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.
A filtered version of the page that excludes nominations of pages in the draft namespace is available at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts.
Information on the process
What may be nominated for deletion here:
- Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including 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 | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 5 | 60 | 0 | 65 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
FfD | 0 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 12 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 65 | 0 | 65 |
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.
May 6, 2021
Draft:SDS UA
From GTranslate to English, appears to be some sort of promotional article? Kadzi (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:How to make snow cones
Not sure this qualifies as a speedy deletion, but it certainly fails WP:NOTGUIDE. Created by an IP who judging by their previous contributions seems to have a history of just using Wikipedia to mess around with it. Richard3120 (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:How to force a BSoD
As Wikipedia is not for how-to guides. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:User anti scientology/royajared
Fails UBCR; attacks a specific religious organization. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 06:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Dirt off your shoulder
Old copy of Jay-Z (plus a promo sentence about the user). Delete per WP:UP#COPIES. SK2242 (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Ostfront Federation
It's a hoax.
- Searches return nothing contemporary for the company name.
- Linkedin has several mentions, but some of the linkedin items are very poorly written; e.g. this one reads "Building a super-duper artificial super intelligence system by the means of surveillance, Founded in London and registered in Malta and Mauritius. Currently building five artificial intelligences (sic) to change the world and prevent all sorts of crime."
- Searching the "key people" (Hannah Buckley Howe (VP), Thomas Spencer (CTO)) returns nothing.
- Searching the listed subsidiaries (Ostfront Computers LLC, Division 552, Ostfront Federation Security Council) returns nothing.
--- Possibly (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as a hoax. It's full of baloney. -- Whpq (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as non-obvious hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
May 5, 2021
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Oren neu dag/my userboxes/Proud Fascist Republican |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Speedy deletion. Creator of the userbox requested deletion. (non-admin closure) Chess (talk) (please use User:Oren neu dag/my userboxes/Proud Fascist Republican
Violates WP:UBCR either by promoting fascism or by equating Republicans to fascists (maybe the userbox is trying to make a point about that?) Chess (talk) (please use
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:34154321543 |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete as a test page. Hut 8.5 19:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Draft:34154321543spam. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
|
Draft:My present to Sofia is...
Content is not encyclopedic. The construction of the content looks like a story or an essay. Will definitely NOT nominating for a CSD because I did faulty nominations. User:Ahthga YramTalk with me! 15:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Doesn't need deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment to nominator: Have you tried looking at the input feed for article space? Some things there do need deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep this could also have just used a tag on top saying Wikipedia is not a web host or Wikipedia is not a place for essays. Has not been submitted yet. Not an attack page or intentional advertising or intentional web hosting promotion to warrant CSD. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Angel Williamz Owakabi
Also
- Draft:Sunday William ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
multiple submission, blatant advertising, but probably not a G11 DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete All - As long as we are here, we might as well delete them, especially so that they show up as deleted if re-created. These are multiple copies of an autobiography. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy G13 both, these were eligible since the last edit was in October 2020 before our AFC comments. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
May 4, 2021
Talk:Gentoo Linux/to do
- Talk:Gentoo Linux/to do ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Outdated, since pgcc is not mentioned anywhere on the target article anymore. (Removed template on talkpage) CanadianOtaku Talk Page 22:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Casspedia (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as obsolete and not worth marking historical. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Steve76429/sandbox
Essay, not likely to become an article, and "referenced" with hoaxy YouTube videos. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, it briefly did become an article after the creator developed it here, Fraud Resistant Electronic Voting (AfD discussion). We could probably have just raked. Uncle G (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Delete as an unlikely article, already deleted once, by a departed user. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
User:CmdrDan/Channel: CUNY TV Digital Series
- User:CmdrDan/Channel: CUNY TV Digital Series ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Tagged this for CSD U5 but creator correctly removed the tag because their mainspace activity make the page U5-ineligible. However, it still fails WP:NOTWEBHOST and/or WP:NOTPROMO so I’m bringing it here. Maybe it would be eligible for WP:CSD G11? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep applying the same standards to user space as to drafts. Might become an article. Probably won't, but might. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:User Stalinist
This userbox is disruptive for reasons that should be obvious. ―Susmuffin Talk 11:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NAZI. Casspedia (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Bduke (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:InDaHouse Hungary
*whoop whoop* Delete per CSD G11. User:Ahthga YramTalk with me! 09:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ahthga Yram: Why are you sending speedy deletion nominations to MFD? If you think it qualifies for G11 just add {{Db-g11}} to the top of the page, following the instructions at WP:CSD. The whole point of G11 speedy deletion is that the community doesn't need to have deletion discussions about spam. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll send it to the CSD if possible. User:Ahthga YramTalk with me! 11:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - After being rejected, doesn't need deleting yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Seizures In Dogs
Delete. Why would the user lwrite his anger to his pet dog to Wikipedia? User:Ahthga YramTalk with me! 04:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Since you've brought it here, Delete, but this didn't need an MFD nomination and should have been allowed to go WP:G13 192.76.8.91 (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as attack page. There is already a page for Epilepsy in animals and I'll make a redirect for Seizures in dogs (lower-case not proper noun) AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete under G10. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 07:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC) - Delete as dog ableism. Quantupediholic (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Juche
Goes against WP:UBCR by promoting a highly divisive ideology that has killed hundreds of thousands of people. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 02:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- You're probably trying to make a point, but Delete as violating WP:UBCR as highly divisive and also
Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for: ... Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind (commercial, political, religious, or otherwise)
and accordingly violating WP:NOT (specifically WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:NOTOPINION). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes I'm trying to make a point but I'm not disrupting Wikipedia to make that point. Being WP:POINTy would be a bad faith nomination of a userbox when I don't actually believe it meets the criteria because I believe the rules were applied wrongly in another case (there's a WP:NOTPOINTy policy that outlines the distinction). In this case I believe that this userbox fails the UBCR criteria in the same way that the fascist userbox I !voted to delete did due to the advocacy of political violence as a mean to resolve disputes being antithetical to Wikipedia believing in discussion to solve disputes (it's really saying "I advocate violence against those that disagree with me"). That and the reasons I listed above. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 20:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes I'm trying to make a point but I'm not disrupting Wikipedia to make that point. Being WP:POINTy would be a bad faith nomination of a userbox when I don't actually believe it meets the criteria because I believe the rules were applied wrongly in another case (there's a WP:NOTPOINTy policy that outlines the distinction). In this case I believe that this userbox fails the UBCR criteria in the same way that the fascist userbox I !voted to delete did due to the advocacy of political violence as a mean to resolve disputes being antithetical to Wikipedia believing in discussion to solve disputes (it's really saying "I advocate violence against those that disagree with me"). That and the reasons I listed above. Chess (talk) (please use
- Delete per WP:UBCR. — csc-1 11:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NAZI. Casspedia (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - I usually ignore stupid userboxes. This one is a past and present danger. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:The banana bus
It doesn't meet the core guidelines for creating a page. It doesn't have a neutral point of view, no references (common concern in drafts) and it may be deleted per CSD Gs. User:Ahthga YramTalk with me! 01:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Don't think this falls under a CSD though. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 01:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Since you've brought it here, Delete, but this MFD nomination is a waste of time and this should have been left for a G13 Deletion - there would have been no harm in leaving this alone for 6 months. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Delete as will never be an article, but, as stated by the IP, should have been left alone. The nominator is ragpicking. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Meh It is related to VanossGaming who made a "The Banana Bus Song" video and references Grand Theft Auto V as a fictional element, but it is not mentioned in either of those articles. Let it G13 unless it has been tendentiously resubmitted. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
May 3, 2021
Book:WSSENTIAL CONCEPTS
I'm not sure for what these concepts are supposed to be "wssential", and as the creator of this book has been inactive for years, it does not seem that enough context is provided for it to be useful. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. In this day and age, I'm not sure what Wikipedia book would be worth keeping, but this one is definitely not. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as an abandoned book by an abandoned editor when the book feature has also been abandoned. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Insects name
Delete because there is a proper page for this (List of insects) or redirect. User:Ahthga YramTalk with me! 05:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. We don't have an article on this topic, the linked page is a redirect to a category, and writing a draft "List/lists of insects" is an OK use of draft space (and per WP:NOTDUP we should probably have a standalone list article, rather than a category redirect). This didn't need an deletion nomination, and sending an editors first edits to MFD is likely to upset them and is rather BITEY. This should have been left for G13 if it didn't get finished or was unsuitable for mainspace. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep as a silly draft which is taxonomically wrong because spiders and earthworms are not insects. The nominator should stop ragpicking and should probably leave the new page feed of drafts alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep actually there is Category:Insect common names which an AFC note can bring to its attention. Earthworms and spiders are not insects. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Belaftu
It is not notable and only cites 2 sources. 1 source, the GEONet server, which is not reliable. Even though it is in the Iranian Census it doesn't mean it is notable, and it is one of the mass created abadis in Iran. History of AsiaWant to talk? 02:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NMFD. SK2242 (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep references there is okay, and also per WP:NMFD. Starting to Hate Noelle (Needs Zhongli Too Bad or Hapith is NOT Taiwan's ballistic missile ) 02:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. WP:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. This should be left for G13 deletion if no-one can find any sources to show that it is notable. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NMFD. — csc-1 18:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as meeting the criteria for drafts. The history of this draft is strange, but not relevant to keeping a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
May 2, 2021
Draft:Nikhil Aggrawal
For deletion. It (probably) introduces himself in a form of a Wikipedia article. Starting to Hate Noelle (Needs Zhongli Too Bad or Hapith is NOT Taiwan's ballistic missile ) 13:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete unsourced BLP (a Google search for New Delhi is not a valid source) SK2242 (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete: G11 - Blatant Advert FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 06:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as nonsensical self-promotion. — csc-1 19:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as poor-quality autobiography. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:IsHotDogASandWich
Delete for not meeting the criteria for creating an article. 『Umay loads 🅱️🅾🅰️🆖 』-Yram (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete bad joke SK2242 (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete It is just a joke and it is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. History of AsiaWant to talk? 02:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC).
