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 | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 74 | 3 | 77 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 8 | 3 | 11 |
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.
June 9, 2021
June 8, 2021
Draft:Garena Free Fire Config File
- Draft:Garena Free Fire Config File (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE as it shows the overview and the guide for using config(uration) files in a mobile game. Lunar EclipseBlood Moon 08:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Smells like CSD to me, so delete Casspedia (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep needed to be declined, was declined and should now be ignored. I'm not sure it's intended to be a guide, I'm not even sure what it's intended to be at all, however WP:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. It will never be an article, but the author hasn't repeatedly resubmitted it without improvement nor is it borderline speediable and unless the creator is a sock I have no idea what csd you're refferring to Casspedia hence there is no reason to nominate it here see WP:NMFD. This is junk but nearly everything in draftspace is junk, because it's noindexed no one will ever stumble across the junk, and it's automatically cleaned by g13 after 6 months so the junk can be trashed without needing to waste time in mfds. We've been here before Ahthga Yram and this looks like more WP:RAGPICKING sorry if that's overly blunt but garbage like this is best ignored. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- By CSD, I was referencing WP:CSD. I feel that this article is too "unambiguously promotional" for Wikipedia, that's why. Casspedia (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Casspedia: Doesn't look like a WP:G11 to me, which only
applies to pages that are exclusively promotional
, and remember the csd are to be narrowly construed. Don't get me wrong it's a bit spammy, but not IMO enough to qualify for a g11. Anyway links are nofolllowed by default and hence do nothing for seo, and the noindexed means that no one ever sees promotional drafts anyway, unless of course someone nominates one for mfd. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Casspedia: Doesn't look like a WP:G11 to me, which only
- By CSD, I was referencing WP:CSD. I feel that this article is too "unambiguously promotional" for Wikipedia, that's why. Casspedia (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete per WP:NOT, with a trout to the nominator for not simply leaving a perfectly harmless draft be. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
June 7, 2021
User:LavaDimNylons/Jim Samuel
- User:LavaDimNylons/Jim Samuel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This page is a partial recreation of an old hoax article. Userspace shouldn't be used to recreate hoaxes. HoaxMiner (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Despite having a category, WIkipedia humor, it should be deleted as it is clearly a hoax. Lunar EclipseBlood Moon 03:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
June 5, 2021
Draft:KWDC-LP
- Draft:KWDC-LP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Article is now in mainspace and the AfD of mainspace version has ended with a "Keep". This DRAFT version is no longer necessary. Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC) 17:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: As nominator, I would no qualms with this as a redirect as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, as per the reasons Neutralhomer has given. Draft is no longer necessary. --DrChuck68 (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: This was created as a content fork of the article when at AfD. Was never necessary, was not even legit. Do not do this, it creates an attribution-failing version. If you think an AfD-ed article should be draftified, !vote that opinion in the AfD, or request a draftification afterwards, but do not copy-paste. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Vaticidalprophet 23:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect from draft space to the article. No need to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect per RMcC. Keeps the history in case it holds anything of use for future editors of the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- “Keep the history” is the opposite of WP:UP#COPIES, the logic of which applies equally to copy-pastes anywhere. Page forking is recommended against, and if done should only be short term and then deleted, as it’s ongoing existence creates an attribution compliance hazard. There should be a rule: do not fork to draft when nominated at AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per csd g7. Yes usually we redirect this stuff to save time, but... This page has two authors, both of whom have !voted for deletion, and where there is no cause to doubt good-faith. Joint g7s have always been allowed so Neutralhomer and DrChuck68 you could do everyone a favour by just doing a joint tag so this can be closed early, also in the future please wait until after deletion and then request a WP:REFUND to user or draftspace, yes we can always fix attribution issues later if we have too but it's added work and complex history merges can be a real pain, so it's preferred to just avoid splitting history to begin with you can continue to edit an article while it's at afd. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- For the record, I am not the author. As the nominator, I can not close this early, it would be HIGHLY against the rules. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Neutralhomer No you are one of two authors, or a major contributor if you prefer that formulation, hence both you and DrChuck68 would need to sign off on the g7. After the article is deleted this discussion can be closed early, as a housekeeping close I think we could then just follow WP:NOTBURO because the usual reasons for avoiding involved closes no longer apply, but honestly those are so easily dealt with anyway that someone will close quite promptly after deletion without any of us doing anything. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Doesn't need to happen. This will run it's course in due course...of course. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Neutralhomer No but it saves time, and we would rather in cases like this that people just g7 things to avoid wasting time in the future. Anyway in the future just bear in mind that it's best to g7 in situations like this. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
