Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.
Filtered versions of this page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion include:
Information on the process
What may be nominated for deletion here:
- Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Education Program:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
- Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
- Files in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
- Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.
Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.
Before nominating a page for deletion
Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:
Deleting pages in your own userspace |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
Alternatives to MfD |
|
Please familiarize yourself with the following policies
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
- Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
- Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
- Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
- Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes
How to list pages for deletion
Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:
Instructions on listing pages for deletion:
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted) Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.
|
Administrator instructions
V | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 10 | 21 | 31 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 6 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 79 | 79 |
Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.
Archived discussions
A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.
Current discussions
- Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.
February 15, 2021
Draft:Untitled Superman & Lois and Batwoman crossover
- Draft:Untitled Superman & Lois and Batwoman crossover ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)Crossover cancelled: https://tvline.com/2021/01/14/batwoman-season-2-javicia-leslie-arrowverse-crossover/ Kailash29792 (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:The online encyclopedia where the guidelines overpowers the common sense
- Wikipedia:The online encyclopedia where the guidelines overpowers the common sense ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
POV screed against supposed 'brainwashing' on Wikipedia that I struggled to make head or tail of. Entirely useless. Creator admits on the page to having two alternate accounts (Rampage killer (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and Elhiggins (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)) for what it's worth as well. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
February 14, 2021
Draft:Anushka Sen
It is, yet again, time for the wider community to have a serious look at this draft. WP:BEFORE research by me, by the draft creator and by others over time has failed to find anything substantial in WP:RS to indicate that this song lady passed WP:NACTOR. It has been deleted as an article as a Draft, as sandboxen, and has caused many of us to scratch our heads over it in order to try to accept it.
It is likely that Anushka Sen will pass our threshold of notability at some point in her career. At present it is WP:TOOSOON.
I will be the first to change my mind if she can be shown to have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Research has shown me social media, TV gossip journalism, TV listings and general fluff and clutter. Fiddle Faddle 16:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep in draft space at this time, partially reversing my position six months ago:
- This is a draft, and the question is whether to delete it from draft space, which should only be done if its presence in draft space has become disruptive. This draft has only been submitted and declined once in its present version.
- Editors have said that the subject is likely to satisfy acting notability soon. If so, a draft is useful, unless it is abused.
- If this draft is again resubmitted tendentiously, semi-protection and partial blocks are preferred over deletion of the draft from draft space.
- The title is already salted in article space, so that there is no danger of an inappropriate article being created.
- There is no need to delete this draft at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NMFD, especially due to the statement that it is likely the subject will become notable. — csc-1 19:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. WP:TOOSOON is a reason for it to be in draftspace. MfD is not for examining draft notability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - per Joe - MFD isn't for examining notability and the nom themselves state "It is likely that Anushka Sen will pass our threshold of notability at some point in her career." so I don't really know why this was nominated but either way I see no valid reason to delete at this time. –Davey2010Talk 22:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I would also go by WP:NMFD, due to the statement that it is likely the subject will become notable although I totally understand your feelings.CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NMFD. Draftspace may be used to draft content that one reasonably believes will become notable. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Capitol Riot of January 6th, 2021
- Draft:Capitol Riot of January 6th, 2021 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:January 6th 2021 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:American Insurrection of January 6th, 2021 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:DC putsch ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
– (View MfD)
Draft forks of 2021 storming of the United States Capitol with no usable content or potential for expansion. –dlthewave ☎ 13:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - No re-usable content. No sources. Topic already much better covered elsewhere. Unnecessary trivial fork. Velella Velella Talk 13:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Already covered in mainspace. No re-usable content as Velella stated. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect All the titles to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. The titles are useful as search terms. One draft has already been deleted for BLP violations. Redirect the rest. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
User talk:JAQ/Zoophilia
- User talk:JAQ/Zoophilia ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Zoophilia was a popular editing subject in the early days of Wikipedia and I've come across several sandboxes that focus on discussing the specifics of this article. The editors are no longer editing so I'm going to be nominating them for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- I thought this would fall under "Problematic userspace material" but I guess I'm in the minority here. Liz Read! Talk! 18:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, No stated rationale other than "being old", which isn't a cause for deletion. — csc-1 06:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. No reason for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per prior. Genuine problematic userspace material is pretty uncommon, and far more immediately recognizable than something like this -- think attack pages. Most of them are also speedy-eligible, so there's relatively little that's worth MfDing. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Snow Keep per CSC et al - Bordering on useless sure but on the other hand it's not an attack page and isn't causing anyone any harm. I concur with CSC being old isn't a reason to delete something. –Davey2010Talk 22:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - Just because a userspace page contains drafting content or notes on a topic that some may find distasteful is not a reason to delete it over that of any other userspace sandbox or subpage. Wikipedia is not censored. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
February 13, 2021
Draft:List of districts in India
- Draft:List of districts in India ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)submission rejected Anupam Dutta (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Anupamdutta73, Please note that as the sole author, you have the ability to request a G7 speedy deletion of the draft. However, being
rejected fromdeclined at AfC does not mean you need to delete your draft, especially since you were offered advice on how to get your submission approved. — csc-1 17:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC) - Comment to User:Arccosecant - The draft wasn't rejected. I declined the draft, which is not the same as rejecting it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - I would prefer not to have it deleted. An alphabetical list of districts would be a useful supplement to the list of districts sorted by states. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect the draft, and the page, to List of districts in India and its talk. This is complete and blatant knowing fork of the existing article. Drafting forks should be forbidden unless done by consensus established at the mainspace page’s talk page, which was not done. Forking content doesn’t jus create attribution hazards, it divides editor efforts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, and then move to Draft:Alphabetical list of districts in India, this would be a useful addition, but the name should be changed to indicate that it's not a fork. — csc-1 16:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- The sorting of a list does not make it not a fork. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- That was intended to mean "not a useless fork". — csc-1 00:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- It is still an attribution-compliance dangerous fork, as it is being done randomly in silence with respect to Talk:List of districts in India. Drafting of spinouts or improvements should be forbidden unless done with consensus at the article talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- That was intended to mean "not a useless fork". — csc-1 00:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- The sorting of a list does not make it not a fork. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Rename to List of districts in India (table) as with List of CBS television affiliates (table) but need consensus first at the current talk page in mainspace whether a combined table is useful. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
