page will inform of this discussion, and he'll have people to ask what happened. The problems are that simply blanking an article doesn't mean it stays blanked. What's to done with POV forks that people create? Or people who created versions of fictional character articles before they got merged away? If they are blanked, maybe they don't return and reinstate it but if they do, we come back and see the article again and again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Why redirect it if there's no redirected history? There's be a lot of redirects to every article, which is more work if the article is ever moved or the like. Most likely, the editor would check his or her talk page first and not their contributions necessarily and see this discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep WP:AGF
- Delete as not worth redirecting and the editor, if they ever come back, should be happy we cleaned up the page. Legacypac (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Blank and redirect to World Golf Tour. North America1000 16:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: This is a 7 year old sentence, on a topic already covered comprehensively in mainspace, sitting untouched in userspace from an editor that hasn't contributed anything else in the same 7 years. I'm genuinely puzzled why there's a protracted discussion above regarding this. User is not likely to ever go looking for this. Chrisw80 (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Not likely, but possible. The possibility outweighs the zero benefit to the project of having it deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Chrisw80 nailed it - the delete nothing crowd prefers useless clutter. Legacypac (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- User:WGTBrett's userspace is not a thoroughfare, his clutter is for him to manage, subject to the pages being associated with the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's not clutter. Clutter would be notes or references or something for a possible draft. It's an attempt at a draft when there is already an article here. It's no different than another WP:UP#COPIES situation. Also, blank and redirect are mutually exclusive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is a duplicate not a copy. Just redirect these sorts of things to the superior mainspace article. It doesn't matter which started first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Why do you care? This person literally wrote a sentence over six years ago. A large number of people in the meantime wrote over 20k of text about the subject, including an infobox, sources, categories, all that work and your obsession is that because that person was here first all those years ago, we must protect their work above anything anyone today tries to work on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is a duplicate not a copy. Just redirect these sorts of things to the superior mainspace article. It doesn't matter which started first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's not clutter. Clutter would be notes or references or something for a possible draft. It's an attempt at a draft when there is already an article here. It's no different than another WP:UP#COPIES situation. Also, blank and redirect are mutually exclusive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- User:WGTBrett's userspace is not a thoroughfare, his clutter is for him to manage, subject to the pages being associated with the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Chrisw80 nailed it - the delete nothing crowd prefers useless clutter. Legacypac (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Chrisw80. 103.6.159.72 (talk) 19:06, 29 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. I understand that some editors may disagree with current practice and want to use deletion to "clean up" other people's userpages. If you disagree with current policy, please propose a change to the rules and seek consensus first instead of nominating huge batches of pages in a way that contradicts Wikipedia policy. Fagles (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Admin comment: This discussion is reopened after a non-admin closure was undone per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 March 31. Sandstein 13:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- redirect as is standard with duplication. Hobit (talk) 14:00, 11 April 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)
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: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: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)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aegism100/sandbox |
---|
The result of the discussion was no consensus. North America1000 18:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC) User:Aegism100/sandbox
This term never caught on. It seems to be something coined in one book in 2007 and ignored by the world [10] 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:56, 25 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)
- Blank and apply {{Userpage blanked}}. North America1000 12:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
March 25, 2016
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 [12] [13] 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)
- Sorry Ricky, but given past behaviour, I was suspicious that Legacypac might have moved it to his own userspace to later CSD#U1 it. More recently I have seen reason to improve my trust in his intentions, so let me not that this was a past suspicion on my part. I too have been looking at sources, and am starting to suspect clever fakery. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 14 April 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)
- Example source. If it is promotion, it is very old promotion, not the usual sort of promotion aggressively not allowed. If it is promotion of a hoax, it has some hallmarks of a notable hoax. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- A book published last September by a vanity press, years after this appeared in Wikipedia? Really? —Cryptic 06:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Cryptic. Is it? Oh dear. I have been fooled by these things before. "AuthorHouse" is a vanity press? How does one know these things? In any case, I see that its publication date was last year, so it is very likely influenced by Wikipedia, or by the same alleged hoax-promotion. Are we finding that the only sources are recent sources? Is it unusually clever fictional history? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- 60 seconds on their website was enough to find their price list. —Cryptic 07:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Cryptic. Is it? Oh dear. I have been fooled by these things before. "AuthorHouse" is a vanity press? How does one know these things? In any case, I see that its publication date was last year, so it is very likely influenced by Wikipedia, or by the same alleged hoax-promotion. Are we finding that the only sources are recent sources? Is it unusually clever fictional history? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- A book published last September by a vanity press, years after this appeared in Wikipedia? Really? —Cryptic 06:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Example source. If it is promotion, it is very old promotion, not the usual sort of promotion aggressively not allowed. If it is promotion of a hoax, it has some hallmarks of a notable hoax. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 14 April 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)
- Draftify to Draft:Ferdinand Gravert. North America1000 06:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think we've shown by now that this isn't ever going to be verifiable from online sources. Delete without prejudice to a WP:REFUND request by the author (or anyone else), so long as he provides some documentation that predates this draft and its appearance in anti-fouling paint. As usual, {{inactive userpage blanked}} would have saved everyone a great deal of effort and aggravation. —Cryptic 07:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Why would it have been blanked? According to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Agravert/Ferdinand Gravert this was a good draft. It was moved to draftspace, denied to mainspace and then for the first time actually checked and the sources are shown to be false. Now, nobody can actually prove who invented anti-fouling paint (it's literally like who invented paint) so we can keep/delete/blank or whatever but it was moved and evaluated as allegedly a good draft. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Because it was absolutely, 100% harmless while in userspace, and the repeated attempts to delete it forced everyone commenting in the first MFD, the user reviewing the bad-faith move to AFC, and everyone commenting in this MFD to drop everything and evaluate it when they could have been doing something that actually mattered instead, solely because "some vandal could one day unblank it". Well, "some vandal" can still one day get it restored, and nobody need have wasted their time on it except Legacypac. —Cryptic 19:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Why would it have been blanked? According to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Agravert/Ferdinand Gravert this was a good draft. It was moved to draftspace, denied to mainspace and then for the first time actually checked and the sources are shown to be false. Now, nobody can actually prove who invented anti-fouling paint (it's literally like who invented paint) so we can keep/delete/blank or whatever but it was moved and evaluated as allegedly a good draft. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
March 24, 2016
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: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)
- Userfy per Ricky - if the author is active and finds it useful, but it doesn't seem to be a very viable draft, userspace seems like the right place for it. A2soup (talk) 18:13, 11 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: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)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:S.V.Praveen in love with Jesus/Wikipedia;Articles for creation |
---|
The result of the discussion was no consensus. North America1000 18:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC) User:S.V.Praveen in love with Jesus/Wikipedia;Articles for creation
Person does not pass notability guidelines. Old stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 23 March 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)
- Blank and add {{Inactive userpage blanked}} per above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:37, 9 May 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)- Why are you voting twice within two minutes and differently for that matter? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. No attribution needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 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)
- Blank and add {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. North America1000 08:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Blank with {{Inactive userpage blanked}} per SmokeyJoe.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
March 22, 2016
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)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Templates for deleted categories |
---|
The result of the discussion was no consensus. North America1000 18:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Templates for deleted categories
{{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).
|
Closed discussions
For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.
|