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.
|
|||
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 step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.
|
Administrator instructions
Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.
Contents
- 1 Information on the process
- 2 Current discussions
- 3 Old business
- 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.
December 1, 2016
November 30, 2016
User:Duaa Zeeshan
- User:Duaa Zeeshan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Lengthy advert for a school; user put this up and then disappeared. bd2412 T 19:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as blatant advertisement. The subject is properly covered at Bahria College Karachi. JohnCD (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)
- Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Significant WP:BLP issues regarding giving credence to WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory. As suggested at WP:BLPN, could use a brief mention as a one-line somewhere that this is debunked and false. Other than that, does not need its own page which is defamatory to living people. Sagecandor (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect As others have said this would never make it to mainspace due to WP:FRINGE issues among other things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- See my comment about redirecting below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Please point out how the current form of the draft deviates from mainstream reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- See my comment about redirecting below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Creating a mainspace page to give space to an entirely unfounded, false, viciously defamatory and wholly fabricated series of claims about living people is a really, really bad precedent that we should not set here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- See WP:EASYTARGET. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per the above - especially WP:BLP - the creator is free to post this on their facebook page but it has no business being on WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 17:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Please point out BLP violations in the current form of the draft. Dismissed claims about living persons which are presented as false and sourced to mainstream journalistic sources that debunk those claims are not BLP violations. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per above - and speedily. Neutralitytalk 18:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Neutrality: Mmmmm nice warm speedily made pizza. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- See WP:PERNOM. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Essays are not policy. In any case, I see no point in belaboring this quite obvious points which others have made, and with which I agree. Neutralitytalk 00:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- The most current version clearly marks it as a false conspiracy theory. I believe Ian Thomson on ANI thinks it passes the GNG. At which point do we determine the difference between "well sourced fringe nonsense" and "fringe nonsense"? The problem is, of course, that so much of this crap gets thrown out there and talked about (yesterday it was three million illegal votes, and last year it was Ted Cruz's father killing JFK or nonsense like that) that most of these nonsensical things can be sourced (and debunked). Personally I think that this is basically NOTNEWS, but I'd love to hear a concise and strong BLP argument. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I see your point, Drmies. To me the biggest issue pushing toward straight-up "Delete" is the fact that any standalone article will instantly become a permanent honeypot for conspiracy theorists, and that there will be endless, sometimes-civil, off-wiki-organized pressure to expand the article, to add "balance," to add the endless purported details, etc., and experienced editors will have to endlessly stand firm against that pressure. The claims about living people are about as defamatory as they get and thus the article will require permanent, frequent monitoring to prevent misuse and abuse. It's not even in articlespace yet and there's had to be multiple rev-delete actions taken. We've seen this play before and we know how it ends. The encyclopedia doesn't need another one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree completely, at least with the first part, and I'm sympathetic to the second part. But that second part is, unfortunately, a bit of crystal ballery, though that ball may be as accurate as one of the Palantir. Hence I would go with NOTNEWS, pace Knowledgekid below: we are making a big, not to mention yuge, mistake if we accept something because it was in the papers, the day before the fish got wrapped in it. Between you and me, Wikipedia needs to purge itself of a slew of those and related articles, frequently written by editors who can't wait to run to the PC after they checked their Twitter feed or their Facebook news. Which reminds me: I need to check on the OSU attack article... Drmies (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- To get an idea of what the article would turn into without constant monitoring, look at Infogalactic's version: innuendo introduced by "Investigators focused on..." and "Investigators also discovered a possible connection between..." etc. JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- See WP:EASYTARGET. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Keep - Almost every conspiracy theory implicates living people in criminal or suspicious behavior, so treating a conspiracy theory like a conspiracy theory (like this draft does) does not, in my opinion, automatically violate WP:BLP per Wikipedia:Offensive material and WP:CENSOR. Coverage of the conspiracy theory is still ongoing, so it's possible that this could gain enough traction to merit its own article. FallingGravity 18:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget? - If it was newsworthy enough to make the Times then there may be something usable here, does the project have an existing article on the alt-right and fake news affect on the presidential election? If not it should, as that was a significant factor in the race.