- Guys, I think speedy deletion is also possible for this action. Starting to Hate Noelle (Needs Zhongli Too Bad or Hapith is NOT Taiwan's ballistic missile ) 02:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete since this would be better suited for Uncyclopedia. Casspedia (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete clearly not a serious attempt at an article. — csc-1 19:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as a bad joke by an editor who has done nothing else under this account (and so is a probable sock not worth reporting). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and maybe move to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. ~21:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Tesfa.TESFA
Not meeting the criteria for creating an article, and the people listed here in the contents are (probably) not notable. 『Umay loads 🅱️🅾🅰️🆖 』-Yram (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete unsourced BLP of a minor SK2242 (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete this seems to be a test article with names of non-notable people. Not clear what the no. refers to. Is this a sports team roster? Classroom student number? I don't see any Tesfa.TESFA company or brand on searches. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete clearly not a serious attempt at an encyclopedia article. — csc-1 19:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - I am not sure what this is, but I am not sure what this is. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:VADAPAV - AN FAMOUS FOOD IN MUMBAI
- Will be withdrawn/withdrew by the nominator and has a proposal to redirect the draft into vada pav.
『Umay loads 🅱️🅾🅰️🆖 』-Yram (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to vada pav. SK2242 (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Since you've brought it here Weak Delete, but this didn't need an MFD nomination and should have been allowed to go G13. I oppose redirecting, as I don't think a block capital name with a description on the end is a plausible search term. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Redirect to vada pav. — csc-1 19:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Arccosecant why redirect this? It's a completely implausible search term. It's written entireley in the block capitals, has a spacing error, a dash and extra comment about it being a famous food stuck on the end. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @192.76.8.91: Primarily on the basis that the draft is an exact duplicate of an already existing, and this happens to be draft space, so WP:NDRAFT/WP:NMFD would apply. — csc-1 22:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Arccosecant I'm aware of those policies, but neither of them is relevant here since the issue is not that the subject draft is not notable, the issue is that it's a duplicate of an article that we already have. My point is that any redirect from this mis-capitalised, misspelled, non-standard title is going to be completely useless, and would likely qualify for WP:R3 deletion. if this draft were at a sensible title like Draft:Vada pav then, yes, redirecting would be the right decision, but the number of people who are going to be searching draft space for "VADAPAV - AN FAMOUS FOOD IN MUMBAI" is essentially zero. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @192.76.8.91: Primarily on the basis that the draft is an exact duplicate of an already existing, and this happens to be draft space, so WP:NDRAFT/WP:NMFD would apply. — csc-1 22:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Arccosecant why redirect this? It's a completely implausible search term. It's written entireley in the block capitals, has a spacing error, a dash and extra comment about it being a famous food stuck on the end. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Unless I am unfamiliar with the rules, why is this in consideration for a redirect? If this title was at RfD, it would be deleted without a doubt. — Goszei (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as per the IP, and as a silly somewhat promotional title that is not a useful redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Meh This hasn't been submitted, just needs an AFC comment saying there is already an article for Vada pav. If the article title and content is from a news article, you can CSD it for G12. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:My baker's webpage
Despite being a blank page, the draft's name might promote advertising on a service, which is illegal. 『Umay loads 🅱️🅾🅰️🆖 』-Yram (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. No rationale for deletion presented, drafts are not evaluated for notability or sanity at MFD. Bringing this here is a complete waste of time for everyone involved and this should have been left for G13. The title isn't promotional, there's no content here to show that it would fall afoul of what Wikipedia is not and there's a comment on the page from the editor who made it saying that it's their first edit here and they are going to write a page about baking. (I also have no idea what OP is talking about when they claim advertising is illegal). 192.76.8.91 (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- 192.76.8.91 (talk) Thanks for notifying me about this. Starting to Hate Noelle (Needs Zhongli Too Bad or Hapith is NOT Taiwan's ballistic missile ) 12:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ahthga Yram: Have a read of WP:Drafts#Deleting a draft, WP:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity and WP:Ragpicking. Unless something in draft space is obviously problematic it's best to leave it alone - Draft space is self cleaning via G13 (around 600 drafts a day are deleted), so most stuff there does not need a MFD discussion, which take a significant amount of community time and effort. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, and understood. Starting to Hate Noelle (Needs Zhongli Too Bad or Hapith is NOT Taiwan's ballistic missile ) 13:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ahthga Yram: Have a read of WP:Drafts#Deleting a draft, WP:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity and WP:Ragpicking. Unless something in draft space is obviously problematic it's best to leave it alone - Draft space is self cleaning via G13 (around 600 drafts a day are deleted), so most stuff there does not need a MFD discussion, which take a significant amount of community time and effort. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep per IP comment SK2242 (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- comment the page was not blank it was commented out as the editor had removed the end of comment - something many new users do as many/most do not understand code markup. Also to MfD a new editors first edit without even a welcome is hardly very inviting and WP:BITEY. KylieTastic (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep while promotional, it does not appear to be a serious attempt at an article, however it's not problematic and should have been left for G13. — csc-1 19:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- How is this promotional? There's nothing here to judge what it was supposed to be or whether it was a "serious" attempt at an article. It's only content is a comment from the editor introducing themselves and saying they plan to write about baking. Not that it matters now, looks like having their first edit sent to MFD has scared them off. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep as per comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - When doing New Page Review on drafts, please avoid ragpicking. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST which seems to be the drafting editor's intent. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:User Pinochet
WP:UBCR, inflammatory political content (praising far-right dictators) — csc-1 00:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
User:UBX/Identitarian
WP:NONAZIS/WP:UBCR, Identitarian movement is described as being "a pan-European nationalist far-right political ideology" that promotes things such as the Great Replacement conspiracy theory — csc-1 00:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Qartagir/Userboxes/Fascist
- User:Qartagir/Userboxes/Fascist ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- User:MadDogWest/Userboxes/Fascism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:UBX/Fascism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (see history)
- Template:User falangista ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Est. 2021/Userboxes/Fascism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and redirects per WP:CSD#G8)
Blatant WP:UBCR/WP:NONAZIS violations as open support for fascism/fascist ideologies. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Italian Fascist. — csc-1 00:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NAZI. Fascism is too dangerous granted what the term implies. Casspedia (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep User:Est. 2021/Userboxes/Fascism since the userbox clarifies the position against Nazism and all racist beliefs. There are many definitions of fascism, and most of them are just a national form of socialism. Nazism is a degeneration and the userbox itself links to WP:NONAZIS. Btw, I also created userboxes about communism and nobody opposed. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 12:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I'm one of six editors who was canvassed by Est. 2021 [1][2][3][4][5][6] including all four of us who voted "Keep" at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Italian Fascist. Let me be clear: I do not go to bat for fascists. I only voted "Keep" at that discussion because I feared removal of nazi userboxes would lead to similar challenges toward antifascist viewpoints, a concern that thankfully turned out to be unfounded. Not all ideologies are the same and I support deletion of any and all expressions of fascist and/or nazi beliefs on user pages. –dlthewave ☎ 02:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Dlthewave (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) –dlthewave ☎ 02:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: @Dlthewave: canvassed? I don't even use that userbox, you know I made it on request. I just asked for more opinions, so thanks for commenting anyway, but please stop using 'fascism' and 'nazism' as synonyms since they aren't. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 04:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:UBCR and WP:NONAZIS; though I do see some merit to people with repulsive viewpoints tagging themselves as such. And no, fascism is not
just a national form of socialism
. --Blablubbs|talk 07:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC) - Comment: @Blablubbs: I know you can read, there's no need to manipulate my words: "There are many definitions of fascism, and most of them are just a national form of socialism", clearly not all of them. We have an article about that. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 08:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Est. 2021: I'm not Dlthewave, and I don't see how that was a manipulation of your words. I didn't accuse you of holding that view, I simply disagreed with the statement that there is scholarly support for that definition. Scholars are in very broad agreement that fascism is not merely a national form of socialism, and that includes those whose definitions you linked to. Most varieties of fascism relied very heavily on anti-socialist rhetoric, usually stipulating that any dividing lines drawn within some "blood"-based nation are inherently bad and framing their brand of totalitarianism as a peaceful, structured alternative to capitalism and socialism (though socialists were by far the preferred target). The few fascist regimes that did materialise were, at most, economically corporatist. They were also genocidal, cruel, repressive and generally abhorrent, and I suggest that those who defend them revisit their history textbooks. --Blablubbs|talk 08:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
The preceding comments discussed editors !votes, which is fine, but this is WP:NOTFORUM discussion of the topic itself). ——Serial 08:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Delete as incompatible with a collegiate editing environment, and indef Est. 2021 for doubling down on their bullshit claims, wolf-whistles to fellow travellers. ——Serial 08:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Further suggest that WP:CIR applies to Est. 2021, as they do not seem to understand the difference between a "commercial magazine" and the considered opinion of Ronald J. Granieri. ——Serial 10:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: Hahaha, using a commercial magazine as historical source, you're so funny. Keep your bullshit and your uncivil language for yourself. The user talked about the link with socialism and I made some examples, that's historiography, why are you crying? Have you looked up the examples I made? Can't you face a civil historical discussion? And you want to indef me for making a point? Hahaha, do whatever you want with these stupid userboxes, but don't dare try selling me your bullshit again. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 09:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I dunno, I'd say citing a historian and published author writing for one of the largest and most reputable American newspapers to back up this relatively basic statement is probably fine. I'd go find some others, but we're very much in "out of scope for MfD" territory by now. -- Blablubbs|talk 10:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and Indeff per SN54129. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 10:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Roxy the dog: Let me understand: I agreed on the fact that exposing fascist or communist userboxes may create a bad environment, but I don't even share these userboxes, so why the hell you want to block me instead of the users who share them? For answering to a comment with examples? Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 10:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Dont be a Richard all your life. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 10:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment @Roxy the dog, Serial Number 54129, and Est. 2021: Discussions regarding sanctions for the creator are probably best had at the relevant ANI thread. --Blablubbs|talk 10:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as violating WP:UBCR (
Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive.
