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: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, 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 |
|
Duplications in draftspace? |
|
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 | 47 | 102 | 23 | 172 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 33 | 29 | 62 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 41 | 41 |
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 10, 2022
Draft:I aM wEiRd RiGhT
- Draft:I aM wEiRd RiGhT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Has no sources, and sounds opinionated, which Wikipedia is not for I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 23:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not worth taking this to MfD, G13 takes care of this stuff eventually. SK2242 (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Content seems to be the reader is weird, therefore weak delete as per G10. Otherwise, let it rot for 6 months. Traveler • chat 01:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Draft:English Folklore by Region
- Draft:English Folklore by Region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This appears to be an extract from English folklore, perhaps intended as a place to develop the section further, but it has not been edited since February (except by me starting to add a lede). There are no stated intentions for the proposed article, in particular no criteria for deciding which articles to include in the article or what to say about them. By starting with a set of unexplained lists, it is not possible for other editors to make rational contributions. At this stage of development, it belongs in a sandbox, not the draft namespace. Northernhenge (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Does no harm. The issues identified by the nominator can be discussed somewhere, or the draft can be left alone.
Draft:Kallitechnis
- Draft:Kallitechnis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Highly advertorialized and poorly sourced draft, which would have been speediable G13 this week but for a purely technical bot edit in February. While the subject has actually attained a pass of WP:NMUSIC #8 (nomination for a top-level music award) since that time, this draft as written is such a promotionally-written and badly sourced crapfest that I had to create a new stub from scratch rather than using any part of this version -- but we don't want to encourage anybody copy-pasting any of this PR bumf into the mainspace stub, so there's no value in either letting the draft ride out another three months or retaining it as a redirect with all of the advertorialism still accessible in the edit history. We can recreate a redirect to mainspace from the redlink if desired, but the edit history here should be deleted first regardless. Bearcat (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Delete as per nominator, since we are here. (But it wouldn't have been G13 until next month anyway.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Template:Oppose NATO invasion Libya
- Template:Oppose NATO invasion Libya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Obviously fails WP:UBCR, more specifically – "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind (commercial, political, religious, or otherwise)" and "Opinion pieces, particularly on current affairs or politics". The userbox expresses support for a leader known for the 40+ years of authoritarian rule, with almost non-existent concept of human rights under his regime. Additionally, the userbox is very obscure and not widely used, and it was created by an editor blocked for genocide denialism. In the end, it is overtly divisive and inflammatory. —Sundostund (talk) 05:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm baffled. I don't see at all anything in the userbox that indicates it expresses support for an authoritarian leader. All I see in the userbox is that it opposes an invasion of a country. That seems pretty straightforward, and being anti-war is not an altogether unreasonable stance for a Wikipedian to take. I suppose one could !vote to delete on account of it being created by a blocked user, but that's a separate matter. --WaltCip-(talk) 12:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- The userbox expresses support for Muammar Gaddafi in an indirect way, by opposing the 2011 military intervention in Libya, which put an end to Gaddafi's rule over the country. There is no mention of Gaddafi's name in the userbox, but IMHO its overall message and intention is very clear. —Sundostund (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- That reasoning doesn't follow. A Russian citizen could be opposed to the rule of Tsar Nicholas without also being a Stalinist. WaltCip-(talk) 14:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- The userbox expresses support for Muammar Gaddafi in an indirect way, by opposing the 2011 military intervention in Libya, which put an end to Gaddafi's rule over the country. There is no mention of Gaddafi's name in the userbox, but IMHO its overall message and intention is very clear. —Sundostund (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - agree with WaltCip, the nom is claiming the userbox says something it doesn't. Also agree it could easily be viewed as an anti-war statement. - wolf 16:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The nomination is biased in itself. Would an anti-Iraq War userbox also be deleted by this logic, as Saddam Hussein was authoritarian too? It certainly is not an extremist viewpoint. SK2242 (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
May 9, 2022
Wikipedia:Multiple sources
- Wikipedia:Multiple sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This essay is out-of-line with what the general consensus is of this term meaning (see this discussion (permalink)), so this essay should either be deleted or moved (so an essay explaining the current background and consensus in a neutral manner could be written here), or rewritten to the same effect. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Speedy keep. This essay is intermeshed with policy. Take issues to its talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe:
Intermeshed with policy
? For the start, WP:N is a guideline, not policy at all. Secondly, there was recently a discussion establishing consensus that this essay is not an accurate reflection of the general consensus on this topic, so keeping it at its current title allows it to mislead people. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)- Maybe you should withdraw and go for WP:RM for a rename. If a rename would solve the problem, then deletion is off the table. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Did you read my nomination statement? I am not only seeking deletion here, and keep/delete are not the only possible outcomes from MfD. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I did. There is no valid deletion rationale. Speedy keep #1.