User:KevinOKeeffe/Userboxes/National Anarchism
- User:KevinOKeeffe/Userboxes/National Anarchism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)Unused userbox promoting fascist ideologies, which violates WP:UBCR and WP:POLEMIC, also see WP:NONAZIS. National Anarchism "advocates racial separatism, racial nationalism, ethnonationalism and racial purity" as per the article. — csc-1 04:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
User:UNSC Trooper/Userboxes/National Anarchism
- User:UNSC Trooper/Userboxes/National Anarchism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)Unused userbox promoting fascist ideologies, which violates WP:UBCR and WP:POLEMIC, also see WP:NONAZIS. National Anarchism "advocates racial separatism, racial nationalism, ethnonationalism and racial purity" as per the article. — csc-1 04:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
February 12, 2021
Draft:The Micronation of Ubleckistan
- Draft:The Micronation of Ubleckistan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)violates: WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 16:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom, clear violation of WP:NFT. — csc-1 17:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:G3.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 18:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as a G3 hoax. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete with oobleck as a G3 hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, no sources other than itself, likely promotional. Also potential confusion with Uzbekistan AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per G3 Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Indianapolis 2021 mass shooting |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete per WP:G5. (non-admin closure) AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Draft:Indianapolis 2021 mass shooting
|
Draft:NotSmug (Smug is cool)
- Draft:NotSmug (Smug is cool) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)Obviously not a serious attempt at an encyclopaedia article. Adam9007 (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, not a serious attempt an an article. — csc-1 03:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - A draft doesn't have to be a serious attempt at an article at any time other than when it is submitted. Not a reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - If the IP wants to bugger around they can use the sandbox like many other vandals. Whilst it isn't causing any harm it doesn't exactly improve the project either. Nothing of value will be lost. –Davey2010Talk 22:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Lil$oax
- Draft:Lil$oax ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)Unsourced BLP. Adam9007 (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, but not for the reason given by the nominator, which is an invalid deletion rationale for a draft. (The nominator has spammed MfD with 'unsourced BLP' nominations, which belies both an unfamiliarity with drafting and possible WP:RAGPICKING.) This is essentially a hopeless draft, the sort of thing WP:GARAGE was written for, and almost certainly by its subject. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - It may not be about to be an article, but that isn't a reason for deletion from draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete 3 followers. Way WP:TOOSOON. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Angus - Ignoring the Wiki page where admins aren't a thing apparently - My only results are flights, Way TOOSOON. –Davey2010Talk 22:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Pdfs
- Draft:Pdfs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Yfmcd ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Spain's Plants ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Nightmarebaby4253 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Empty drafts. I can't even tell what the some of these titles are supposed to refer to. Others give the impression that they're not serious drafts. Adam9007 (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all so long as they don't receive any genuine attempts to create an article while discussion is ongoing. — csc-1 04:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep All - They are blank drafts, and might expand and submit them. I encounter blank drafts at AFC sometimes; blank drafts are declined but not rejected, and are sometimes just an error by the author. These have not been submitted. No need to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all - If the IPs were serious about editing here they wouldn't create a blank draft and then disappear for a week/eternity. Personally don't see a point in blanking drafts when they'll never be improved and or edited. –Davey2010Talk 22:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Prescott Hampton
- Draft:Prescott Hampton ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)Obviously not a serious attempt at an encyclopaedia article. Adam9007 (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as this is not a serious attempt at an article. — csc-1 04:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep to allow author to improve unsubmitted draft. Stop ragpicking. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Emma Macey |
---|
The result of the discussion was: speedy userfy to User:Emma Macey. Seemingly an attempt at a userpage by a new user. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Draft:Emma Macey
|
February 11, 2021
Draft:Georgia State Route 702
- Draft:Georgia State Route 702 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)There is no highway in Hall County in the area mentioned, with this number. I checked the Georgia Department of Transportation state maps, county maps, and even the Gainesville city map. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and save it for G13, as this is a draft, not a mainspace article. — csc-1 00:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note that there does appear to have historically been a SR 702 according to this. — csc-1 03:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- However, that was not in the Gainesville area, as this page purports. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note that there does appear to have historically been a SR 702 according to this. — csc-1 03:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 (hoaxes). Waiting six months to clean up obvious garbage is stupid. –Fredddie™ 02:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - If a hoax, not obvious. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
February 10, 2021
Draft:How to do addition
- Draft:How to do addition ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)Per WP:NOTHOWTO. SK2242 (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as an unambiguous violation of WP:NOTGUIDE — csc-1 01:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Delete as Wikipedia is not for how-to guides. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Not an article and never will be. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per not a guide. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Self explanatory really. –Davey2010Talk 22:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Draft:How to come out
- Draft:How to come out ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)Appears to be good intentions here but Wikipedia is not a "how to" site. SK2242 (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as an unambiguous violation of WP:NOTGUIDE — csc-1 01:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Delete as not for how-to guides from draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Not an article and never will be. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per NOTHOWTO. –Davey2010Talk 22:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Draft:How to craft a crafting table
- Draft:How to craft a crafting table ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)Wikipedia is not a "how to" site. SK2242 (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Since there's no reason to go through the whole process if the outcome is obvious. This is apparently intended as instructions for the game Minecraft (which already has it's own wiki, anyway). Clearly outside the WP:SCOPE of what an encyclopedic article would be (the article on the game is complete enough as is) and an unambiguous example of WP:NOTHOWTO. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as an unambiguous violation of WP:NOTGUIDE — csc-1 01:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Delete of a draft that will never be an article because of WP:NOTHOWTO. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Not an article and never will be. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per NOTHOWTO. –Davey2010Talk 22:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Hemiachuneia