) Thus, debate on the specific definitions of fascism, authoritarianism or communism, or the intentions of the userbox creator, are mostly moot. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC) - Delete per nom and others above on grounds of WP:UBCR & WP:NONAZIS violation. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I am at a loss for civil words. The absolute best-case scenario I can think of is these userboxes are some sort of adolescent sarcasm or edginess. At worst, these people have clearly failed to learn the lessons of the 20th century, and Wikipedia is most definitely not a place for them to attempt to resurrect those ideologies. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete We're an encyclopedia, not a platform for adolescent edgelord trolling. Grow up. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- hahaha this is hilarious. First of all WP:NONAZIS isn't a policy and is a shitty justification here considering the creator supposedly believes in the non-racist fascism and the essay somehow thinks the only problem with advocating fascism on wiki is due to racism. The primary reason why this infobox in my opinion should be deleted is because regardless of your beliefs on whether being "pro-fascist" is dogwhistling racism; fascism is inherently an ideology that advocates violence in order to resolve disputes. This is incompatible with an editing environment that promotes consensus and discussion to resolve disputes. It's more or less an implicit threat of harm in that it says "I believe in using violence against those who disagree with me". Secondly, userboxes advocating fascism are far more divisive than (almost) any other political ideology due to their association with certain genocidal regimes. Regardless of if the person using the userbox agrees with genocide the infoboxes are still going to be highly divisive.
That being said pretty much everyone here is a hypocrite as I doubt communists would get the same treatment despite having also killed massive amounts of people and being pro political violence. probably because hey, at least it wasn't about race!I'm going to go MfD some commie userboxes and see what happens for this reason. Chess (talk) (please use{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 02:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - No matter how much GF you choose to A here, fascism is inherently "inflammatory or substantially divisive", so this falls afoul of WP:UBCR. Guettarda (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete if you need an extremist box you're clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia!—blindlynx (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:UBCR and support a topic ban for Est. 2021 on userboxes. Delete all userboxes that have the potential to scare away newcomers in this manner. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, fascism is an abhorrent ideology. Most of these userboxes explicitly disavow the worst of it in one form or another. I am not for deleting userboxes because you disagree with their political opinions. Delete the Falangist one as it specifically advocates for an ideology that murdered hundreds of thousands of people. The others advocate for abstract ideas that have been applied horrifically throughout history, but these userboxes do not necessarily support that application. Zoozaz1 talk 22:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete this userbox, but this is a content forum, and the user is not the subject, even if the user is associated with a repellent idea.
- The userbox contains a contradictory premise, which is that a moral and effective leader will be able to implement an immoral ideology.
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - What Chess said, mostly. We need to do away with the extremist political infoboxes. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
May 1, 2021
User:Katangais/Userboxes/Ian Smith
WP:UBCR violation, inflammatory — csc-1 23:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, I'm genuinely curious as to what's uncivil about that userbox. I've created userboxes for every recent Zimbabwean head of state, all of whom are controversial (Smith, Mugabe, and Mnangagwa). See User:Katangais/Userboxes/Mugabe support for my Mugabe userbox, and User:Katangais/Userboxes/EM presidency support for my Mnangagwa one.
- Some of these userboxes express support for these historical figures, others opposition. This is no different than the scores of userboxes we have floating around allowing Wikipedians to demonstrate their opposition to, or support for, polarizing politicians in the US such as Donald Trump and Barack Obama. I'm more than happy to alter the language of the userbox to something more neutral and objective sounding (ie "This user supported the premiership of Ian Smith") if it's simply the wording that's contentious. --Katangais (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Katangais I nominated it since support/"nostalgia" for Ian Smith/Rhodesia is associated with alt-right/white supremacist movements, and since the phrasing "did nothing wrong" is typically used in an inflammatory manner (e.g. "[Hitler/Stalin] did nothing wrong"). — csc-1 02:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hey Arccosecant. As mentioned, I'm more than happy to change the wording of the text to make it less controversial. However, we cannot simply nominate every single userbox involving a controversial figure for deletion simply because some find it unpleasant. I noticed you refrained from nominating my Mugabe userbox for deletion on the same grounds (presumably because the wording there was more neutral) despite the fact the latter is associated with Gukurahundi and blatant political oppression in many circles. Surely we can work something similar out for this one.
- Katangais I nominated it since support/"nostalgia" for Ian Smith/Rhodesia is associated with alt-right/white supremacist movements, and since the phrasing "did nothing wrong" is typically used in an inflammatory manner (e.g. "[Hitler/Stalin] did nothing wrong"). — csc-1 02:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I was not aware that support for Smith was perceived as a totem for white supremacy today, but regardless, nominating a userbox for deletion simply on the grounds that some white supremacists and right-wingers happen to like this individual is a rather slippery slope. If that was your reasoning, I suggest you nominate every single userbox expressing support for Donald Trump for deletion as well. --Katangais (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep. I did not like Snith and I am glad he is long gone, but there is no good reason to delete. I agree with the comment above. --Bduke (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep From an outside point of view I have no idea what this guy did or didn't do right. Supporting someone is a broad concept that makes me want to keep this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Famine
- User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Famine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Repressions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Repressions2 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Baltics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Ceaușescu ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Hungary and Czechoslovakia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Afghanistan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Antiliberal user ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
WP:UBCR violations that have no place on a collaborative project. — csc-1 20:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Ceaușescu and User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Afghanistan, delete the others. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the ones defending the murder of hundreds of thousands of people (User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Famine, User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Repressions, User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Repressions2), keep the rest (strong keep for anti-liberal, as it is just expressing opposition to an ideology). Zoozaz1 talk 22:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Book:Full Form
Two link book with only VHF omnidirectional range and VOR/DME as links. No idea what the connection between these and "Full form" is. Fun fact: This is somehow the most viewed Book on wikipedia by far with over 20% of the views for the entire namespace. --Trialpears (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep don't see why it needs to be deleted. — csc-1 18:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Arccosecant In contrast to almost all other namespaces handled at MfD books are supposed to be user facing. This makes the standard required to keep significantly higher than for drafts or user pages where I would fully agree with your rationale. In fact books even have their own form of proposed deletion at WP:BOOKPROD. Do you see any conceivable use of this page? --Trialpears (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Trialpears The included articles are related to one another, and I suppose "full form" could have some technical meaning. It is, for whatever reason, highly viewed—see pageviews in march and april—and if vandalism is the problem, it should be sent to WP:RFPP. — csc-1 19:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Arccosecant Yes it screams some type of anomaly. The book Why would this one random book have over 12x more views than the second most viewed Wikipedia Book? Why does the daily page views on this page range from 16 to 1,754? I've tried to find what "full form" possibly could mean and its not mentioned in either of the articles and googles first few pages finds nothing useful. --Trialpears (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Trialpears The included articles are related to one another, and I suppose "full form" could have some technical meaning. It is, for whatever reason, highly viewed—see pageviews in march and april—and if vandalism is the problem, it should be sent to WP:RFPP. — csc-1 19:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Arccosecant In contrast to almost all other namespaces handled at MfD books are supposed to be user facing. This makes the standard required to keep significantly higher than for drafts or user pages where I would fully agree with your rationale. In fact books even have their own form of proposed deletion at WP:BOOKPROD. Do you see any conceivable use of this page? --Trialpears (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - This book appears to serve no intended purpose, but its accidental purpose is that it is a frequent target for vandalism. The benefit of getting rid of the target for vandalism is slight but is enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems to be confused for something or another else, and the book as it stands doesn't seem to relate to the phrasing either. For those kinds of page views, you'd expect much more content on the page, so there's something fishy going on. As it happens, having only 2 pages in a book is also basically useless. If they relate as well as suggested, they'd have trivial links in their pages. --Izno (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and Salt. "Full form" seems to be a phrase used in Indian English to mean something along the lines of "the expansion of an acronym". That would seem to explain why the book has attracted the attention of so many Indian IP's, and has also made it a target for spammers pushing links to their online dictionaries (e.g. This kind of account) Since the book as it stands isn't much use for the reasons outlined in the OP (only 2 pages) I think it would be best to delete this and salt the title to prevent accumulation of more spam. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as a useless book with only two pages. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 08:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
User talk:170.0.143.28
- User talk:170.0.143.28 ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
A blocked proxy user talk page with a lot of byte. The first and the second revision takes some time to load because of the large content. Kaseng55 (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as apparent peculiar vandalism that is difficult to view and has no reason to exist. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as vandalism. — csc-1 18:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
April 30, 2021
Draft:Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020) Bush Trips
- Draft:Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020) Bush Trips ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Wikipedia no game guide. Kaseng55 (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