-
- I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect to Battle of the Buffet#Pizzagate as a one line sentence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- This was a mention on the Pizzagate disambiguation page. However, that's an even bigger WP:EASYTARGET because disambiguation pages "aren't" allowed to have references pointing out that the conspiracy theory is debunked. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect to Battle of the Buffet#Pizzagate as a one line sentence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I can see there is an argument that, though this is a malicious and silly hoax, it is a notable malicious silly hoax; but Wikipedia should be very reluctant to get drawn into the emerging Post-truth politics. JohnCD (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Should we delete all articles on conspiracy theories, then? Or should we cover them when they are given significant dismissal by mainstream sources and ensure that the article likewise presents the mainstream/skeptical view as the truth? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- WP:PERNOM. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep it's marked as a conspiracy but it passes notability. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep the sources include the New York Times and Washington Post so it easily passes notability standards. By deleting it you leave only the conspiracy sites as sources for people to find. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The conspiracy theory is discussed (and usually debunked) in the WP:RSs such as BuzzFeed, The Daily Dot, Inquisitr, New York Times, PolitiFact, Washington City Paper, The Washington Post. I'm seeing a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:HARMFUL, and WP:EASYTARGET arguments that almost look like people haven't actually read the draft (just the descriptions of the subject matter at ANI, BLPN, and here). I don't like it either and I know it's going to be more work for us, but mainstream journalistic sources have given significant coverage of the idea and explained how it is wrong. WP:FRINGE does not mean that we pretend that this never happened (which would the conspiracy theorists the idea that we're in on it, btw), it means that we stick to mainstream sources (like the ones I listed) and make damn well sure that the mainstream view is the one that's given credence. As for BLP violations, I have eliminated those (and if I haven't, please point out where any are left). The articles on the conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's citizenship religion includes statements that, presented as fact, would violate BLP -- they are, like this draft though, sourced to mainstream journalistic sources and are dismissive of the conspiracy theory. This is not "what about that article", I am merely demonstrating how articles on potentially BLP-violating conspiracy theories are handled. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Just because something is covered in the news does not mean that it's independently notable. Comparisons to Birtherism are misplaced; Birtherism was a years-long phenomenon, while this particular crank nonsense has not yet reached that point. I see no reason why this jumps the hurdle from "short mention in another appropriate article" to "full-scale article." Neutralitytalk 00:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
-
- The first sentence of your post would be applicable if the news sources were discussing the conspiracy theory in relation to other things: for example, an off-hand mention in an article about the pizza place or about fake news stories affecting the election. Instead, all the sources are specifically about the conspiracy theory. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter. A flurry of news articles about something doesn't necessarily mean that an incident is notable either. For example, in 2008, Dick Cheney made a joke about West Virginia. There was a backlash, and then he apologized. This minor, completely unencylopedic mini-drama was widely covered by an impressive array of sources who published stories "specifically about" the joke, for instance, the Associated Press, CNN, CBS News, Fox News, Fox News again, Slate, The New York Times, the New York Times again. But we don't have 2008 Dick Cheney West Virginia joke — because, notwithstanding "all the sources ... specifically about" the joke, it's still not independently notable. This is because we're not a newspaper and this stuff (highly recentistic in nature) doesn't remotely pass the ten-year test. Neutralitytalk 00:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- The first sentence of your post would be applicable if the news sources were discussing the conspiracy theory in relation to other things: for example, an off-hand mention in an article about the pizza place or about fake news stories affecting the election. Instead, all the sources are specifically about the conspiracy theory. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
-
- That is because it can be handled in a single sentence in the existing Cheney biography. To have too many details at the actual pizza restaurant article is undue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- All of those sources are within a day of each other. The sources for the draft go back about a month. I've likewise raised concerned about WP:EFFECT, but it would be less work to contain the conspiracy theorists and theorism by locking down this article until the furor dies down than it would to keep deleting the various attempts to get the deletion (as has happened already). That or we need to make an WP:IAR exception and allow sources to be cited at the Pizzagate disambiguation page (which is what I tried to do originally). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- And here is a perfect demonstration of the problem; we already have users removing descriptions of the defamatory claims as false and debunked on the spurious grounds that it is "editorializing" to clearly reflect the mainstream view of false, defamatory claims about living people. This is the road we're going down again. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
-
- Once again, see WP:EASYTARGET. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Trivial WP:BLP-violating hoax, violates WP:NOTNEWS, cooked up by 4chan. Need I say more? To quote someone on ANI, Wikipedia is not The Onion. Given the horrifying proliferation of fake news during this election cycle, the least Wikipedia can do is not repeat it. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The media sources to prove Pizzagate is a hoax are cherry-picked to side with the authors point of view. The alternate view is not included, and sources (ie: FBI list of code words used by pedophiles, email correspondence and social media pages of people involved with Pizzagate containing the same symbols and phrases) which go against the "conspiracy theory" narrative have not been added. This article is pushing a particular position, which undermines Wikipedia as a neutral source and unbiased encyclopedia. (talk) 3:53, 1 December 2016 (CET)
November 29, 2016