User:OliWhite
- User:OliWhite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Bad copy-paste of, I'm guessing, an older (deleted) version of Oli White which was repeatedly deleted in 2015. This user page was created in 2016, Oli White was recreated in 2020. There are also WP:REALNAME and WP:COI issues with the associated user. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Do not delete. This userpage is much older and is larger than the first version of Oli White. There is a possible attribution failure, and deletion would hide that failure. Possibly history merge, possibly move to a subpage and redirect, but do not delete. Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oli White and the page logs. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
June 4, 2021
IphisOfCrete's multiple sandboxes
- User:IphisOfCrete/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:MyNameIsMars/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:MusickMann/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Mikkelangel/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:LikeABaller/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:GymBroWhales/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Auberginandjuice/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Asenseofdirection/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
All of these sandboxes were created by IphisofCrete who abused multiple accounts and all of his accounts have since blocked infidelity for sockpuppetry since May 1 of 2020. This user and his alternate accounts have come under concerns of paid editing. Subject matter includes companies like Chvker Jewelry, Mountainside Fitness, and Qwerkz. A quick search on Google would show there are not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. The first sandbox listed is of a band called Halflives which already exists as an article since August 2019 and the sandbox has existed since December of the same year. Clearly, there is no encyclopedic value to these sandboxes and they are not going to reworked or cleaned up since the user and all of his accounts are blocked for good. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I still say WP:G5 should apply to pages created by illegitimate sock puppets, regardless of when the sock master was caught. Now that I look for it, do we really not have an element of the deletion policy which covers drafts by undisclosed paid editors when those drafts aren't themselves overtly promotional? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I nominated them for G5, but it was reverted because they weren't created while the user was trying to evade his ban. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep all, unless a request for deletion comes from an SPI clerk or better qualified. If there is no other reason to delete, which there appears not to be, then pages are not deleted because the user was subsequently blocked. Note discussions in the archives of WT:Deletion policy, a page being the product of undeclared paid editing is not a reason for deletion. These nominations therefore amount to some kind of shadow SPI clerking and gravedancing. Any editor may pick up on these drafts and continue. The user may achieve unblocking. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe, that's not going to happen. All the accounts were blocked on the same day. I don't see where you would get the idea of a shadow SPI clerking. I've nominated them for speedy delete, that didn't work. I don't want to have to keep nominating them when a simple deletion would work for everyone. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- You have presented no valid reasons for deletion, and G5 does not apply. SmokeyJoe (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have presented valid reasons. There is a sandbox where a page on the same topic already exists. All the other pages are of non-noteworthy subjects. I know G5 doesn't apply. If speedy delete should apply then what category, G8? G11? I'd say a few of them fall under G11 because of promotion.--WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Every reason you gave is not valid for deletion for a user sandbox. Using MfD to clean others’ userspace is not productive. If there are reasons for deletion relating to the reasons for blocking, that requires input from an SPI clerk. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's the very thing I have been saying regarding the one user and his abuse of multiple accounts. Sockpuppetry is the reason all these accounts are blocked indefinitely. While they were not created while the user was evading his ban for sockpuppetry, hence why my G5 tags were removed according to the admin who removed them. Four of the accounts on their respective talk pages have notices about his conflict of interest and/or the impression of having a close paid investment in many of the now-deleted articles he initially created. If a user has been banned for doing this, which he did many times, then this does qualify for deletion. Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotional purposes. I'm not trying to use MfD to clean another userspace. I'm doing this MfD to uphold the standards of Wikipedia. Pages like these shouldn't be kept especially when this user has an extreme conflict of interest. These sandboxes violate the standards we are meant to follow. The user is not coming back and certainly won't appeal his permanent block. There is no reason to leave things as they are. We can go to an SPI clerk or maybe the admin who enforced the blocks. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- If you want to use sockpuppetry as a rationale, then it is crossed into SPI territory. It is not normal to scrub the prior contributions of a later blocked editor.
- If the issue is WP:COI or even WP:UPE, check the archives of WT:Deletion policy and see that there is opposition and no consensus for these things being deletion reasons, even in mainspace, let alone userspace. In short, if a speedy deletion criterion does not apply, eg not G5 or G11, then leave it alone.