- User:Hemiachuneia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Non-existent user. Inappropriate userspace redirect Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Seriously? - Does a redirect really need a deletion if I didn't know to spell your name? sheesh ChannelSpider (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - As a general rule, I don't think we should retain redirects to user pages if the target user doesn't want them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep since the user doesn't exist and the name is a likely misspelling. — csc-1 01:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Why is a redirect of a mispelling of a username necessary? I can understand this in article space, but userpages don't warrant redirects, since zero people are searching for them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - As a general rule, I don't think we should retain redirects to user pages if the target user doesn't want them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - Not a central problem for a Redirect to just be a misspelling to a whole "Miscellany for Deletion" thingy, is this seriously a problem? -- ChannelSpider (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- What is the deal between User:Hemiauchenia and User:ChannelSpider? Why does User:ChannelSpider need a misspelling redirect for User:Hemiauchenia? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Aight Joe, so in the Dream (YouTuber) page, I made an edit summary, I tried to link the User:Hemiauchenia page and done the edit, but it was red-linked so I definitely made a mistake in misspelling, I went back to the correct page and added #REDIRECT Hemiauchenia. That's the story. -- ChannelSpider (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Except for the fact that you were reverting my edit, which should have automatically shown my username, in the particular edit summary diff you also referred to my username as "whatever you [sic] name is", making the creation of a mispelling redirect completely pointless. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not on PC/Windows, so I only had to ping. -- ChannelSpider (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Except for the fact that you were reverting my edit, which should have automatically shown my username, in the particular edit summary diff you also referred to my username as "whatever you [sic] name is", making the creation of a mispelling redirect completely pointless. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - We shouldn't retain redirects to user pages if the target user doesn't want them. Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete This page should have been speedied as a user page for an editor who doesn't exist, CSD U2. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm unamused - really I am, a "speedy deletion" for a redirect made due to mis-spelation?, it's not just stupid honestly, go ahead delete it i don't care, this is stupid. -- ChannelSpider (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as per Rhododendrites, SmokeyJoe, and others, and we don't have redirects to misspellings of user names, and this is silly. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - The target user doesn't need it, so what's the point? Besides, no one cares if someone misspells something in an edit history, and it doesn't affect anyone as well, so again, what's the point? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. This should be discussed at RfD. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Possibly one of most stupidest "RFD"s ever created in living history!. Editor in question is obviously a user not an article so as such no redirect is even needed. –Davey2010Talk 22:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
COVID-19 lab leak user and draft space POVFORKs
- Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- User talk:50.201.195.170/COVID-19 lab leak theory ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Arcturus/Lab leak ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete: Clear and unambiguous WP:POVFORK about a WP:FRINGE position, this already exists in mainspace as a redirect to a subsection on the proper article, here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note to closer: I have added two pages to this nomination afterwards; I think that if this is deleted then both of these pages should equally be deleted for the same reasons as the content is also substantially similar in nature and in intent (in the case of the IP page, it is per the edit summary attribution an older but exact copy of the draft nominated). Feel free to extend the discussion if you believe that there was insufficient time to discuss these additional nominations. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Additional note: User:Arcturus has expressed their wish for the relevant page to be deleted here. The closing admin is free to handle this information however they think appropriate. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note to closer: I have added two pages to this nomination afterwards; I think that if this is deleted then both of these pages should equally be deleted for the same reasons as the content is also substantially similar in nature and in intent (in the case of the IP page, it is per the edit summary attribution an older but exact copy of the draft nominated). Feel free to extend the discussion if you believe that there was insufficient time to discuss these additional nominations. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, is a POV fork of here; the existing article has many eyes on it, whereas this draft fork has been edited by an editor that had to be topic-baned. Maybe in a few years, we will know what happened (or maybe not), but at the moment, there is no evidence to support this, and there is a lot of conspiratorial and fringe theories circulating looking for Wikipedia to help validate them. Britishfinance (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, I agree with RandomCanadian and BritishFinance. The World Health Organization debunked the lab leak theory this week [1][2][3], so this content is becoming unambiguously fringe. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as a WP:POVFORK about a fringe topic by a topic-banned user blocked for violation of said topic ban. — csc-1 01:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Just as a note, this was created before the imposition of the topic ban, and I don't know if it had any implication in the imposition of said topic ban, though it clearly is a sign... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note - COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis (now a redirect) and its talk page are altered copies from this older draft. —PaleoNeonate – 03:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- With other copies at User talk:50.201.195.170/COVID-19 lab leak theory, User:Arcturus/Lab leak. —PaleoNeonate – 01:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Delete as per nominator and other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Never going to make it into mainspace. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep As this page is the subject of some ongoing controversy it would be better to keep it as stands given that there are also ongoing state and NGO investigations into the possibility of a laboratory leak. The topic definitely deserves a page of its own and it highlights Wikipedia's impartiality and lack of bias, so Keep. The statement by Novem Linguae "The World Health Organization debunked the lab leak theory this week" is not correct, they merely shifted the onus to Wuhan Institute of Virology to answer the as yet many unanswered questions [1] (just 50 there alone) and some members said they would not be pursuing the investigation themselves. However, yesterday Dr. Tedros clarified that no hypotheses would be discarded and all would be investigated:[2]
[3]Billybostickson (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)“Some questions have been raised as to whether some hypotheses have been discarded, I want to clarify that all hypotheses remain open and require further study"
- We already have COVID-19 misinformation, Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, —PaleoNeonate – 08:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- weak keep & rename to Accidental Lab Leak Hypothesis controversy. I disagree that this is a conspiracy theory or dis/mis-information. Intentional leak hypothesis would fall under conspiracy. Accidental leak would be a controversial position but not a conspiracy or misinformation. It is relevant article because a natural outbreak is yet to be established. The virus seems to have mysteriously appeared in Wuhan, in the middle of China, with no clue or trace about where it came from, & is surprisingly well adapted for human to human transmission unlike other bat viruses when they make a direct jump from bats to humans J mareeswaran (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as POV-fork cruft cluttering up the Draft space. We cover this adequately in COVID-19 misinformation. XOR'easter (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Addendum The items added to the nomination later should also be deleted. XOR'easter (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://keeb.uk/50-transparency-questions-we-should-be-asking
- ^ "WHO says all hypotheses still open in probe into coronavirus origins". Straits Times. 2021-02-13. Retrieved 2021-02-13. Text "Straits Times" ignored (help)
- ^ "WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the Member States briefing on COVID-19 - 11 February 2021". WHO. 2021-02-13. Retrieved 2021-02-13.