User talk:123.202.6.93
- User talk:123.202.6.93 ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Article already exists at Cindy Klassen. A copy should not be on an IP's talk page. †dismas†|(talk) 17:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Walter Reeves (engineer)
- Draft:Walter Reeves (engineer) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft 'duplicates' an existing article at Walter Reeves (engineer) and seems to have been abandoned. Kev519 (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment Page was blanked by creator and has been tagged CSD G7. Eagleash (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment Draft has now been deleted (as has the article of which it was a duplicate). Please close this discussion. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:2017 Indycar Series
- Draft:2017 Indycar Series ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft 'duplicates' an existing article at 2017 IndyCar Series and seems to have been abandoned. Eagleash (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
November 28, 2016
Draft:Frank Graewe
- Draft:Frank Graewe ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Submitted and declined 8 times; at some point we have to put down the horse. Concerns have been raised from sourcing to notability. Basically it boils down to the fact that the subject only shows up in print due to his involvement in one event, which disqualifies him from having an article per WP:BLP1E. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Penis_transplantation#2014_procedure_in_South_Africa, per the top reviewer's comment and consistent with all reviewer comments. An accidental content fork. Keep the redirect with history, the redirect points future visitors to this draft page to the proper place, and there may be something non redundant in the references used. No BLP issues, it is only a WP:BIO issue. BLP1E and BIO1E demand consideration of a merge and redirect WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think we could show notability. I'm going to check further. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Spentoups/sandbox
- User:Spentoups/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This was tagged for Speedy deletion using the U5 criterion. This looks like a fairly obvious application of the criterion but as this page has over 10,000 edits to it administrators can not delete it. This page does not look like it is really a draft article as the original U5 tagger said, it looks like this is being used to document some game off site. I am bringing it here for review and then pass onto stewards if the consensus is delete. -- GB fan 17:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as original nominator for CSD: "U5: Blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. Sandbox is tracking progress in video game or something similar. User has very few edits within the past 2 years outside of this sandbox." --Darth Mike(talk) 17:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and block the author (User:Spentoups for disruption. 10,636 Revisions, all blatant notwebhost violations. It is probably being used as a free and high bandwidth online cache. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:National Symphony of Costa Rica
- Draft:National Symphony of Costa Rica ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 02:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:STALEDRAFT. Has not been edited in over six months. I honestly don't think it qualifies for WP:G13, since it is an AFC draft that was never submitted, thus has never been rejected. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Music_of_Costa_Rica#Music_institutions. Any new material should go straight into mainspace, there is no need or benefit to drafting it. Oppose deletion as unwelcoming, even chilling, to the newcomers. Keep the redirect to help the newcomers find there way to the proper place. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia namespace BS-anleitung templates
- Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung2 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung2/header ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung2u ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung3 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung3/header ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung4c ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung4c/header ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung4pf ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungW ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BS-anleitungW/header ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
These templates are not currently used (except under Wikipedia:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms#Templates), and their functionalities have been replaced by other similar templates in Category:Route diagram catalog templates. — Peterwhy 00:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete; unneeded. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 03:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC) - I'm out, too many things have changed in enwiki ;-) a×pdeHello! 07:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
November 27, 2016
Talk:List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes/Archives
- Talk:List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes/Archives ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
No longer maintained, talk page header handles the archive links - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nominator. I created the page back when it wasn't part of the header. — AMK152 (t • c) 19:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BSicon-h legende
- Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BSicon-h legende ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Was only transcluded on one page, Wikipedia:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms/formations. I substituted it there (it being unnecessary to do so, and to ease loading time) and there are no more links to this page. I'm not sure if the page history could be merged, although it seems the content was taken out of the page this was transcluded on so that might help. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. It should/was supposed to be also transcluded onto Wikipedia:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms/elevated. Useddenim (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Dominic Covey
- Draft:Dominic Covey ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Abandoned draft. Let's not keep forever -- someone can recreate draft or main space article if/when appropriate, if subject is truly notable. Also, article was already nominated for deletion. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Ethan Skemp
- Draft:Ethan Skemp ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Abandoned draft. Someone can re-create this stub in draft space or main space if/when appropriate, if subject is truly notable. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Caipira Airways