The purpose of this page is to discuss a game mode, such as in the following Wikipedia pages: CSGO,Fortnite Battle Royale,Fortnite: Save the World,Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne and many others. I object to the deletion of a page that is clearly not even close to being finalized. I invite you to read Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion. I thank you for your interest in the topic and I invite you to contribute to this page. Hans0808 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete gamecruft because of all the detailed locations. This can be shortened to a section or paragraph in the main article. I changed the first mention of bush trip in that one to redirect to Bush flying. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per WP:NMFD. — csc-1 18:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Move all of its content to Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020 video game) as a section. Starting to Hate Noelle (Needs Zhongli Too Bad or Hapith is NOT Taiwan's ballistic missile ) 13:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep in order to give the creator time to take the advice of the editor with the disruptive signature. The nominator is ragpicking. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
April 29, 2021
User:Millsdietz258/sandbox
Old copy of Juice Wrld which should be deleted per WP:UP#COPIES. SK2242 (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as an abandoned copy by an abandoned user. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — csc-1 19:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom too. Casspedia (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
User:DedThicc/sandbox
Old copy of the lead of Juice Wrld which should be deleted per WP:UP#COPIES. SK2242 (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Abandoned copy. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — csc-1 19:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Felixfelix deng
Old copy of Clash of Clans that should be deleted per WP:UP#COPIES. SK2242 (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Abandoned copy by abandoned user. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — csc-1 19:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Spire Digital - A Custom Software Development Company
- Draft:Spire Digital - A Custom Software Development Company ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Is this some sort of advertising, or just trying to use Wikipedia as a social media? Kaseng55 (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Draft:Soft Digital - A Custom Software Development Company ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Add this per AndyTheGrump (same as the other). Tol | Talk | Contribs 16:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - In response to the question, one or the other, neither of which is proper. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. And do the same for Draft:Soft Digital - A Custom Software Development Company, which was created by the same 'contributor'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete (potentially G11). Clearly promotional, not encyclopedic, also delete the other draft (which I have added above). Tol | Talk | Contribs 16:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete (G11) as blatantly promotional. — csc-1 19:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Bread Dog
What in the hell is this stuff? Never saw something like this on Wikipedia before. Kaseng55 (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Has been rejected, and can be allowed to expire by G13. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Useless.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Meh as neologism. This could have been "Loaf of Doge" as part of Doge (meme) where Doge's face is on a loaf of bread. Or it could be "Bread Doge" where Doge sticks its nose through the slice of bread. Or "In bread dog" in general where other dogs stick their noses through slices of bread. https://www.boredpanda.com/funny-animals-stuck-in-bread/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic It's not clear which one this is meant to be, but it doesn't have any news articles or mass popularity to back it up. Leave it to G13. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as nonsensical. — csc-1 19:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The name bread dog is also a variant of the Doge (meme). Starting to Hate Noelle (Needs Zhongli Too Bad or Hapith is NOT Taiwan's ballistic missile ) 13:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Racism
Already exist. There is already an article which is Racism. Kaseng55 (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Redirect to Racism. Stupid, but redirection can take of that. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Racism and protect. This is the second time someone's made a vandalism page on racism at this title. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and salt. No need to content fork a draft on already established topics. If there's some content to split that should be discussed at the talk page. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and salt. Duplicate, content fork.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and salt per prior. No valid reason for this to be made, and useless as a redirect. Making drafts of existing articles can have a valid use case when you want to rewrite one, but anyone who had a legitimate use for that would be using their sandbox (and for an article like Racism you'd probably want a hell of a lot of consensus behind you). Vaticidalprophet 13:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Racism and protect per WP:SRE. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Redirect to Racism. — csc-1 19:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
April 28, 2021
User:Jello Editor
WP:UP#COPIES, WP:COPYARTICLE. User made 3 edits in 2012, one of which was copying an article to their userpage. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Can also just blank the copied article, leaving their little introduction... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a fake article. It is by now divergent from the parent article, which is one of the reasons why fake articles are not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — csc-1 19:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - The entirety of the page is "Jello Editor is a Wikipedia editor", which is a fine use for a user page. I've removed the copied article, as anyone could do without starting a separate discussion (or !voting delete in such a discussion) to delete the history. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:0.8/Second half
This page is almost half a million bytes long, as is its sister page Wikipedia:0.8/First half, and they are both 100% Wikilinks.
My browser froze for several minutes when I tried to edit one of them.
Wikipedia:Version 0.8 already has an A-Z list which duplicates the functionality of this page in a more convenient format, and the Wikipedia:Version 0.8 page doesn't even link to these. The only page that links to them is Wikipedia:0.8/Full. Guy Macon (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - What the H$#@? I don't really know or care what the originator was trying to do, but we don't need this mess. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete G3 - This is just a mess. I have tagged the page. Kaseng55 (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as a complete mess which duplicates Wikipedia:0.8/Index. — csc-1 19:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:0.8/First half
This page is almost half a million bytes long, as is its sister page Wikipedia:0.8/Second half, and they are both 100% Wikilinks.
My browser froze for several minutes when I tried to edit one of them.
Wikipedia:Version 0.8 already has an A-Z list which duplicates the functionality of this page in a more convenient format, and the Wikipedia:Version 0.8 page doesn't even link to these. The only page that links to them is Wikipedia:0.8/Full. Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - I won't repeat the profanity of the second half. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, as per nominator. Dan arndt (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - does not seem useful. Eagleash (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as a complete mess which duplicates Wikipedia:0.8/Index. — csc-1 19:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Old business
April 28, 2021
Draft:Rebel To the Light
hopelessly non-notable vanity-cruft, presumably created by the books author. Wikipedia even in draft space is not meant to be a host of vanity spam and non-notable fantasies. TAXIDICAE💰 20:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment article was moved to mainspace and back to draft 3 times. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete abused draft to mainspace process. No improvements of article to have external news sources and criticism to show notability. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as repeatedly moved to mainspace when not ready for mainspace.
- Reads like an advertisement.
- Does not satisfy book notability.
- Salt in article space. Salting in article space is even more important than deletion.
Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Also suggest salting Rebel to the Light with lower-case on "to" for caps purposes. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and salt in mainspace: incredibly promotional, repeatedly moved without improvement. — csc-1 19:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Roswell incident/to do
- Talk:Roswell incident/to do ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Created in 2006, last actual edit was in 2008. This looks like misplaced todo list that should have been created in userspace. Whatever content this was talking about 13-15 years ago, it is long gone now. Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - My first thought was to mark historical, but there is no content worth marking historical. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Userfy this misplaced to-do list. — csc-1 19:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- It has been over 15 years since the creator of the list, Fenice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), has made an edit. They announced that they were leaving here. I see no point in moving this to Fenice's userspace. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Battle of Tilpat
unnecessary split DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect or Speedy Redirect to Battle of Tilpat, but actually to the redirect that is there. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Battle of Tilpat unless development of an actual article takes place. — csc-1 19:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep there's already an AFC comment that this article already exists as a redirect and notes about it being copied within wikipedia. Also recommend that if someone wants to develop this as a separate article they need to gain consensus over at talk:Gokula It's not a big content fork like some of the other drafts that need to be resolved or discussed right away. G13 Timer should be from January 2021. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-04-25/Disinformation report
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-04-25/Disinformation report ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
A "disinformation report" about a recently deceased editor who made the grand total of 45 edits to enwiki, the last one in 2013 (i.e. years before Trump was actually President), and about someone else where no indication is given at all of what her enwiki account was or which edits she made, but only allegations about her public life with no reference to Wikipedia at all.
This is all of such a trivial nature that it doesn't look like an informative page about a major problem, but some petty vengeance against a political enemy via a recently deceased person who didn't even work for Trump during the presidency, and someone who the Signpost apparently tried to out (judging from the comments beneath the article and the redactions done afterwards), but who has in the current version nothing to do with Wikipedia. This belongs on some personal off-wiki blog, but has no business being hosted on a quasi-official Wikipedia page. Fram (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm the author of the piece an the editor-in-chief of The Signpost. I'll remind folks here that Signpost articles are not in article space, but in WikiProject space and the rules that seem to apply are essentially the same as those which apply on talkpages.
- There are 2 parts of the Signpost article. The 1st 2 sections about Mmartinnyc who declared - on two different talkpages - that he was Michael Martin and worked for the Trump Organization (TTO) and was representing Ivanka Trump's wishes. On one page he calls himself "director of interactive." Michael Martin died in November 2020 and his obituary identifies him as a long-term TTO employee and director of digital marketing. Martin made these 2 paid editing declarations himself - they have not been redacted - the obit confirms that he was what Mmartinnyc claimed he was.
- Now if anybody believes that the future president's director of digital marketing operating under Ivanka Trump's direct supervision is trivial - they are free to ignore the article. I, and I believe, a great many Wikipedians would disagree. A billionaire/TV star/politician is paying somebody to edit Ivanka Trump's article, Eric Trump's, Donald Trump, Jr,'s, and (just once) Donald Trump's article - I'll guarantee you, lots of folks are interested in this. Somebody who is not interested (below), claims that The Signpost cannot publish this because it violates talk page rules about "not a forum". The Signpost has been publishing for 16 years now and has always provided a forum for Wikipedians to write, at length if needed, on the important Wiki-issues of the day.