I disagree with the comment by XOR'easter as the COVID-19 misinformation article seems to conflate the bio-weapon theory with the lab leak theory in quite a devious way. Not sure how this happened but in the meantime we should definitely *Keep this draft page as it helps shed light on the issue in a much clearer way than the current bizarre section on the redirect page.Billybostickson (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC) (You already !voted Keep once. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)) Dear Boing! said Zebedee If you came here because someone asked you to, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Thank you for your attention!
- Keep
The fact this is even in question only demonstrates that Wikipedia is completely compromised and has no scientific integrity at all.
Awhile ago one of the authors involved with these papers contacted me but I didn't look too hard since everyone at the time was saying the same thing; however, this Washington Post editorial over the weekend
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/05/coronavirus-origins-mystery-china/?arc404=true
reminded me of the fact there are several peer reviewed papers arguing for the viability of a lab origin that are not mentioned here. When the author first wrote me, he mentioned Wikipedia's clear and inarguable censorship of scientific research, and talked about working with reporters to expose Wikipedia's collusion with the CCCP to suppress the peer reviewed research.
Looking over Wikipedia's guidelines, it is beyond argument that passing peer review is the gold standard for inclusion in a Wikipedia page. Why have all of these articles below been excluded from Wikipedia entirely?
If it is not pressure from the Chinese government, what reason does Wikipedia have for excluding research that has past peer review in sound scientific publications?
These are the papers, in order of publication. They have all been peer reviewed, this is Wikipedia's gold standard, is it not? What is being missed here? I'm going to have the author send the reporters working on stories about Wikipedia doing direct censorship for the Chinese government to this page now, let's see how long it takes for these papers to be added to Wikipedia.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7435492/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmv.26478
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202000240
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-020-01151-1
https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/fvl-2020-0390
Please link where "other factors" than passing peer review are weighed, where is that in writing? That first paper is then cited by several other of the peer reviewed papers. Lots of peer review, but Wikipedia editors are getting too much money to ignore them or what?
Because that's exactly something someone doing censorship for the CCCP would just make up. Like I just got here, and Wikipedia is not vague: " An appropriate secondary source is one that is published by a reputable publisher, is written by one or more experts in the field, and is peer reviewed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)
Where on that page is your reasoning coming from?
All of those papers I linked have been peer reviewed. They are all published in respected science journals. Do you want to debate whether or not the authors are qualified? Okay, then what are your qualifications Mr. Anonymous Editor?
Right now Wikipedia is very obviously actively censoring the peer reviewed literature. Also the opinion of the Washington Post's Editorial Board? You guys have better judgement than them?
So what exactly are the credentials of the editors who are censoring all of these papers about gain of function research from Wikipedia?
Tedros has said everything is on the table: https://www.euronews.com/2021/02/12/all-hypotheses-still-on-the-table-over-covid-19-s-origins-who-chief-says . So again, what is the criteria the editors are using to exclude all of this peer reviewed research, if it is not their own personal bias and corruption? Driftwood1300 (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC) — Driftwood1300 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The problems with the sources you list were already explained to you in another discussion. I would advise taking the feedback you have already received to heart, rather than retreading old ground. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- This article is about the conclusions of the WHO investigation: https://apnews.com/article/who-coronavirus-experts-learned-in-wuhan-86549d1189f3d174273a26e39d177d05 . Also, I have pointed at an obvious example of misrepresentation on this page before and have recently deleted from the draft some parts only supported by unreliable sources (in case the recent history can also serve as example). —PaleoNeonate – 01:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep
Our technology has gotten to the point where we can '3D print' any virus we want by the bucket load. Here is a link to a Galveston Labs paper documenting how they literally fabricated an infectious virus from nothing more than an email. It's easy to do and common these days.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32289263/
I've personally worked with millions of synthetic viruses. They are cheap enough that I don't even ask how much they cost to synthesize. Every single one of them was created synthetically.
Many labs have printed live viruses using a wide variety of techniques. Here is another paper documenting how a Swiss lab did it:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2294-9
Synthetic viruses are easy to make.
More than 2 million people have died and Wikipedia won't give the large group of famous scientists below a voice? Whether or not this virus is lab made, the world needs to understand the debate to prevent future pandemics. This pandemic has already killed more people than nuclear weapons and more people are capable of making pandemic level viruses than nuclear weapons. This deserves a thorough discussion.
The journal of medical virology is ran by a very famous virologist. How many countries and world famous scientists are on the author list? Will Wikipedia suppress them? Adam Brufsky M.D. Ph.D., the author of one of the papers below, has an h-index of 75. You can't get much better than that!
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmv.26478
Then there is Sirotkin, the creator of dbSNP. Anyone that works with genetics knows what dbSNP is. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202000091 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202100017
Wikipedia previously said peer review is the barrier to entry. Well you have not only peer review, but peer review articles written by famous authors from around the world. If that isn't good enough for acceptance, what unbiased metric is? If you reject their work, you might as well change your name to "Wiki-torial". It is no longer an encyclopedia, but an opinion piece. You are not only rejecting peer review journals, but you are rejecting titans in the field. These are household names.