- On renaming, oppose procedurally, as no new name is proposed.
- If it were a single author disputed essay, I would support userfication.
- I recommend taking issues to Wikipedia talk:Multiple sources.
- Wikipedia talk:Notability#pointless essay linked to by its creator is clear consensus to not link from WP:N, which I guess was the driving issue. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Did you read my nomination statement? I am not only seeking deletion here, and keep/delete are not the only possible outcomes from MfD. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- There is a small p policy dispute involving this essay, so MfD is inappropriate. Mfd must not be used as a tactic in policy disputes. WP:N is not just any mere guideline, it is pseudo policy due to being referenced as a deletion reason at WP:Deletion policy, WP:DEL#REASON #8. This makes listing this essay at WP:N very serious, and that must be resolved at WT:N, not MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe you should withdraw and go for WP:RM for a rename. If a rename would solve the problem, then deletion is off the table. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe:
- Keep - While not especially helpful, I'm also not seeing anything especially problematic about it. That's not far from average for an essay. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 10:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - the nominator admitted that they are not necessarily interested in the deletion of the page. If they want to improve the essay, they are welcome to do so. --Banana Republic (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Satisfactory as it is, and can be improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the nomination that this essay does not reflect overall consensus how to interpret WP:N. Daranios (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Mohammeduzzalmiah
- Draft:Mohammeduzzalmiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
After 4 declines and 2 rejections, the creator still refuses to listen and keeps submitting this draft on a non-notable person to AfC (removing previous declines and comments while doing so, too). A block of 43.245.120.27, which was submitting it before, has only led to the same person coming back on another IP, 116.58.203.42. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom, and due to the poor reliability of references. Even if notable, WP:TNT would apply. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- After digging a bit, this is quite possibly G5 eligible as a sock of Mohammed Uzzal Miah (and Alex5728Aj, Johnghhhh, etc.) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - Needed rejecting, and was rejected. As long as we are here, get rid of it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:113.211.150.217/Sample page |
---|
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. CSD G3. Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC) User talk:113.211.150.217/Sample page
Nonsense page created by a disruptive user who has been blocked elsewhere before (see also Talk:Muhammad Alif Adha Bin Samad). CMD (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
|
May 8, 2022
User:Ninjalemming/userbox/invisible
- User:Ninjalemming/userbox/invisible (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
I think this userbox is probably meant to be funny, but the part where it implies that the user will commit murder if they are ignored is concerning. gobonobo + c 05:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that this userbox is concerning, but it could be edited to remove the part that is concerning. It could just say "This user feels he has been made invisible and no one cares or knows of what this user feels, knows or exists for." --Bduke (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- How did you come to find it? SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Why is how they found it relevant? It's easy to find, e.g. it's in various user box galleries Wikipedia:Userboxes/Emoticons. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- It’s ten years old, it’s got no pageviews, it could have been quietly blanked. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Templates and transcluded pages don't register page views when viewed as part of another page. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- And I don't think quietly blanking it is a good solution either, since it is in use on about a dozen people's userpages. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- As it is used on others’ userpages, these others should be invited to this discussion.