- (more later) Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- If someone had posted the text of that page on a talk page, I would have reverted it per WP:NOTFORUM. Fram (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note that my post above was a reply to an older version of the post. Whether a small number of 10 year old COI edits, already established as such at the time, is "an important Wiki-issue of the day", seems dubious. Posting this just months after they died is simply callous. And you ignore the greater part of the article, which is about a BLP and which establishes no connection to Wikipedia at all. Fram (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. Just going to note that my preferred method of dealing with Signpost articles is to blank/retract rather than delete. Also, people should consider review the other times articles from The Signpost have come up for MFD. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep/adjust if really necessary Shame that this has received about 20x more comments that I've ever seen for any other Signpost piece. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm the author of the piece an the editor-n-chief of The Signpost. I'll remind folks here that Signpost articles are not in article space, but in WikiProject space and the rules that seem to apply are essentially the same as those which apply on talkpages. (more later) Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, you wrote the exact same thing above already, 23 minutes ago. WP:BLP and WP:NOTFORUM apply anywhere, including on talk pages. Dragging up what a non-notable; non-public figure did ten years ago (and posting it mere months after his death), and posting a lengthy laundry list about someone else without any connection to Wikipedia in the text, violate these two policies in a serious way. Fram (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Edit conflcts and real life interupt here.Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Fram: yes, I'm working on it. You could go a long way in establishing your sincerity here by admitting that what you consider "trivial" is not an issue here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have no interest in "establishing" my "sincerity" here to your liking or "admitting" anything to you. I'm surprised it took this long to get a personal attack here though. Fram (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, then please show me where your opinion of what's "trivial" Applies here according to whatever policy or guideline you like. Also, please note that WP:NOTFORUM doesn't say what you claim it does. Finally, please don't manufacture a "personal attack" out of thin air. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I was not aware that someone had to offer a policy or guideline to express one's opinion that something is trivial (or conversely, that something is "important", as you stated). I have given my statements about which two policies the text violates, and why. However, such comments should stick to the topic at hand, the Signpost article, and not be about other editors. Claiming that someone has to "establish their sincerity" is a personal attack, it is an attack on the nominator and has nothing to do with the signpost article we are discussing. The remainder of your statement that I had to admit anything is just the fallacy of the loaded question, but not even disguised as a question but issued as a demand. Fram (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, then please show me where your opinion of what's "trivial" Applies here according to whatever policy or guideline you like. Also, please note that WP:NOTFORUM doesn't say what you claim it does. Finally, please don't manufacture a "personal attack" out of thin air. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have no interest in "establishing" my "sincerity" here to your liking or "admitting" anything to you. I'm surprised it took this long to get a personal attack here though. Fram (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Fram: yes, I'm working on it. You could go a long way in establishing your sincerity here by admitting that what you consider "trivial" is not an issue here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Edit conflcts and real life interupt here.Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, you wrote the exact same thing above already, 23 minutes ago. WP:BLP and WP:NOTFORUM apply anywhere, including on talk pages. Dragging up what a non-notable; non-public figure did ten years ago (and posting it mere months after his death), and posting a lengthy laundry list about someone else without any connection to Wikipedia in the text, violate these two policies in a serious way. Fram (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as written; Fram is right about what the article essentially is in its present state. Emphasis on present state. Let's stay away from discussing how it was before and bear in mind that all the comments are on the article as it is right now. The article right now is mostly a bunch of writings on a figure who is unrelated to Wikipedia. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 23:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think it is absolutely worth discussing whether your redactions to the article were within policy or not. I have huge doubts about it; the redacted content looked like standard WP:COIN fare to me. Note that an oversighter had already looked into the matter and rejected the notion that this was a case of WP:OUTING ("We designed our rules to stop coi editing, not facilitate its evasion. I point out a person delivering a speech at a national political convention is a public figure, and has an inherently diminished expectation of privacy").
- What's more, the reason why the section about Patton now appears "unrelated to Wikipedia" is precisely that you removed the other section that explained the relation and reported about various different ways in which Wikipedia content had been affected by the COI activities of what is assumed to be Patton's account. So it seems quite disingenuous to demand that editors "stay away from discussing how it was before". As others point out below (in violation of your "directive"), your action has created significant confusion already.
- If your goal had been to just remove the likely real-life identity of that particular account (who has made the connection to Trump very clear in their user name, albeit not directly identifying as Patton), you could have redacted the section about Patton instead. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- as I explain below, I disagree with the redactions, and I further disagree with redacting the other section. I thin he article as written has the right balance. I think the redactions without consensus are what is politicizing the issues. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I am not an admin or an oversighter. I removed the attempted outing in my capacity as a regular editor and reported to the oversight team as is protocol when dealing with matters such as these. The edits were then suppressed by an oversighter (I do not know which as suppression logs aren't public); as can be seen by examining the logs for the page (there's no revdel logs so it is likey oversight). This was not a unilateral admin action on my part. I removed the section that explained the relation because I didn't want to entirely rewrite the article or add things when I am not the author; simply remove the parts that violated the OUTING policy. If Smallbones wants to add a little "redacted" template or a hatnote that's their prerogative; but I'm not going to do it for them. The reason why I politely asked (you're not bound by my requests) to not discuss the article in its original state was because the article in its original state is suppressed and we're generally supposed to avoid repeating suppressed information given that it's been suppressed for a reason. Additionally, some people seemed to be unaware that there was originally context to one of the passages and commenting here that the article was written as a hitpiece against a specific person. I was hoping this would be taken into account and editors would be aware that Smallbones did not originally write the article in the way it currently is. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 04:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I also don't think the same admin should be revdelling and !voting here. Either involved or uninvolved, pick one please. Levivich harass/hound 17:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)- To clarify, I was not the person who actually suppressed the edits in the page history. I removed the content and reported it to the oversight team as should be done with any attempted outing. It is impossible for me to have revdelled or oversighted the revisions in the page history as I am not an admin or an oversighter. I also do not consider myself WP:INVOLVED for this reason. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 04:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- To clarify, I was not the person who actually suppressed the edits in the page history. I removed the content and reported it to the oversight team as should be done with any attempted outing. It is impossible for me to have revdelled or oversighted the revisions in the page history as I am not an admin or an oversighter. I also do not consider myself WP:INVOLVED for this reason. Chess (talk) (please use
- Delete - There's no question that the article is politically charged, but that's not the main issue. As I've said on the talk page, the article appears to be an attempt to both defame the Trump Organization and out a now redacted user. The Mmartinnyc incident was a decade ago, and the now redacted user also hasn't been active for years. I have to ask, why did Smallbones use such old examples of alleged paid editing (I say alleged because the only declaration was not confirmed off-wiki by Michael Martin before his death, so it may have been a false flag) when, if there truly is a paid current paid editing problem from TTO, there should be more recent examples? Why did Smallbones dig as far back as 2011? To me, this looks more like an excuse to publicly display The Washington Post's claim that Trump has "accumulated 30,573 untruths during his presidency", remind us that Trump is banned from many social media sites, and put it out there that a public supporter of Trump (Lynne Patton) broke the Hatch Act than trying to raise awareness of paid editing. - ZLEA T\C 23:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I have to question your judgement here, You write "I say alleged because the only declaration was not confirmed off-wiki by Michael Martin before his death, so it may have been a false flag". There were 2 very detailed paid editing declarations by Mmartinnyc stating he was Michael Martin from the Trump Organization. How can you read the article and come up with your summary of the situation? How could we ever discuss paid editing if Mmartinnyc's 2 declarations are not considered evidence of paid editing?
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge Martin never confirmed outside of Wikipedia that Mmartinnyc was his account. Anyone can claim to be anybody, and since Martin was working for one of the most controversial organizations in the west, the likelihood that he would be a target of a false flag paid editing declaration to make it look like TTO was corrupting editors is higher than usual. I'm not saying that Martin was not Mmartinnyc or that we shouldn't take paid editing disclosures seriously, but unconfirmed paid editing disclosures are not adequate evidence of an organization corrupting editors. - ZLEA T\C 18:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- You are accusing me of bad faith, of trying "to defame" Trump, rather "than trying to raise awareness of paid editing." I'll just note that I've written or published (in The Signpost) about a dozen stories on paid editing. You remind me of one subject's lawyer who I asked for a comment (since his client was in jail). His reply was basically "Why are you picking on my client? Why don't you write about some other billionaires?" I thought he had a point, so I added 2 more billionaires to the story. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete And yet again, the signpost editorial staff show they have zero interest in abiding by ENWP's policies. Blatant attempt to smear people by any means. If this had been put in article space the author would likely be facing significant sanctions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
political and oversight aspects
Personally, I think the political aspects are trivial . and tho e associated with him are a convenient subject to discus, because so much has been published, much more so than other political figures. I do not regard their attempt to subjvert WP as more than trivial. It's just an interesting case study. i do not think either person did anything at WP perspective more wrongly or even more differently than most politicians. If anything ,I'm a little surprised their campaign didn't try much harder to prejudice our NPOV; I ascribe it perhaps to their more skilled & sophisticated PR, to Trump's personal indifference and possible unawareness of WP, and to the lack of need--there were an abundance of true amateur unpaid advocates promulgating his POV wherever they could, WP certainly included.