NW Science (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC) — NW Science (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep
It is abnormal that very important and reliable information regarding the origin of the SARS-COV-2 has been redirected to "misinformation"; classifying this as misinformation is incorrect; it is not misinformation but reliable information, reviewed by serious people and peer reviewed journals, about a possible lab leak. the world has to know the type of biological experiments that are done nowadays, and in particular that were done in Wuhan with viruses, and the risks they imply. the severity of theses risks is very important, (as the consequences of the pandemic shows), and as such, these risks need to be investigated and treated. Please reput the information, and don't class it as misinformation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ertsia (talk • contribs) 21:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC) — Ertsia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete - The above WP:SPAs can serve as an example of coordinated efforts to push WP:FALSEBALANCE narratives and speculation on Wikipedia, rather than official statements and the scientific consensus (WP:NOT). This article was among various WP:POVFORKs of COVID-19 misinformation. —PaleoNeonate – 21:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Suspected WP:SPA have been identified through appropriate process and templates. Your characterization here is both inappropriate and redundant. Please refrain from personal attacks on editors that disagree with your POV. You have already made an unsourced complaint about an editor whose ban was reversed due to the assumption that your complaint had merit. Maybe it is time you constrain your edits to areas you have less emotional involvement. Dinglelingy (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- "Unsourced complaint?" Ha. My point of view? Wikipedia is about representing consensus not personal opinions, why editors must rely on the best sources and properly summarize them. But yes, I did file a complaint earlier, related to disruption on this page. —PaleoNeonate – 01:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Context: Disruption is in the page history of this discussion, complaint, admin comment after their erroneous action (due to an assumption a COVID-19 GS/Alert had been posted before or that a previous topic ban existed, something I didn't suggest in my complaint but I mentioned a previous block) and the requested warning about edit warring. —PaleoNeonate – 05:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Strong delete this UNDUE POVFORK. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: As a WP:FRINGE WP:POVFORK. Sources deliberately misused. The use of News Limited sources in an article about China is always questionable, but the The Daily Telegraph story does not support what the article claims. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- This reminded me of this that was still unfixed since my obervation a week prior. "Some scientists, have said that the possibility of a lab leak is unlikely." vs "The current consensus is that while investigations should be pursued, the possibility of a lab leak remains unlikely, although it has mainly been promoted by conspiracy theorists." (source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/scientists-examine-possibility-covid-leaked-lab-part-investigation/). —PaleoNeonate – 04:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. POV fork that has enjoyed extensive disruption encouraged by several of the BioEssays authors on Twitter. A few of those Twitter threads even suggest harassment of specific editors... JoelleJay (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The draft is well sourced and almost nothing indicates a non NPOV. It's actually a pretty good example of a productive fork in line with Wikipedia policy and labeling this a 'POV fork' is a clear misunderstanding of the well established principles of WP:SPINOUT.
- The draft content would be inappropriate for COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story (as proposed by multiple commenter PaleoNeoNatal) as consensus has clearly moved this out of the realm of 'fringe' according to RS in both the political and scientific community.
- Merging into Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 could possibly be appropriate but that would require serial natural origin POV pushers here or legitimate editors to source actual MEDRS in sufficient quantity. Even then, this draft content would probably dwarf available natural origin RS and MEDRS so that would give undue weight to the lab leak hypothesis which I don't think is appropriate. This is best resolved with the fork under debate until the scientific community proves otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinglelingy (talk • contribs) 14:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Dinglelingy (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC) — Dinglelingy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- And have you considered the fact that this is already merged at the appropriate target, and that the sources in the draft (as already evidenced above) might be misrepresented, as well as being actually not-reliable? And, no, consensus has definitively not "moved this out of the realm of 'fringe'"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Huh? I realize this is your own deletion proposal but best practices dictate you make your case and then let the community decide. Regardless, what the hell are you talking about?
- And have you considered the fact that this is already merged at the appropriate target, and that the sources in the draft (as already evidenced above) might be misrepresented, as well as being actually not-reliable? And, no, consensus has definitively not "moved this out of the realm of 'fringe'"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- "already merged at the appropriate target"
- "sources in the draft (as already evidenced above) might be misrepresented"
- "as well as being actually not-reliable?"
- I don't see anything in your proposal that substantiates this claim. Sorry.
- With respect to your 'fringe' claim, I don't know your expertise and I don't really care. According to WHO Director General Tedros, "“Some questions have been raised as to whether some hypotheses have been discarded. Having spoken with some members of the team, I wish to confirm that all hypotheses remain open and require further analysis and studies,”
- Take it up with the WHO if you have a problem, leave your conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories out of Wikipedia.
- Dinglelingy (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- How many times do people have to tell you that MEDRS all but requires secondary biomedical sources aka EXPERT REVIEWS, which the BioEssays papers are not? JoelleJay (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- How many times? Based on your comment history you seem to have an obsession for BioEssays [4]. If your opinion is valid you should pursue options under WP:RS, your attorney, or maybe the Human Resources Dept. In the mean time I suggest you avoid complaints directed at peer reviewed scientific journals and focus on princes and princesses. Thanks. Dinglelingy (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The draft contains useful material and is WIP. That it includes deprecated sources is no reason to delete the whole article. And it is not fringe. Arcturus (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator comment: Per this; I have added two more substantially similar (if not exact copies) pages which are of a very similar construction and purpose. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete All These are all duplicates of a previous version of COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. The page is now a redirect, and the topic is covered sufficiently at the target. –dlthewave ☎ 05:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to provide a hosting service for conspiracy theories. Alexbrn (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a site to spread conspiracy theories. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Subject is sufficiently notable and has many top RS to source it. There have been content issues but they can easily be discussed at the relevant talk page, and even if they escalate it is preferable to resort to methods of dispute resolution such as RFCs, first. I have myself conducted a RFC that stopped POV pushes from one of the top 3 covid articles, and it worked like a charm. Finally, the WHO team leader, Peter Ben Embarek just did an interview with Sciencemag denying that the lab leak theory is ruled out, and explaining why the press conference had the wording "extremely unlikely" by mistake, so please refrain from using that statemente from the WHO press conference in your argumentation. Forich (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone who voted delete claim that it's completely ruled out, —PaleoNeonate – 00:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- [5] Great article Forich. Thanks for mentioning. I do not agree that it contradicts the wording "extremely unlikely" though. Sounds to me like he is saying that phrase was meticulously chosen, and he stands behind it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Even though there is a lot of crazy that feeds into the the umbrella of "Covid-19 lab leak", the idea is not unscientific.
- There are many scientists who have described the conjectured event of a leak as improbable, but not so many who say it is impossible.
- The question of the furin cleavage site is one factor that is described as having arisen in coronaviruses many times. This removes any necessity for it to have been inserted by genetic engineering as claimed by some. However we know that the virus existed in a post-bat reservoir (where the furin site would have been useful) before coming to attention in Wuhan. This reservoir may have been in a lab, or may have been in the wild, or in livestock.