- Draft:Caipira Airways ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not a notable subject. No reason to keep draft forever. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. It won't be kept forever. It is marked as an AFC draft so will eventually be deleted under CSD G13 if not worked on. There was no need to put the pressure of a deletion debate on the user. SpinningSpark 09:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Richard Ranallo
- Draft:Richard Ranallo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Abandoned draft; no evidence of notability. Not worth saving forever. Someone can restart draft or main space article if/when appropriate. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- This page was in mainspace. User:BOZ userfied it [1] and later draftified it. It should have been deleted per User:Tarc's PROD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Right, and this (more or less) one-sentence stub is just not worth saving forever. We need to be more judicious about AfC drafts. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Top Trending India
- Draft:Top Trending India ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This online news magazine just launched and is nowhere close to being notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The draft's current content is in appropriate and has not been edited since draft was rejected. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Trump wall
- Draft:Trump wall ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
We already have "Trump wall" as a redirect to "Political positions of Donald Trump". This draft page is not needed and not being actively worked on. Someone can expand redirect page if appropriate. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - The entirety of the content is "The Conception of a border wall was brought by". There is no point in retaining this in any form as there is nothing meaningful in the page history. A redirect would be plausible if it had been moved or merged there, or even had more substantive content, but it doesn't.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
November 26, 2016
User:Michael.palomino-at-gmx.ch
- User:Michael.palomino-at-gmx.ch ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
autobiography and almost stream of consciousness page - reptilians and Zionists wanting to atom bomb Germany, editor's feelings of persecution, etc. I could just blank this but it would probably be reinstated. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- For some unexplained reason the page has been "courtesy blanked". I don't see the point of this. It's not an abandoned page. Blanking it might scare the editor, but I'd rather not do that, I'd prefer a more formal resolution. Doug Weller talk 18:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:UP#GOALS and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Also see User:Michael Palomino which has similar information. The user page before blanking was permalink (I do not see a reason to blank it). The two users concerned are Michael.palomino-at-gmx.ch (talk · contribs) and Michael Palomino (talk · contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Gnanyog Academy
- Draft:Gnanyog Academy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia is not a blog. —teb728 t c 09:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Deleted all the blog dumps by the author. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:MayDay Rooms
- Wikipedia:MayDay Rooms ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominating along with Wikipedia:MayDay Rooms/Resources, Wikipedia:MayDay Rooms/tab header, Wikipedia:MayDay Rooms/Events and Workshops as this article reseembles an organization and not any Wikipedia policy. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, for now anyway. http://maydayrooms.org/ looks to be a highly compatible organisation to Wikipedia, and I think there is intention to collaborate through these pages towards contributions to the project. At worst, move to subpages of User:Fabian Tompsett (MDR). Come back later to see if activities in these pages are supporting this project, or are supporting an external project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Possibly dumb question is the proposal to remove the pages or move them to normal article space? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Mr. Vernon: To delete (i.e. in your words "remove") the page(s), this is miscellany for deletion.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
User:7126glocck
- User:7126glocck ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
copy of Tiny Rascal Gang, in userspace Auric talk 01:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Is not a copy. The userpage long preceded the article. The article appears completely unrelated in authorship, and the first version was immediately much better than the old userpage. As an accidentaly content fork, Redirect the userpage to the article, having first moved it to User:7126glocck/sandbox. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Sukuma Calendar
- Draft:Sukuma Calendar ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete and salt. Non-notable and possibly a WP:hoax. The main namespace article was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukuma calendar), and I have WP:SALTed Sukuma calendar and Sukuma Calendar per the topic being non-notable yet articles being repeatedly created, and per this possibly being a hoax. North America1000 00:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete
Am not persuaded it is a hoax, it is certainly not a "blatant hoax" as asserted at AfD. It may be a clever hoax. I problem for decision making here is that the worst hoax material is deleted and hidden from me. But, what matters is that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukuma calendar shows a clear consensus to delete. Delete per that consensus. Mentions of a 2700 year old calendar system in 3000 year old sources is plausible, but extraordinary, and so good sources are needed. The draft references reliable sources, broadly, too broadly to assess. For this topic, inline sources to page numbers should be required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Oregon Wildlife Center Standoff
- Draft:Oregon Wildlife Center Standoff ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft no longer needed; we have Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect. Again, more evidence that AfC is broken, a holding ground to waste the time of drafters and reviewers, real contributions are made by working immediately in mainspace. Arbutus the tree (talk · contribs) loses the ArticleCreation count, but at least he discovered the mainspace article within a few week and continued to work there. Redirect, because I see no positives and some negatives to deleting Arbutus' wasted edits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
November 25, 2016
Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/景洪家园/帮助开始 (1)
- Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/景洪家园/帮助开始 (1) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