To me, the basic rule at OUTING, as with all BLP, is to do no harm. This did no harm. (I leave aside the question of whether one could possibly harm a person willing to work for thet Trump interests by any disclosure we could make about their work on WP here, as compared to all the other things some editors have said about them) . I do not normally take action on outing as a CU, or oversighter, but the leave it to others; I am aware that in cases involving paid editing, my view that those misusing WP may merit somewhat decreased protection compared to those using it in good faith, or involved only peripherally or as subjects, may not be standard, and the view that it is equally bad even if it has no bad effects may be the majority. I do the oversight work that I believe everyone agrees with., just as I do as an admin; I try not to stretch boundaries or enforce my opinions. I oversight the ones I encounter that have clear potentially bad effects, and do not interfere with or revert those oversighters who feel differently. I certainly accept my obligation to prevent harm when i see it, regardless of my views, but i did not see harm here, and the arguments that there is seem unconvincing. Any oversighter who disagrees can do as they think--I normally don't even mention it when someone is more stringent than I think necessary. DGG ( talk ) 08:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't understand the logic of this. As someone who has dealt with their comments being oversighted on several occasions and had conversations with the oversight team, speculating about the offwiki identity of editors if they had never disclosed the fact is never acceptable, doesn't matter that the account is 4 years old or not. I would rather that the oversighting had happened the other way around, with the off-wiki identity being censored rather than the account, as it is likely the account did have a COI, but the accusation that the account represented a named individual based on no real evidence was not acceptable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Your opinion was asked. If you felt as if other oversighters would have had a more stringent approach you should have discussed it with others before okaying the article. Or alternatively deferred it to someone else if you can't enforce established policy and practice. A BRD-like attitude isn't appropriate for potentially oversightable content; we can't "put the cat back in the bag" so to speak especially when something's being pushed out to as many people as the signpost. It's important to deal with COI issues but at the same time we need to be prudent about not outing editors. That's why we have the established policy of dealing with such matters privately if it's essential that those dealing with the COIs know the real life identities of certain editors. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 05:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
convenience break
- (Comment struck out, see below)
Enh, I mean keep it I guess. Guy's dead, so we're not going to hurt his feelings and BLP doesn't apply, don't see how NOTFORUM applies since after all the Signpost is a forum, kind of. If you don't like the page don't read it, I guess is the solution here.Herostratus (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)- Have you looked at the article? The whole second half, "Not just a party planner", is about another person, who seems to be very much alive: and the article makes no connection between her and Wikipedia at all. How is this not a WP:FORUM and WP:BLP violation? The first part, while one can discuss about WP:BLP here (it does apply to recent deaths as well), is also a WP:FORUM violation; the Signpost is not a forum, or else it has no place on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- No I didn't (sorry), and after doing so must change my suggestion to a strong DELETE. Sorry, my diligence failed, thanks for correcting me. The first part was about someone who allegedly wrongly edited us, and I figure the rest of the article was in that vein. I was too hasty, sorry. So, right, I was completely mistaken apparently, sorry, and let me write out this new "vote".
- So, it looks like an editor wrote about this Michael Martin person, and then was like "I'm going to completely switch gears here and randomly write about a different person, Lynne Patton, who has nothing to do with Wikipedia, or anything we're about. I don't have a point, I just think she's interesting." I suppose that could be OK, if was all anodyne and nice and ref'd, but then she is the entire second half of an article titled "The Trump Organization's paid editors", well my goodness, that certainly looks like guilt by association. It seems to imply that she had something do do with subverting Wikipedia, when she did not, or if she did there's no source showing or even suggesting that, not even in her article. And it's an accusation, not just an anodyne factoid. Well we can't have that it's a gross BLP violation, and so has to be deleted like it or not.
- If it was her article, we could talk about editing to properly balance the public interest with the subjects privacy/being-treated-fairly-and-decently interests. But it's not an article, so there's no public interest is there. It's not worth spending time on fixing it, just delete. Or delete the section about Patton at least. Herostratus (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Herostratus, FYI, the reason why the second half of this piece seems to "has nothing to do with Wikipedia" is because lots of information has been redacted. The author suggested that Patton and a certain user are the same person and many considered it to be WP:OUTING.Here's my vote tho: Delete. Blanking it is useless because past revisions that are kept are not the original post. enjoyer -- talk 00:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- If it was her article, we could talk about editing to properly balance the public interest with the subjects privacy/being-treated-fairly-and-decently interests. But it's not an article, so there's no public interest is there. It's not worth spending time on fixing it, just delete. Or delete the section about Patton at least. Herostratus (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep As several editors had already pointed out on the talk page, the accusations that Trump is a victim of political bias here (as "political enemy" according to the nominator's claims) are pretty ridiculous. As for the nominator's other weird deletion argument, alleging that there exists something like a minimum edit count that must be crossed before the Signpost can be allowed to report about an on-wiki incident: That's not how we should decide if there is sufficient reader interest. Any major public figure's (or their Director of Digital Marketing's) attempts to influence article content in their interest while violating Wikipedia guidelines or the Terms of Use can and have been in scope. Such coverage helps us understand the nature of COI editing problems. But in case of Trump it is especially relevant. Not just because of his exceptional stature as a past and possible future holder of one of the world's most powerful political offices, but also because of his particular attacks against user-generated content sites in general, in form of a (still not rescinded) executive order against Section 230, a law which the WMF and various independent legal experts have described as essential for the existence of Wikipedia - we all would not be here without it. And as Smallbones and I reported in the December 2020 Signpost issue, Trump did not let up on this issue and made other attempts until shortly before leaving office to eliminate Section 230. It's very likely that if he starts playing a more active political role again, he will return to this topic, and it's worthwhile for community members to know about past incidents that may have displayed or shaped Trump's (or his staff's or his family's) attitude towards Wikipedia.
- Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Your claim, that the "accusations" that this is written against a political enemy are "pretty ridiculous", would be stronger if you didn't then continue with a long explanation of how Trump is the political enemy... Fram (talk) 07:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that "accusations that Trump is a victim of political bias here (as "political enemy" according to the nominator's claims)" are likely true. We're an Enlightenment entity, and most editors are of a liberal bent (and if not, then libertarian or social democrat). By it's nature the Wikipedia editor corps is not likely to contain hordes of right-wing authoritarians. And this indeed is my observation. I doubt that Trump would poll very well here, at all. In fact most of us loathe him, I'm pretty sure. So it's not ridiculous to say that bias could be involved here, no. Herostratus (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Your claim, that the "accusations" that this is written against a political enemy are "pretty ridiculous", would be stronger if you didn't then continue with a long explanation of how Trump is the political enemy... Fram (talk) 07:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Unclear, but not seeing a reason to delete - It's hard to make a call on this. There was apparently part of the "party planner" section which connected Patton to a particular user. That has since been suppressed. Now that section doesn't seem to have any connection to Wikipedia, which makes it strange and out of place. People with advanced permissions should come to a concrete decision as to whether that material should be suppressed and, if affirmative, that section should just be removed as irrelevant. What's left isn't going to win a WikiPulitzer, but I fail to see any reason for deletion. If you don't like it, you're welcome to say so on the talk page or even to appoint a new Signpost editor (I hear the current one is looking to pass this kind of fun to someone else anyway :) ), but why delete? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Is this even where a !vote should go? Easy with the subsections in structured discussions, folks. :P — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Strong keep. It's time to listen up to DGG, one of Wikipedia's longest, most mature, and highly respected editors. Knowing him for many years and very personally as I do, DGG never expresses any political leanings, nor does he allow himself to be drawn into party political arguments, even in private. He is in all things Wikipedia the epitome of neutrality and never has a dog in the fight when he comments on hundreds (if not thousands) of AfD.
- That said, as a former E-in-C of The Signpost, I vehemently defend its right to be as informative as any quality newspaper (rather than red tops), and not to be treated and hacked about like a Wikipedia article or talk page. For some reason I can't put my finger on, since I rescued the magazine in 2018 and handed the reins over, it has been fraught with attacks and demands for redaction and/or deletion. Smallbones has done an excellent job of keeping the periodical going, but like I did, has fallen into the trap of having to write the bulk of the content himself, without which, beyond the WMF using our paper for their own propaganda, there would be little left to publish.