- The negative to the community of editors policing others userspace is a bigger negative than leaving these things alone. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Also consider that deleting the contribution history of blocked sock violators makes it harder to detect their return. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's the very thing I have been saying regarding the one user and his abuse of multiple accounts. Sockpuppetry is the reason all these accounts are blocked indefinitely. While they were not created while the user was evading his ban for sockpuppetry, hence why my G5 tags were removed according to the admin who removed them. Four of the accounts on their respective talk pages have notices about his conflict of interest and/or the impression of having a close paid investment in many of the now-deleted articles he initially created. If a user has been banned for doing this, which he did many times, then this does qualify for deletion. Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotional purposes. I'm not trying to use MfD to clean another userspace. I'm doing this MfD to uphold the standards of Wikipedia. Pages like these shouldn't be kept especially when this user has an extreme conflict of interest. These sandboxes violate the standards we are meant to follow. The user is not coming back and certainly won't appeal his permanent block. There is no reason to leave things as they are. We can go to an SPI clerk or maybe the admin who enforced the blocks. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Every reason you gave is not valid for deletion for a user sandbox. Using MfD to clean others’ userspace is not productive. If there are reasons for deletion relating to the reasons for blocking, that requires input from an SPI clerk. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have presented valid reasons. There is a sandbox where a page on the same topic already exists. All the other pages are of non-noteworthy subjects. I know G5 doesn't apply. If speedy delete should apply then what category, G8? G11? I'd say a few of them fall under G11 because of promotion.--WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- You have presented no valid reasons for deletion, and G5 does not apply. SmokeyJoe (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe, that's not going to happen. All the accounts were blocked on the same day. I don't see where you would get the idea of a shadow SPI clerking. I've nominated them for speedy delete, that didn't work. I don't want to have to keep nominating them when a simple deletion would work for everyone. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Marinaabsolutewiki/sandbox
- User:Marinaabsolutewiki/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
An eight-year-old company listing, the ONLY edit by this editor. Calton | Talk 05:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Close enough to G11, and left over from user who never did anything else. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- This sort of stuff can usually just be blanked. In this case, however, it looks like a copyvio so best speedied. Lots of press release hits for exact language here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- blank: No reason to delete, but as unsourced, it is useless for someone to work from. These things are fixed by blanking, mfd need not be used. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete not quite a G12, but pretty close. I removed some copyright-violating material, and at this point there's very little worth keeping. Normally I'd entirely agree that these sort of things aren't doing any harm, but here it's probably worth just binning it. firefly ( t · c ) 16:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per G11. Looks like the user promotes their company in his/her sandbox. Also, the user name have the "Absolute" name on it, while their company that they promote is Absolute Software. It's not just a mere delete, the username must be reported too for promoting a company. Lunar EclipseBlood Moon 08:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: it could have been blanked with the copyvio RD1'd, but I don't see the advantage to an empty sandbox page for a throwaway account that made 0 other edits. — Bilorv (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Dskaushik/Cashnetusa
- User:Dskaushik/Cashnetusa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Quasi-advert, created eleven years ago, the last edit of an editor with 26 edits total. Wikipedia is not a company-directory information storage locker. Calton | Talk 05:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Spam. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- G11 - if something in userspace is promotional enough to be deleted, it can typically be done through CSD. This spam (plus pro-payday loan dreck) would surely qualify. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Plausibly, though unlikely, notable. Sourced. This is good enough to keep indefinitely in userspace. G11 would not be valid. Editorially blanking could be considered, but I would not even blank it. It is _NO INDEX_ed, it will only be found by a Wikipedia. Looking for it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
User:LordOfApples/sandbox
- User:LordOfApples/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Appears to be either a WP:FAKEARTICLE or some sort of election roleplay about a fictional country Doggerland, which is against WP:UP#GAMES. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 04:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete for various reasons, including as BLP violations. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - Also Wikipedia is not for alternate history, especially not with real people. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - user has no other edits outside of this project. It's weird how many of these we get. I asked in a previous MfD where they come from, and apparently there's a forum that suggests people can do their fantasy elections on Wikipedia. sigh. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Rhododendrites, after seeing your comment, I found a whole bunch of fake election sandboxes. Should I just CSD them as U5? Or should I bundle them all up and bring it here to MfD? Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 15:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm usually on the permissive side when it comes to userspace. If someone is actually trying to learn to contribute to Wikipedia, I don't have a problem if fake elections are how they learn to do so (learning infoboxes, tables, etc.). But if there's no indication the person has any intention of being a real contributor, I'd say they're a rare good application of NOTWEBHOST. If you've determined they're not otherwise here to build an encyclopedia, I don't think there's a problem with bundling them. IMO. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- ...But also, especially if they haven't edited recently, you can skip MfD and just blank the page with {{userpage blanked}}. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- User:Bait30, if you need to ask, then don’t do it. Read WP:U5 very carefully, and if you are sure it applies, tag it CSD#U5. Use twinkle and keep a CSD log to check your history for mistakes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Rhododendrites, after seeing your comment, I found a whole bunch of fake election sandboxes. Should I just CSD them as U5? Or should I bundle them all up and bring it here to MfD? Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 15:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Alternative history content is NOTWEBHOSTING, and misleading and dangerous to have anywhere in Wikipedia. CSD#U5 and even CSD#G3 could have been used. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Meets U5. JavaHurricane 07:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Walkyo/sandbox