- The userbox message is weird. It seems to allude to a deeper meaning, and seems to maybe be just stupid. Could it allude to something in popular culture? It’s creator was into movies and games. If it is just stupid, why did other users copy it? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- It’s ten years old, it’s got no pageviews, it could have been quietly blanked. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Why is how they found it relevant? It's easy to find, e.g. it's in various user box galleries Wikipedia:Userboxes/Emoticons. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, I remember coming across this and thinking it was extremely weird and, frankly, disruptive. I don't think it has any contemporary use on Wikipedia, as clearly even if is some pop culture reference, there aren't a lot of people who remember haha. Amadeus22 🙋 🔔 02:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
May 5, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nathan Victory |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Speedy Delete. G11'd by Deb. (non-admin closure) casualdejekyll 15:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Draft:Nathan Victory
Advertising —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
|
Draft:REDISTRIBUTING INCOME TO THE POOR Towards Sustaining Development
- Draft:REDISTRIBUTING INCOME TO THE POOR Towards Sustaining Development (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Entirely original research, the author admits it right at the top. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 08:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST SN54129 09:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a web host. Author has made no other edits, so that this would be U5 in user space; in draft space, MFD was required. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Tangy From Animal Crossing
- Draft:Tangy From Animal Crossing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Created by user:Tangyisepic, seemed COI and not enough notability. PAVLOV (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete since it's been brought here, but this kind of stuff is much better left for WP:G13. These kind of pages are dime a dozen in draft space and a week of discussion here is more effort than this page is worth. I don't think the allegations of WP:COI hold but the subject of this page has no hint of notability and hence no chance of making it to article space. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Needs declining or rejecting if submitted. Hasn't been submitted. Not worth the effort of arguing about. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NDRAFT. COI is a reason to use draftspace, not to delete from it. MfD is not for evaluating notability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- You say that, but AFC reviewers bring hopeless drafts here all the time to ask that they be deleted after repeated resubmission, which does involve evaluating whether it has any realistic prospect of becoming an article (i.e. notability). 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- There was an RfC specifically allowing the bringing to MfD drafts that have been repeatedly, tendentiously resubmitted. Has this one been tendentiously resubmitted?
- When a draft is nominated for tendentious resubmission, then we evaluate notability, and if it looks notable, I for one won’t agree to deletion.
- Outside of tendentious resubmission, an MfD nomination of a draft should cite a deletion reason, and this nomination does not. I therefore consider it time wasting, and not to be rewarded. Reasons for deletion can be found at WP:DEL#Reason (but note that much of that is written for mainspace) and WP:NOT. Outside of that, other nominations seem to only attract worthless harmless junk, and using mfd to discuss worthless harmless junk is a net negative of editor resources. If there is really something wrong with the draft, it should be rejected. Rejection is part of the AfC process, and MfD is not part of the AfC process. AfC reviewers who don’t know this should learn. Reject first. Reject means it is Rejected from AfC, and no longer an AfC responsibility. If there is further problem after the Reject, then come to MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- If your main objection is wasting editor time then how does your comment make sense. This shouldn't have been brought here in the first place (and I said as much in my original !vote) but it is here now and a week long discussion is going to occur regardless. How does it make sense to keep this, not because it is a valid draft that has a chance of becoming an article but purely to spite the nominator, so that other editors can then waste time editing it in draftspace, it can go through AFC and have a reviewer waste time rejecting it, all so it can then rot for 6 months then eventually end up deleted under a different process? How is that a good use of editor time and not just pointless bureaucracy? Random character 147 from animal crossing is not a notable topic and this has zero chance of ever becoming an article, any time at all spent on this draft after this discussion is a waste. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I sometimes !vote “Delete now that we’re here” on hopeless harmless pages that shouldn’t come to mfd, but this one is so completely harmless that it is the textbook candidate for something best left to G13. Consider it feedback for User:PAVLOV. Some draftspace new page patrollers, eg User:DGG, have noted the desire to clear the junk to prevent time wastage if other NPP reviewers re-review it, but MfD is not a net positive solution. I’ve suggested blanking. NPP could find a way to record a first review. The dangers of bad quick deletions amongst the huge amount of harmless worthless draftpages exceeds the benefits of fast clearing them. Leave them for G13. Hosting harmless worthless stuff for six months is the very purpose of draftspace, and this nomination is contrary to that purpose. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- If your main objection is wasting editor time then how does your comment make sense. This shouldn't have been brought here in the first place (and I said as much in my original !vote) but it is here now and a week long discussion is going to occur regardless. How does it make sense to keep this, not because it is a valid draft that has a chance of becoming an article but purely to spite the nominator, so that other editors can then waste time editing it in draftspace, it can go through AFC and have a reviewer waste time rejecting it, all so it can then rot for 6 months then eventually end up deleted under a different process? How is that a good use of editor time and not just pointless bureaucracy? Random character 147 from animal crossing is not a notable topic and this has zero chance of ever becoming an article, any time at all spent on this draft after this discussion is a waste. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- You say that, but AFC reviewers bring hopeless drafts here all the time to ask that they be deleted after repeated resubmission, which does involve evaluating whether it has any realistic prospect of becoming an article (i.e. notability). 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Best of BJAODN