- I'm not a political animal either (and I'm certainly not from the US), and as an adult I've never lived in a country where I'm allowed to vote anyway. So from a purely neutral point of view, I can't find fault with the piece under discussion here. I can only assume that there is a new mindset in Wikipedia that seeks to make an Aunt Sally out of The Signpost just because it is there and happens to be somewhat different from other namespaces. Very sad. In a way, I'm glad I practically retired a year ago from this circus I devoted 1,000s of hours to. I would return to contributing to The Signpost if it were to do what the WMF did to avoid criticism: Take it off the WMF server and host it someplace else. It could then be selective, as all mainstream press is, of what readers' comments it chooses to publish. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Kudpung, I finally decided to disclose my political leanings in a discussion at AE a little earlier today. I'm an extremely libertarian socialist, much influenced by Marxism, very uncomfortable with the current failure of the far left to accept the principle of free information, but otherwise supporting most of its agenda. I continue to hope they will realise radical progress occurs by spreading the truth, not a partial truth. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. A perfectly valid jouranlistic piece. Freedom of the press etc. It's also high time to relax the rules on OUTING - editors who are NOTHERE should not be protected like some holy cows. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The article's current state does not violate any policies or guidelines pertaining to content on project pages. It is true that the article is incomplete after the suppression, but that can be addressed by adding {{redacted}} templates to indicate where the content was suppressed, and an author's note disclosing that part of the content has been suppressed because the Oversight team determined that it was not compliant with Wikipedia's policy on the posting of personal information. — Newslinger talk 07:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- "The article's current state does not violate any policies or guidelines pertaining to content on project pages. "? We have an article "The Trump Organization's paid editors" in a section called "Disinformation report" (so basically stating that these people were paid to spread disinformation) about two people, but for one of them not a single link to Wikipedia editing or a Wikipedia editor is included in the current state. How can this not violate WP:BLP? Perhaps I should have nominated it for G10 attack page instead, that might have been clearer. And thinking about it, that's just what I will do now. Fram (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- The least disruptive solution would be to request that the article be renamed to "The Trump Organization's paid editing", not to delete the article, as the article does cover the organization's paid editing. "Disinformation report" is a column that covers conflict of interest and paid editing on Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-02-28/Disinformation report for the previous article. — Newslinger talk 08:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- That doesn't address anything, actually. It still spends half the article accusing one BLP of being a paid editor spreading disinformation, without any evidence, without even any suggestion of why they are included in the article. Fram (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- If you object to that section, then start a discussion proposing that it be removed. There is no justification for deleting the remainder of the article, which includes coverage of the organization's paid editing. — Newslinger talk 08:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- No, then you are left with an "article" discussing how one recently deceased person made a handful of edits ten years ago, which was known at the time to boot, but which is now given prominence as if it is something newsworthy, important, but which actually is only posted because of Trump. In 2016, this would have been a somewhat relevant article (though still rather minor); now, it is just misusing the Signpost to score cheap political points over the back of a minor intermediate. The anti-Trump points scored with an artice like this are not worth the potential grief this may cause to the family of the person involved if they would stumble across this article. Fram (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've added Special:Diff/1020653083 to the page history to serve as a valid version to revert to while this discussion is ongoing. The remaining content is reliably sourced and compliant with WP:BLP. If you disagree with the article, you are free to express yourself in the comments, but I am not seeing how deletion is justified here. We do not exclude unfavorable content from any page (if reliably sourced) in any namespace because a person has recently died. — Newslinger talk 09:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- We also don't put negative, old information about non notable persons on a high-profile page. "If reliably sourced" is rather debatable here, everything we have are primary sources (Wikipedia and that family-written obituary): if this was in article space, it would be pulled immediately because of the sourcing. Fram (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- That is because WP:NOR requires the majority of sources in any article (in article space) to be secondary: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." The Signpost is not in article space, and is not subject to that requirement. The conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN), which receives more monthly views than The Signpost, contains plenty of negative information about non-notable persons. This page is a COIN report presented in article form. — Newslinger talk 09:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well, you claimed "any page in any namespace", to which I replied. I doubt anyone would post 10 year old, long resolved, COI editing, to the COI noticeboard though. Why would they? Something which may be correct to post at one time, is no longer acceptable to post at a later date. COIN is used to stop ongoing COI editing or to deal with not-yet cleaned older COI editing; this page though just uses very old and already dealt with stuff to score a point. Fram (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- That is because WP:NOR requires the majority of sources in any article (in article space) to be secondary: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." The Signpost is not in article space, and is not subject to that requirement. The conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN), which receives more monthly views than The Signpost, contains plenty of negative information about non-notable persons. This page is a COIN report presented in article form. — Newslinger talk 09:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- We also don't put negative, old information about non notable persons on a high-profile page. "If reliably sourced" is rather debatable here, everything we have are primary sources (Wikipedia and that family-written obituary): if this was in article space, it would be pulled immediately because of the sourcing. Fram (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've added Special:Diff/1020653083 to the page history to serve as a valid version to revert to while this discussion is ongoing. The remaining content is reliably sourced and compliant with WP:BLP. If you disagree with the article, you are free to express yourself in the comments, but I am not seeing how deletion is justified here. We do not exclude unfavorable content from any page (if reliably sourced) in any namespace because a person has recently died. — Newslinger talk 09:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- No, then you are left with an "article" discussing how one recently deceased person made a handful of edits ten years ago, which was known at the time to boot, but which is now given prominence as if it is something newsworthy, important, but which actually is only posted because of Trump. In 2016, this would have been a somewhat relevant article (though still rather minor); now, it is just misusing the Signpost to score cheap political points over the back of a minor intermediate. The anti-Trump points scored with an artice like this are not worth the potential grief this may cause to the family of the person involved if they would stumble across this article. Fram (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- If you object to that section, then start a discussion proposing that it be removed. There is no justification for deleting the remainder of the article, which includes coverage of the organization's paid editing. — Newslinger talk 08:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- That doesn't address anything, actually. It still spends half the article accusing one BLP of being a paid editor spreading disinformation, without any evidence, without even any suggestion of why they are included in the article. Fram (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- "The article's current state does not violate any policies or guidelines pertaining to content on project pages. "? We have an article "The Trump Organization's paid editors" in a section called "Disinformation report" (so basically stating that these people were paid to spread disinformation) about two people, but for one of them not a single link to Wikipedia editing or a Wikipedia editor is included in the current state. How can this not violate WP:BLP? Perhaps I should have nominated it for G10 attack page instead, that might have been clearer. And thinking about it, that's just what I will do now. Fram (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: now nominated for G10 speedy deletion. Having thought about this, there is no way that this page should be allowed to stay online any longer. Half of it is labeling a named living person as a paid editor spreading disinformation on enwiki, without a single shred of evidence in the article. And no one involved with the Signpost seems to find this problematic? I hope some sensible admin will do the right thing and delete this (even if someone else would remove the G10 tag for some reason). Fram (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well, it’s clearly WP:OUTING to say that “it's very likely that [real-life person X] edited as [User:Y]” if they haven’t disclosed that anywhere. But the counter-argument that this is simply legitimate investigative journalism that would, um, trump the outing policy is worth listening to, I think. @Smallbones: did you reach out to “person X” (eg by email, Twitter DM, etc) to ask if your conclusion that they edited as User:Y was correct? Usual journalistic practice would be to get a confirmation or denial (or at the least a “no comment” or “did not respond”) prior to publishing an allegation of this sort, and I’d like to better understand the degree to which this piece was intended as traditional journalism. 28bytes (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note the speedy deletion template has been placed on the page so that this debate is no longer linked to it. In other words this page has effectively been rendered an orphan except for the MfD index. Is this proper? Considering the main criterion for speedy is existence of "broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion", this seems disrespectful of the existing keep !votes here, at best. To make it plain, I object to the speedy and think it's clear that such broad consensus has already been demonstrated to be absent. - Bri.public (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- There also was a "consensus" that no outing had happened, until it was actually removed first and oversighted second, without any indication that this is about to be overturned (oversighters know this has happened, Arbcom knows this has happened, so if the oversighting was wrong, it would probably have been undone by now). A G10 deletion is also not bound by consensus among more-or-less uninvolved editors (as the argument by many seems to be "it's the Signpost" as if that somehow nullifies all policies). Fram (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Deleting and speedy deleting legitimate investigative journalism seems inappropriate. This oversight vs COI dynamic reminds me of another recent incident. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm confused as to exactly what is so bad about this essay. It is not outing, it is not an attack page. Personal vengeance? Is Smallbones a Democratic Party operative? Not to my knowledge. Please. Coretheapple (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Note that my confusion was amplified by examining the page history and observing that the original version of the article was redacted. That being the case, if any problems were cured, this deletion discussion would appear to be moot. Coretheapple (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Meh. The entire article is poor editorial judgement, but more concerning is why the oversight team initially OK'd the publication (if above comments are accurate), and maybe the functionaries need to review their processes as the mass-publicised outing - viewed by hundreds - can't really be undone. But it's a Signpost piece, and courtesy blanking seems better, and possibly even that should be up to the paper. In general, The Signpost should probably have the ability for editorial independence from the feelings of the day, so long as the current revision does not openly violate policy (it does not appear to do so). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: Just to be clear, The Signpost doesn't pre-clear our stories with the oversighters, ArbCom, or anybody else. Never has, never will. To do so would be to submit our newspaper to pre-publication censorship, which is anathema to the idea of a free press in the English speaking world and much of the rest of the world. It would be against WP:NOTCENSORED. Nobody wants that, in particular I'm sure that ArbCom and the oversighters wouldn't want it. If we did that, our readers would assume that every story had been approved by "the authorities", that it reflects their views. The Signpost most definitely does not pretend to reflect the views of "the authorites." The only contact I had with an oversighter in months was about this story. I wanted to know if personal info voluntarily disclosed by a (now dead) paid editor 10 years ago could be suppressed. He'd disclosed his Trump Org email address and phone number, and I just thought it would be easier for everybody to get rid of that part of his 2 voluntary disclosures (actually 3 - one was archived). No such luck, you can't suppress only part of an edit. That's what the oversighter told me. He went on to tell me some of his views on the current state of oversighting - interesting but not really applicable to the story. I had sole responsibility for publishing at that point. Sorry if I'm getting worked up about this :-) but "The Signpost" does not, and never will, seek pre-publication approval from any official body outside The Signpost. Please excuse my rant! Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you're aware of this but in addition to being WP:NOTCENSORED we're also WP:NOTNEWS. Fundamentally the signpost is meant to cover Wikipedia and is subordinate to the goals of creating an encyclopedia. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 04:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you're aware of this but in addition to being WP:NOTCENSORED we're also WP:NOTNEWS. Fundamentally the signpost is meant to cover Wikipedia and is subordinate to the goals of creating an encyclopedia. Chess (talk) (please use