All rows and columns look like test page. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- A test. Userfy without redirect to User:Chen xiaojing/Wiki Ed/景洪家园/帮助开始 (1). It is a beautiful template of a table. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Pjagadeeshkumar
- User:Pjagadeeshkumar ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Autobiographical. duplicated in users talk page. Inapplicable use of geobox. Auric talk 17:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, I read it as an introduction to the user. Consider editing to clarify. Add {{Userpage}}. I don't see the substance of the "Inapplicable use of geobox" allegation, people can put nonsense on their userpage, what is the problem? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Eh. Given the editor's limited history, cf. WP:UPNOT para. 3 (established, productive editors given wider latitude with their user pages), this may be approaching the NOTPROMO limit, but is it over the line? I believe sharing autobiographical content on one's user page is widely accepted, even encouraged—even for dilettantes. See WP:UPYES ("[U]sually[,] one's user page has something about oneself . . . ."). Writing it in the third person is unusual and goes to NOTPROMO, but there's no rule discouraging it. Similarly, {{geobox}} is misused here, but we don't have copy standards for user pages, and it doesn't appear to be hurting anything. Rebbing 02:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
November 24, 2016
User:XxDalekcaanxx/sandbox
- User:XxDalekcaanxx/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Long term storage of a non-notable band bio, already speedied multiple times at B Yellow. Sandbox has been there for almost four years and the band isn't getting any more notable. Hairhorn (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Non-notable band, page serves only as promotion or NOTWEBHOST violation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
November 23, 2016
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Hasdie Hasnan |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. I do not think Primefac can be criticised for declining G4: its definition excludes "content that has been... converted to a draft for explicit improvement" and we should be reluctant to close the door on the possibility of improving rejected content. It is a matter of judgment in a particular case whether there are realistic prospects of improvement, and if in doubt MfD is the right place to come. For the same reason, I am reluctant to salt this draft title, yet. The mainspace title has been salted. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Draft:Hasdie Hasnan
This is actually a clear G4, but an admin has already refused the speedy without giving a good reason to do so, thus MfD is the only route still open to getting rid of this obvious junk that has been deleted four times in mainspace as well as once before in draftspace. IMHO salting in both main and draft spaces should be considered. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
|
Old business
November 22, 2016
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of Taoisigh (Prime Ministers) of Ireland |
---|
The result of the discussion was: redirect to Taoiseach#List of office holders. JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Draft:List of Taoisigh (Prime Ministers) of Ireland
This information exists at Taoiseach#List of office holders, no need for this draft JMHamo (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
|
Template:User high school
- Template:User high school ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
unused and we generally discourage identifying as a minor Frietjes (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as edited ("attends" -> "attends or attended"). Identifying a minor is not really generally discouraged, I think you are confusing with the discouragement for minors to release personally identifying detail. Minors are pretty obvious to spot if you go looking, and open disclosure of being a child is probably more protective than endangering. In any case, likely collaborative benefits of identifying with a school are likely to be just as strong for past attendees, and as edited, there is no implication that the user is still there. Also, as edited, uses will not become out-of-date. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- we already have a template for that, it's User school. Frietjes (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:OLX |
---|
The result of the discussion was: redirect to OLX. JohnCD (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Draft:OLXHas been accepted into mainspace as OLX. Don't need this draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Header redo |
---|
The result of the discussion was: redirect to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Header JohnCD (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be a draft/proposal for changes to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Header in 2011. However, since it's a copy of what is/was there, it really isn't useful to the "Wikipedia:" namespace as a functional subpage of Wikipedia:Copyright problems. So, probably delete or userfy at User:Moonriddengirl/Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Header redo. Steel1943 (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
|
Draft:Deep Touch (DJ)
- Draft:Deep Touch (DJ) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Procedural nomination. The main namespace article was deleted after this subject was determined to be non-notable per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeepTouchSA. North America1000 01:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- G8 if it is the same thing. If DeepTouchSA weren't deleted, would a history merge be appropriate? If not, a redirect would have. Delete. Assuming that it is not a better version. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
November 21, 2016
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Open-source software |
---|
The result of the discussion was: redirect to Portal:Free and open-source software. JohnCD (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Portal:Open-source software
It's redundant given Portal:Free and open-source software and should be deleted. Normally I'd say it should be merged into here but there's almost no content in it that could be merged - and it also doesn't have a talk page. Fixuture (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is serious business (2nd nomination) |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep, seriously. JohnCD (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia:Wikipedia is serious business
The only sentence is "it just is", which is neither informative nor humorous. This should be redirected to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world, or put in userspace. Pikachu RP25 18:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
|
November 20, 2016
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bass Pagla Anik |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Draft:Bass Pagla Anik
not notable Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
|
Closed discussions
For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.