- User:Walkyo/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Appears to be either a WP:FAKEARTICLE or some sort of election roleplay about a fictional country Doggerland, which is against WP:UP#GAMES. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 04:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia is not for alternate history. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Could possibly be speedied under U5. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:MADEUPINONEDAY. Hog Farm Talk 19:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
June 3, 2021
User talk:Aravindreddydorla
- User talk:Aravindreddydorla ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Abandoned talk-space WP:FAKEARTICLE of a user whose only edit ever was creating this page. Probably redundant to Dubbaka, with out of date information; Telangana was split from Andhra Pradesh in 2014. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- You can just blank this sort of thing rather than take it here. User talk is basically almost never deleted anyway. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - A fake article on a talk page can be hatted or blanked rather than deleting a user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Blank but keep, deletion is not necessary, but this appears to be copied from previously-problematic content, based on the number of cleanup templates included. Hog Farm Talk 19:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
June 2, 2021
User:Davidfradin/David fradin
- User:Davidfradin/David fradin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Old self-promotion from 2009. Hog Farm Talk 22:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- why do you wnat to delete a biography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidfradin (talk • contribs) 23:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. (edit conflict with above comment by user) This fellow seems to be here for some other reason than creating the world's finest online encyclopedia, but that's for a different board. Anything this extensive and self promoting fails WP:NOTHERE and WP:USERBIO. BusterD (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - The author's question is sort of self-answering. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - reasons are self-apparent IMO. — Ched (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep: The user has a couple of edits that appear very good. This is an extreme case for qualifying as a contributor and being allowed to give a self description. Tag the page as a Userpage, and as the user’s autobiography. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. I can't agree with that assessment; if my reading is correct, both of the editor's pagepace edits (just two in 12 years) include references to the editor himself. 1) "...development was continued under the Apple /// Independent Business Unit which was formed in August, 1983 under the leadership of David Fradin...."; 2). "...David Fradin's team successfully transfered 500 developers to Guy Kawasaki, who at the time was the Macintosh evangelist..." No, SmokeyJoe, in twelve years of possessing an active account, (except for his objection to this process and adding the word "personal" to the page up for deletion), Mr. Fradin has never edited Wikipedia without mentioning himself. Not once. I believe we call that sort of activity "self promotion"; it's not why most of us are here. BusterD (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks User:BusterD for your assessment of his contributions, which I had not done. Agree that self-promotion contributions alone do not justify an autobiographical userpage. Delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Additional comment pointed towards David Fradin. @Davidfradin: It is a tragic thing that Mr. Fradin, a person who has had an outsized influence on the early development of HP and Apple products, has NOT yet chosen to edit Wikipedia in the fields in which he is clearly knowledgeable (without self promotion). As I was mentioning to another connected editor today, specialized knowledge is badly needed these days on Wikipedia, especially from those who likely know the sources better than anybody. For example, if I could talk to (not dead) E. Gary Gygax today, I would be most interested (from my wikipedian vantage point) about what he thought (individually) of the many personal narratives which are now being published on the subject of early development of the role-playing game. As a living writer he would be an excellent source of critique on how people have viewed that era of history. Here is Mr. Fradin, swollen with actual first-hand inside knowledge, and (aside from writing several books, teaching tens of thousands of students, creating FASST, and starting a vastly successful and important UMICH flying club) I don't see him helping us find writing of his first-hand narrative or pointing us towards multiple interviews in which his personal experience and judgement can influence the way history is written (in the pedia). I don't say these things to belittle anyone. I say these things because as human beings we can only value someone's experience if they share their experience with others, as I'm sure Mr. Fradin does every day in class. Before he doesn't have that opportunity anymore, like the late Mr. Gygax. I urge potentially invaluable wikipedian User:Davidfradin to consider helping us evaluate sources on material he knows like the back of his hand. I know the man is busy. I'd argue we need his knowledge as a contributor if we're going to tell the story correctly. BusterD (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Old business
June 1, 2021
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tol/Template/Gender |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC) User:Tol/Template/Gender
Blatantly unnecessary and discriminatory towards non-binary people. Duplicates {{Gender}}. See also TfD Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_15#Template:He_or_she. Casspedia (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
|
May 31, 2021
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Zennic 2 |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Draft:Zennic 2
Zennic Multiple copies of pages on this non-notable musician have been created in order to game the system. One copy is in article space and has been nominated for AFD for notability reasons and other reasons. These two copies are in draft space, and are being nominated for deletion because the creation of multiple copies is disruptive and tendentious. Prior creations in article space were speedily deleted as A7 and G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Black Widow Movie Release Date in Pakistan |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Draft:Black Widow Movie Release Date in Pakistan
Recently created draft on a topic of one film's release situation in Pakistan with poor sourcing and formatting. Highly not useful for our editors as a draft or for any other article. Best to be deleted. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
|