- @ProcrastinatingReader: Just to be clear, The Signpost doesn't pre-clear our stories with the oversighters, ArbCom, or anybody else. Never has, never will. To do so would be to submit our newspaper to pre-publication censorship, which is anathema to the idea of a free press in the English speaking world and much of the rest of the world. It would be against WP:NOTCENSORED. Nobody wants that, in particular I'm sure that ArbCom and the oversighters wouldn't want it. If we did that, our readers would assume that every story had been approved by "the authorities", that it reflects their views. The Signpost most definitely does not pretend to reflect the views of "the authorites." The only contact I had with an oversighter in months was about this story. I wanted to know if personal info voluntarily disclosed by a (now dead) paid editor 10 years ago could be suppressed. He'd disclosed his Trump Org email address and phone number, and I just thought it would be easier for everybody to get rid of that part of his 2 voluntary disclosures (actually 3 - one was archived). No such luck, you can't suppress only part of an edit. That's what the oversighter told me. He went on to tell me some of his views on the current state of oversighting - interesting but not really applicable to the story. I had sole responsibility for publishing at that point. Sorry if I'm getting worked up about this :-) but "The Signpost" does not, and never will, seek pre-publication approval from any official body outside The Signpost. Please excuse my rant! Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and firmly remind the Signpost that Wikipedia policies do in fact apply to it. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I guess? I admit I don't think I fully understand the argument in favor of deletion here. Maybe it's because I didn't read the pre-oversighted version. But here's how I parse it: let's assume OS is right and what they suppressed was outing, and let's assume Signpost has no special exemption from PAGs and is just like any other projectspace page. So suppose I write an essay in projectspace and in one part of the essay I out someone. OS might suppress that part; OK. They might block me for outing; OK. But delete the essay after suppression? I don't get that. If the outing has been removed, why would we delete the rest of the page? In its current state, I don't see how the Signpost article violates any PAGs. Levivich harass/hound 17:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I disagree with any arguments to delete this, but I have no objection to constructive editing - meaning, not dismantling it and whipping it the other direction. COI on Wikipedia should be noted, and dealt with if appropriate. COI is not forbidden on Wikipedia, just requires disclosure. Anytime an elected public figure is editing their own articles, or having someone else edit them, it should be documented and dealt with. The subject matter at the core, DT, has been divisive all through, and following, office. It is not Wikipedia's goal or place to begin making accusations of any office holder or politician being the object of political bias and shenanigans. That kind of stuff has been going on for centuries in all countries. Let us just deal with the wording herein, and move on. Fram you were wrong to try to get this speedy deleted when it wasn't reaching a consensus for deletion over here. Let this process play through as it will. Everybody gets their say here, and you don't get to shut it down because of whatever reason you have. — Maile (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep this is ridiculous. The article points out something interesting and relevant to Wikipedia. If this is violating policies, it's the policies that should be changed (our policies on outing and COI have been long problematic as made clear by another recent case). Also, Fram's G10 nomination, two days after creating this, was entirely inappropriate. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. As I said in another part of the discussion, I'do not think that what is being reported is intrinsically controversial or scandalous, just the run of the mill coi editing political operatives and press agents do all the time in WP. The interest it is attracting is merely because the principal is a very prominent and controversial figure, whom apparent almost half of US citizens like very much and somewhat more than half dislikes quite strongly. But this sort of coi editing goes on all the time, and many of us devote ourselves at WP to removing it -- and to exposing it. So it does make sense to publish it when it's exposed in connection with a subject everyone has strong feelings about, because it serves to call attention to the real problem, which is that many, probably most public figures of all political persuasions do it. The article therefore fulfills its function of reporting on things at WP in a helpful manner. I consider the suppression probably unnecessary, and there are mechanisms to challenge oversighters who exceed their very limited brief, but i do not think it worth invoking them. But I also do not understand why anyone would want to delete the rest of the article--to the extent that those thinking that way have clarified what they are trying to accomplish, what they're trying to do is in my opinion unambiguously wrong; the community can say that right here, and it certainly should. DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Strong keep - for the reasons stated above by Kudz, Maile66 & DGG - The Signpost is not a WP article - it is our community news source. WP. DOES. NOT. CENSOR. Atsme 💬 📧 00:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- WP is also not a place to publish original thought, scandals, propaganda, or free speech. I realize that essays are more lenient about opinions, but this one overstepped the bounds by defaming a controversial and very political organization using unconfirmed, weak evidence from a decade ago and even attempting to out a user (I don't care if you or anyone else insists that it was not outing, the oversighters seem to think it is). - ZLEA T\C 03:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- The notforum argument is a bad argument for the signpost. The signpost is obviously a forum. Similar to NOR: the signpost is obviously a place to publish original thought, and opinion, and engage in free speech. You're arguing against the very existence of the Signpost, because if your argument were to be true, then we should delete all Signpost pages. We should also delete this page, because it's a page where we are engaging in free speech, expressing original thought, and sharing opinions. But obviously those things aren't banned on Wikipedia. You're just waving around ALLCAPSSHORTCUTS in a way that doesn't actually make logical sense. Are there any BLP vios in the Signpost article right now? If so, pointing them out would make for a better delete argument. Levivich harass/hound 03:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- There are not currently any BLP violations to my knowledge. As I said, I do realize that essays are more lenient about WP:NOT, but is it acceptable to make BLP violations in the first place and use the leniency to defame organizations (no matter how controversial or political) based on unconfirmed evidence? If an outside source reported that TTO had likely paid editors to make supportive edits, then I would have no problem with the article (minus the BLP issues). However, the article as it was written is purely original research, which may be allowed on the Signpost, but should not be left unchecked. - ZLEA T\C 04:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- The notforum argument is a bad argument for the signpost. The signpost is obviously a forum. Similar to NOR: the signpost is obviously a place to publish original thought, and opinion, and engage in free speech. You're arguing against the very existence of the Signpost, because if your argument were to be true, then we should delete all Signpost pages. We should also delete this page, because it's a page where we are engaging in free speech, expressing original thought, and sharing opinions. But obviously those things aren't banned on Wikipedia. You're just waving around ALLCAPSSHORTCUTS in a way that doesn't actually make logical sense. Are there any BLP vios in the Signpost article right now? If so, pointing them out would make for a better delete argument. Levivich harass/hound 03:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- I wonder if people actually read WP:NOTCENSORED or just link it because the shortcut sounds good. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, PR - will you please clarify because I don't quite understand your point? Atsme 💬 📧 15:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think ProcrastinatingReader is referring to the part that goes:
- "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view) or the laws of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted). However, because most edits are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may be visible to readers, for a time, before being detected and removed." - ZLEA T\C 15:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, PR - will you please clarify because I don't quite understand your point? Atsme 💬 📧 15:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- WP is also not a place to publish original thought, scandals, propaganda, or free speech. I realize that essays are more lenient about opinions, but this one overstepped the bounds by defaming a controversial and very political organization using unconfirmed, weak evidence from a decade ago and even attempting to out a user (I don't care if you or anyone else insists that it was not outing, the oversighters seem to think it is). - ZLEA T\C 03:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as this is relevant to Wikipedia, is the Signpost not a talk page, and per Freedom of the press. — csc-1 19:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The community doesn't decide what does and doesn't violate WP:OUTING on a case-by-case basis: oversighters do. If content needs oversighting (looks like it did) then oversighting is the solution. Keeping the history of the article and any non-oversightable content intact is needed. Those who work on The Signpost could courtesy blank it if they wanted. As for the rest, it's not our job to delete Signpost articles, which are not "quasi-official". If you want to give constructive feedback about a Signpost article which you find to be low-quality then leave a comment. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Because the signpost is in project space, not article space, and we shouldn't censor the main wikipedia "press".Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep MfD should not be used for Signpost articles without strong reasons. Since I don't know what the article originally contained -- I've just read it for the first time a few minutes ago -- I must judge it by its current contents. It doesn't break any policies I can determine. -- llywrch (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep due to a lot of information was redacted since this was nominated. – The Grid (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think that either part of this was particularly good/relevant reporting, but now that oversight has removed the problematic content and outing I see no reason to delete it. An article on a Clueless newbie who joined up, made some obviously problematic edits, were immediately reverted, were completely honest about who they were when asked and avoided making the same kind of edit once informed of our policies isn't really the kind of thing that needs plastering all over Wikipedia project space, especially when the edits in question took place 8 years ago. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, but only because it's project space, this is definitely trivia. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It appears that any concerns raised by the original nominator have been addressed. What remains of the article is entirely appropriate and it is news, not article space.Montanabw(talk) 23:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Spike T. Smith
I think it's time to delete this draft. It's been declined 6 times now and has not been improved to demonstrate notability in between submissions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 08:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Now that we have Rejection, there is no need to delete a draft that hasn't been rejected unless there is some other problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: Apologies, I wasn't aware that this was now the common practice. I will withdraw this but do you think it would be possible to update WP:NMFD with a new wording? Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 03:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)- User:Chess - I don't think that there is consensus on anything having to do with Rejection. I was !voting to Use Common Sense, which seems to be in short supply about Rejection sometimes. I would like to see something to that effect, but it seems that there is never much agreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Now that I think about it, it's rather interesting that an AfC reviewer can now unilaterally reject a draft for non-notability (preventing it from resubmission) when previously it would take consensus at MfD for that to occur. I think we should try to get some formal consensus about how to use the rejection. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 04:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Now that I think about it, it's rather interesting that an AfC reviewer can now unilaterally reject a draft for non-notability (preventing it from resubmission) when previously it would take consensus at MfD for that to occur. I think we should try to get some formal consensus about how to use the rejection. Chess (talk) (please use
- User:Chess - I don't think that there is consensus on anything having to do with Rejection. I was !voting to Use Common Sense, which seems to be in short supply about Rejection sometimes. I would like to see something to that effect, but it seems that there is never much agreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: Apologies, I wasn't aware that this was now the common practice. I will withdraw this but do you think it would be possible to update WP:NMFD with a new wording? Chess (talk) (please use
- Keep As @Robert McClenon: said, there is a rejection feature. Zai (💬 • 📝 • ⚡️) 21:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Zulkif Ahmed |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Draft:Zulkif AhmedThis page is self-promotional, as the creator made it all about themself. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User en-1.5 |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Template:User en-1.5Pointless creation by a vandal, I believe we already this template just without the "meh" at the end. Hard to pick which CSD applies so chose this route. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
|
April 27, 2021
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiCV |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Move. Bluerasberry will move this to an unknown place of their choosing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiCVMoribund student/intern project from early January 2018 that never went anywhere past the initial idea (afaik). Nthep (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario (2nd nomination) |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario (2nd nomination)
Clearly vandalism, lots of spam, and unclear outcome. Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
|