- Another argument given is that "no-one" was working on this type of project, in the Wuhan labs. It's by no means clear that we know what everyone in these labs was working on.
- The RaTG-13 published datasets appear to be contaminated with both hoseshoe bat and Malayan pangolin DNA, implying that pangolins were involved in the science at some point, which has not been disclosed.
- It should be noted that there are also ideas that the outbreak may have originated in Guandong or elsewhere, and only become widespread in Wuhan.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 02:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC).
- The fact that the idea is not unscientific doesn't mean we should have a separate article on it (a sub-section seems valid enough); and these drafts in their current form would require WP:TNT in any case, as they are mostly attempts to justify such a theory by convoluted reasoning... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Repeating what I already said above: we already have COVID-19 misinformation, Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, —PaleoNeonate – 02:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Rich, I'd have to point you to WP:FALSEBALANCE. Particularly:
Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.
This seems to fit squarely within. Even if one believes it isn't a conspiracy theory (which is well sourced), it is, at best, aplausible but currently unaccepted theor[y]
No peer-reviewed article in a decent journal gives legitimacy to this conspiracy, but there are countless pieces on its natural origins, and multiple pieces on this being a unscientific. There is nothing neutral about this article. Not in the slightest. There's a reason why the writer is tbanned. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Rich, I'd have to point you to WP:FALSEBALANCE. Particularly:
- Keep - it was/still is a world-wide topic, and is definitely notable. WP needs to publish a well-written article about this topic in order to properly inform our readers from a neutral, academic perspective. I don't see a valid reason to delete the draft. Atsme 💬 📧 04:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. This has been discussed to death on multiple talk pages and noticeboards, so I will try to keep it short:
- First of all: "this is a conspiracy theory" does not seem like a good deletion argument; is this to be followed by AfDs for Moon landing conspiracy theories, Bigfoot and Sightings of Elvis Presley? The existence of an article about some hypothesis does not, to a reasonable person, constitute a claim that it is true. The fact that a bunch of reliable sources talked about this thing is reason enough to have an article about it.
- Second of all: WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not seem like a good deletion argument. Having an article about something does not mean endorsing specific views on it, so the argument is whether it should be mentioned at all, to which I think the answer is "yes". There are plenty of politicians I think are liars and cheats; I am not nominating their articles for deletion on this basis. Not only does it fly in the face of the basic principles of the project, even if I was trying to pwn them, it's not even clear how that this would accomplish that (if they're so rotten, wouldn't it be better for people to read a neutrally written description of the times they lied and cheated about stuff?)
- Third of all: "even if it only says true stuff, it could cause people to believe false stuff" does not seem like a good deletion argument. There are some people who believe Freemasons control the world's governments, yet we have an article on Freemasonry. Refusing to have one, on the basis that some guy I made up in my head might use it as a justification to be stupid, doesn't really make sense. The article on Freemasons shouldn't falsely imply that they control the world's governments; beyond that, it's never been our role as an encyclopedia to prevent people from accessing knowledge which we imagine could potentially cause some unspecified bad thing to happen, and I don't understand why we would start now.
- I am probably not going to edit this article much, because I am not an expert on coronavirus proteomics, and I don't want to get into nonstop politics arguments, but I recommend that people who have issues with the article's neutrality edit it themselves. jp×g 06:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- You rightfully pointing out that the article may never reach a proper state seems like a WP:TNT argument. As for WP:IDONTLIKEIT Wikipedia cares about consensus views, reported by reputable bodies, not collections of baseless speculation (WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE). That's policy, not user opinion. None of the delete arguments are about IDONTLIKEIT. WP:POVFORK applies and is also policy. —PaleoNeonate – 06:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- I did not say anything resembling "the article may never reach a proper state". I said that if people think an article is biased unfairly, they should edit it to give due weight to the views they consider underrepresented. This is not the same thing as saying it cannot happen. We seem to be doing fine having pages about Israel and Palestine and abortion and fascism. There is absolutely no policy against "writing articles about contentious political stuff"; indeed, one month ago the Washington Post did a a huge story about how an admin and former arbitrator was writing an article about a riot in the United States Capitol while it was happening. Like I said: if you think it is WP:FRINGE, is there something preventing you from editing the article to say that it's fringe? Deletion is not cleanup. jp×g 07:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- You rightfully pointing out that the article may never reach a proper state seems like a WP:TNT argument. As for WP:IDONTLIKEIT Wikipedia cares about consensus views, reported by reputable bodies, not collections of baseless speculation (WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE). That's policy, not user opinion. None of the delete arguments are about IDONTLIKEIT. WP:POVFORK applies and is also policy. —PaleoNeonate – 06:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Strong keep for userspace, abstain for draftspace - Wiping people's userspace stuff is pretty serious overkill. I haven't been in this topic for a while (somebody emailed me about this due to my discussion contributions months and months ago), so I'd need current-state-of-evidence on a couple of points before I could vote on the draftspace one. Specifically Has there been evidence making the "natural virus that got into circulation via a lab studying it" hypothesis seem remote? That's the only hypothesis that the draft presents as plausible, and last I heard (which was a long time ago) it was. If this is ruled out, that hypothesis can be put into "misinformation". If it remains plausible, lumping it into "misinformation" is not accurate (things of unknown truth value definitionally cannot be misinformation) and it needs to go somewhere else (i.e. this draft could be useful). The hypothesis itself is notable and while there could be undue-weight issues, those are not a valid motive for deleting a draft (they're a motive for fixing it before it's put into mainspace). The draft specifically notes that "escaped bioweapon" is implausible, so while that one definitely is misinformation, it doesn't bear on the draft. Magic9mushroom (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Magic9mushroom (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
- Who emailed you, Magic9mushroom? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- You may want to read WP:NOTWEBHOST that includes user pages, noone WP:OWNs Wikipedia pages, —PaleoNeonate – 07:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note about rewrite Special:Permalink/1006458121 is the revision that this deletion discussion is about, Special:Permalink/1006871830 is an example of what the article could look like if reworked, —PaleoNeonate – 07:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Strong Keep as the article seems to contain well-sourced scientific information, and removing userspaces or drafts seems like severe overkill. David A (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
February 9, 2021
User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/National Syndicalist