- Wikipedia:Best of BJAODN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- Wikipedia:More Best of BJAODN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Still more Best of BJAODN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Yet more Best of BJAODN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Even more Best of BJAODN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Alas, it is time, after many years. I believe that this is the 8th nomination for this page/set of pages, although the topic hasn't been discussed since 2007 or 08. This is a historical relic, which has since been moved off-wiki. I'd just leave well enough alone, but it appears that there are recent edits on many of these pages, causing a unique potential for abuse and administrative burden in a mostly-forgotten corner of the site that few are monitoring. As a project, we've moved on from this. Time to clean these up. agtx 02:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. These pages are marked as historical for the enjoyment of editors. Just treat vandalism as much as you would any other Wikipedia page, if worst comes to worst then these can always be indef page protected. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I am confused on what you mean by "recent edits"? Aside from Wikipedia:Still more Best of BJAODN all of the rest have no signs of ongoing vandalism issues as they haven't been touched in nearly a year. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes this is what I'm talking about. A steady stream of edits over the years. I note that the "still more" page also isn't marked historical, and that WP:SILLY suggests that it might still get added to on "rare occasions." The potential for abuse here far outweighs any "enjoyment of editors" that might be gained from these pages, especially since they've been transwikied. I am fine with the indef page protection solution if there's really consensus to keep this, but it doesn't make sense. agtx 16:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Again, I don't see a 5 alarm emergency here as there is a "potential" for abuse on just about every Wikipedia page. Should we start by deleting all of the joke pages because of this risk? Maybe then we can go onto essays? Im sorry but this is a slippery slope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Who said it was a 5 alarm emergency? It isn't. The reality is, these pages are particularly problematic. Even now it includes, for example, homophobic "jokes". religious jokes in poor taste, blp problems, upon blp problems, and racist jokes about people's names. We don't need this. agtx 22:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Again, I don't see a 5 alarm emergency here as there is a "potential" for abuse on just about every Wikipedia page. Should we start by deleting all of the joke pages because of this risk? Maybe then we can go onto essays? Im sorry but this is a slippery slope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes this is what I'm talking about. A steady stream of edits over the years. I note that the "still more" page also isn't marked historical, and that WP:SILLY suggests that it might still get added to on "rare occasions." The potential for abuse here far outweighs any "enjoyment of editors" that might be gained from these pages, especially since they've been transwikied. I am fine with the indef page protection solution if there's really consensus to keep this, but it doesn't make sense. agtx 16:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The Historical tag is enough to show that we don't do this sort of thing anymore. casualdejekyll 13:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and keep marked historical. No reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: But what's the reason to keep? What benefit are these pages to Wikipedia? Also Wikipedia:Still more Best of BJAODN is not marked historical (yet). It probably should be, but again, doesn't solve the problem. agtx 19:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: It has the historical tag on it. And also, it has a lot of links to it, so removing the pages would create a bunch of redlinks on talk archives. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 01:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have any opinion on keeping vs deletion yet (we stopped making these for good reason, because it was putting vandalism up on a pedestal and encouraging people to do more of it, and there is a fair amount of content in there that should be deleted on WP:BLP grounds) but if these are being kept as historical archives they should be protected (I would suggest ec level) to stop people continuing to add more to them. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and full protect. We're not in the business of erasing historical content, the same reason why we don't outright delete WP:ESPERANZA.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
May 2, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File:Jon gtr 2.jpg |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Wrong venue Moved to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 May 4#File:Jon gtr 2.jpg * Pppery * it has begun... 17:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC) File:Jon gtr 2.jpg
Unused photo of a nonnotable personn. Free license unverified Loew Galitz (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lihaas/IMU-Islam |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 11:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC) User:Lihaas/IMU-Islam
Extremely obscure WP:SOAPBOX template promoting a terrorist organization, which obviously violates WP:UBCR; only use is creator who is blocked anyway. Dronebogus (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