- User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/National Syndicalist ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)Userbox promoting fascist ideologies, which violates WP:UBCR, WP:POLEMIC, and WP:NONAZIS. See other previous discussions about such userboxes. — csc-1 19:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment WP:NONAZIS is not a policy or guideline. Adam9007 (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Most Userboxes, even “harmful” ones are not usually deleted. –Cupper52Discuss! 19:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Can someone explain why National syndicalism is offensive? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: Due to it's (seemingly exclusively) use as a component of fascist ideology. See the article on National syndicalism for it's relation to Italian fascism and Spanish fascism. Additionally, this user box makes use of a fasces and is located here in the userbox index alongside other fascist and anti-fascist userboxes. — csc-1 22:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Is any of that illegal, in any country? Sorry, but I find it to be too subtle/involved/complicated for an MfD deletion reason. It sounds more like an opinion for discussion in an RfC on the rules for political userboxes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Potentially under countries that have laws against nazism and/or similar ideologies. I'd say that a userbox for a pretty blatantly fascist ideology (especially when the userbox makes use of the fasces) would be acceptable for MfD, as per the last 2 links in the request. — csc-1 23:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that this and other userboxes are dubious, but it is not within the precedent of the previous discussions. I disagree that it is "pretty blatantly fascist ideology". I disagree that use of the fasces establishes "pretty blatantly fascist ideology". I think what you are doing belongs in an RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Potentially under countries that have laws against nazism and/or similar ideologies. I'd say that a userbox for a pretty blatantly fascist ideology (especially when the userbox makes use of the fasces) would be acceptable for MfD, as per the last 2 links in the request. — csc-1 23:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Is any of that illegal, in any country? Sorry, but I find it to be too subtle/involved/complicated for an MfD deletion reason. It sounds more like an opinion for discussion in an RfC on the rules for political userboxes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Four users transclude this userbox. One is blocked. One has one edit, another has five edits; not genuine users. The other, User:Gr8opinionater himself, has it only as a collection of userboxes that he explicitly states do not represent his beliefs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTHERE. Non-genuine userbox that has already wasted more time than it is worth. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Fascism does not equal Nazism; this is a fascist ideology developed outside of Germany before Nazism existed. Sure, it's a bad ideology, but being an ideology one disagrees with is not a reason for deletion. As for WP:POLEMIC, it is related to Wikipedia in the sense all userboxes do; it gives editors an idea of topics an editor is interested it. The broader point is that supporting fascism (a fairly varied/large ideology) does not in my view merit deletion (excluding types of fascism that advocate for genocide, which this type does not). Zoozaz1 talk 22:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Falangist
- User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Falangist ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)Userbox promoting fascist ideologies, which violates WP:UBCR, WP:POLEMIC, and WP:NONAZIS. See other previous discussions about such userboxes. — csc-1 19:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/ Brazillian Integralist
- User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/ Brazillian Integralist ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)Unused userbox promoting fascist ideologies, which violates WP:UBCR, WP:POLEMIC, and WP:NONAZIS. See other previous discussions about such userboxes. — csc-1 19:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Draft:How to grow a beard
- Draft:How to grow a beard ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Even though this draft is humorous, it does not belong on WP. ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 18:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not anything but an encyclopaedia. –Cupper52Discuss! 19:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE — csc-1 20:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete strong no MarioJump83! 01:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 14:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per all above. SK2242 (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't quite see how this nomination is necessary; sure, this will never be published, but if we started MfDing every such draft we would spend our days just voting !delete. Is there a compelling reason why this wasn't just rejected and G13d? Blablubbs|talk 00:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - I would quite like to see a guide on Draft:How to breathe or better still Draft:How to sneeze - If one could be created that would be grand. –Davey2010Talk 22:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Ashar29/sandbox
- User:Ashar29/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)Old "draft article" in user space, fails WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:UP. Not worked on for almost 8 years, no need to keep forever or convert to real article if this is a viable topic. P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - Not seeing any valid reason for deletion. It's a sandbox draft, so yes a "fake article" like all drafts are fake articles. If in your judgment it's suitable for mainspace you can move it, and if the content is problematic it can be blanked, but there's no reason to delete. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Move to draft space, as sandbox of user who did their thing and went away. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:TIND and Rhododendrites. Strongly oppose the notion that the draftification of old content in userspace is acceptable. If that practice were to be normalized, those with the mindset that such pages need "cleaned up" would begin moving tons of old userspace drafts to draft space to make them eligible for eventual G13. Userspace is exempt from that criterion for many valid reasons. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - I guess it could be useful to someone ?, Meh either way not seeing any harm by it being there. –Davey2010Talk 22:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
February 8, 2021
User:Krizzz2020
- User:Krizzz2020 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)Wikipedia is not a webhost. See WP:UP#GOALS. 1989 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Meh. Silly fantasy politics. The question is whether it's related to Wikipedia -- whether it's someone using political nonsense in order to learn how to build tables, say, or whether it's some personal project... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - They can build tables using historical personages. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Alien
- Draft:Alien ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Duplicate, also not notable. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete if not speedy delete duplicate. –Cupper52Discuss! 19:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete but if this was left alone it would have expired later this month. SK2242 (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Duplicate of what? "Duplicate" usually means Speedy Redirect, WP:SRE. "Not notable" is not a reason to bring a draft to MfD, per WP:NMFD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Duplicate of extraterrestrial life. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as rejecting reviewer, concurring with SK2242 that the nomination awakened this alien from hibernation. This didn't need deletion, but now it does. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Lauren Jenkins
Highly promotional draft. Subject may meet WP:NMUSIC, but this is just a big PR mouthpiece and any article about her would have to practically be written from the ground up just to be readable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: "This draft sucks" is not a deletion rationale. It's a draft. They often suck. The point is to make them suck less. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Articleify if possible. –Cupper52Discuss! 16:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - This is a draft with tone problems. Do not accept until tone problems are improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NMFD and those above. Has potential. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and save it for WP:G13 unless it's problems are resolved. — csc-1 17:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Vaticidalprophet. Draft needs improving not deleting. –Davey2010Talk 22:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Gokul Guragain
- Draft:Gokul Guragain ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)Poorly-sourced BLP. Subject fails notability requirements. Author has an WP:APPARENTCOI. Adam9007 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The subject is not notable and the draft has no chance of becoming an acceptable mainspace article. --Un assiolo (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NMFD and leave for WP:G13. MfD is not well used to discuss notability or COI. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as promotion. Maybe MFD should be better used to discuss COI. (We know that it is not to be used to consider notability because notability is not a reason to delete from draft.) Robert McClenon (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NMFD. The G13 tank will roll over it eventually if nothing comes of it. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and save it for WP:G13. — csc-1 17:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Created by now-blocked obvious COI editor, no potential for expansion. –dlthewave ☎ 13:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
February 7, 2021
- Wikipedia:Noticeboard for Orissa-related topics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Blanked, seemingly was never used. I somehow doubt Wikipedia:WikiProject_Odisha has any use for it. I will notify them on their talk page in case I am mistaken! ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete original version was merely copied from the India noticeboard. It seems it was created by a new user - no probable use. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete in favour of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Odisha and Talk:Odisha. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as per nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Old business
February 7, 2021
Draft:Jadhav theorem
Fails WP:NFT, could be speedy deleted for WP:A11 if it is were to be published. MarioJump83! 08:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The nomination rationale was exactly my sentiment as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Exactly. Completely unsourced, I can find nothing about this supposed theorem. The editor who created this states that it is unpublished and that there is no news coverage of it, and wants us to keep this around for 6 to 8 months [6]. The user has created this multiple times, and has attempted to link other articles to it. Wikipedia isn't here to promote unsourced unpublished theorems. No response to a userpage post concerning the possible COI, but now IPs are appearing. Assuming this is deleted we may need to block recreation of Jadhav theorem and Jadhav Theorem. Meters (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment If this is deleted, then the Draft:Jadhav Theorem should be deleted too. MarioJump83! 00:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: an excellent example of what Wikipedia is not: especially a textbook, a social network and a platform for promotion. I suggest a hard delete as a G13 can be reversed on request, and this is completely unsuited for an encyclopedia. JavaHurricane 03:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Article creator now indef'ed NOTHERE by user: Daniel Case Meters (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and salt. Consider Title Blacklist. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and author being WP:NOTHERE blocked. — csc-1 19:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The consensus here is to have this draft deleted. I also want to note that the creator of this draft made a sock and made it clear that he doesn't want this to be deleted, suggesting that this should be create-protected before more socks are going to appear and re-create this draft. MarioJump83! 01:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
February 5, 2021
Wikipedia:Google Custom Search
- User:Csewiki/vector.js ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Csewiki/monobook.js ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Csewiki/csewiki.css ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Csewiki/monobook.css ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Csewiki/vector.css ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Script does not work (I tried it myself, probably because Google locked down their Custom Search API), appears to be dated pages. The main script page is already marked as historical, but I think the pages containing the various scripts should be deleted. Aasim (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Archive. If it was ever worth doing, it is worth archiving. Out of date scripts should be editable and archivable without the overhead cost of deletion. Deletion requires a discussion, an admin action, and the trust of a single user not making a mistake about it. Archiving requires the judgement of a single editor, and if it was a mistake, any editor can fix the mistake. Deletion requires a good reason to delete, and an example of a good reason is not “I think the pages containing the various scripts should be deleted”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: My thought was not to delete the Wikipedia:Google Custom Search page, just the various (broken) scripts and styling, but we could delete that as well. Aasim (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - Marking it historical is sufficient. -- Whpq (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Retain in some manner per those above. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
February 4, 2021
User:Niikwoert/sandbox
Abandoned draft. Does not seem to be eligible under any of WP:G13 criteria. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Possibly notable accomplished non-private person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Weak keepDelete draft has been abandoned for a long time so not sure it will be improved. Vikram Vincent 07:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)- Delete Unsourced BLP. SK2242 (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- No, her publications count as sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- While her publications might give her some notability, the content about her is generally unsourced. Further the org she was associated with has been converted into a stub with its own notability issues. Vikram Vincent 16:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- No, her publications count as sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Move either to draft space or to user space. A sandbox belonging to a user who hasn't edited in seven years is sand. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- It’s perfectly fine where it is, already in the user’s sandbox. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- indeed, we're in luck, because it was already in user space, and already in the place where the sand goes. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: Strongly oppose the notion (as I do in a more recent discussion above as well) that the draftification of old content in userspace is acceptable. If that practice were to be normalized, those with the mindset that such pages need "cleaned up" would begin moving tons of old userspace drafts to draftspace to make them eligible for eventual G13. The userspace is exempt from that criterion for many valid reasons (including the sentiments at WP:DUD). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - It's a userspace draft. If you've identified BLP violations like contentious claims, go ahead and remove them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:TIND. If it is problematic in some way, it can be blanked with {{inactive userspace blanked}} per WP:STALEDRAFT; otherwise, no action is necessary. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- WP:TIND is an essay. WP:V and WP:BLP are policy. SK2242 (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. Let's look e.g. at what WP:V says: All material in [the] Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable (emphasis added by me). Drafts are works-in-progress, thus they may not yet meet those policies. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- And WP:BLP explicitly covers drafts as well as all other namespaces. SK2242 (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sure (i.e. WP:BLPTALK). What portion(s) do you find to be "contentious claim(s)" (as Rhododendrites puts it above)? That aside, I have already suggested blanking if anyone finds it problematic, which is the recommended way to handle this sort of thing per WP:STALEDRAFT.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- And WP:BLP explicitly covers drafts as well as all other namespaces. SK2242 (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. Let's look e.g. at what WP:V says: All material in [the] Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable (emphasis added by me). Drafts are works-in-progress, thus they may not yet meet those policies. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- WP:TIND is an essay. WP:V and WP:BLP are policy. SK2242 (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)