|
May 1, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PlanespotterA320/Userboxes/Supports Assad |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 11:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC) User:PlanespotterA320/Userboxes/Supports Assad
Fails WP:UBCR. Expresses support for a leader known for his authoritarian behavior and poor human rights record, created by a user blocked for genocide denialism, mainly used by inactive users. Unnecessarily inflammatory and unlikely to find use by the general userbase. Dronebogus (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
|
Template:User Bashar
- Template:User Bashar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Expresses support for a leader known for his authoritarian behavior and poor human rights record, and used by primarily a handful of inactive and/or possibly WP:NOTHERE users. Unnecessarily inflammatory and unlikely to find use by the general userbase. Dronebogus (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Beside the obscurity issue, there is no reason for the project to have an userbox like this, which expresses support for a leader who almost certainly committed genocide against his own people, in a decade-long civil war, and basically function as a Russian-controlled puppet for years now. —Sundostund (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment→Keep my opinion on this is obviously the same as with the other Assad userbox you concurrently nominated. You've demonstrated nothing disruptive resulting from it's use and listed no policies or guidelines to support this MfD. Assad is the current President of Syria. Are you saying that people who support him can't be a part of the WP community? And why nomintate this userbox and not all userboxes for all politicians? Also, بحرآني does not appear to be an "inactive
" or "wp:nothere
" user, so that's just a strawman argument. - wolf 16:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)The only legitimate point you’ve made is that [user:text I cannot read] is not inactive or not here to build an encyclopedia.the user you cite hasn’t edited since 2012, ergo inactive. The rest is just ignoring WP:UBCR, bringing up unrelated facts (if “Assad is the current president of Syria” then you must acquit?) and making unrelated slippery slope arguments. Dronebogus (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Lolz... so if someone takes a little time off they're no longer entitled to the same privileges and protections as any other editor whose account is still in good standing? That doesn't seem like justification to delete their userspace content. That leaves UBCR and while you've now cited it, you still haven't clarified how it applies. As for the rest of it... that I will ignore, including your opening remarks. (Striking them doesn't make them less rude.) - wolf 03:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- So “lolz” is somehow polite? And by WP:UBCR I mean “substantially divisive”. Dronebogus (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Is it somehow impolite, because I certainly didn't mean to hurt your feelings. Also, many politicians can be considered "substantially divisive", so is this the beginning of some kind of mass-deletion drive? Actually, nevermind... let's just go with 'agree to disagree'. - wolf 04:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Just for the record – not making a single edit since 2012 (for exactly ten years) can't be interpreted as "taking a little time off", but as the withdrawal from the project. Undoubtedly, that is the right of every editor. At the same time, the return to the project at any time is undoubtedly a right as well, so – nobody is preventing the creator of this userbox to leave their remarks here, but themselves and their decisions. It is very unfair to blame the nominator about the willing inactivity of the creator, and to use that inactivity as any kind of argument. The nominator certainly can't be held responsible for these things, nor the userbox start to magically appear as acceptable and not inflammatory because the creator didn't make a single edit for a decade now. —Sundostund (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Whoa... slow down there a sec. Just to be clear about the sequence of events, the nominator brought up the inactivity of the user first, and repeatedly. I did not (unfairly)
blame the nominator about the willing inactivity of the creator
" (not sure how you got that). When I mentioned it, that was to counter, as I don't believe the inactivity is a basis for deletion (whether whole or in part). I'm not sure it should even be a part of this MfD. - wolf 07:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)- Your countering is precisely what sounded to me as an attempt to excuse the creator of making an userbox like this, on the basis of inactivity, presenting them as some kind of victim, and blaming the nominator for even starting this MfD because of that. Nothing more. Once again, the creator is willingly absent since 2012 (without any kind of block), and they can return at any time to leave their remarks here, providing this MfD is still open at that time. —Sundostund (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Kinda feel like we're going in circles now, so... - wolf 10:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Your countering is precisely what sounded to me as an attempt to excuse the creator of making an userbox like this, on the basis of inactivity, presenting them as some kind of victim, and blaming the nominator for even starting this MfD because of that. Nothing more. Once again, the creator is willingly absent since 2012 (without any kind of block), and they can return at any time to leave their remarks here, providing this MfD is still open at that time. —Sundostund (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Whoa... slow down there a sec. Just to be clear about the sequence of events, the nominator brought up the inactivity of the user first, and repeatedly. I did not (unfairly)
- So “lolz” is somehow polite? And by WP:UBCR I mean “substantially divisive”. Dronebogus (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Lolz... so if someone takes a little time off they're no longer entitled to the same privileges and protections as any other editor whose account is still in good standing? That doesn't seem like justification to delete their userspace content. That leaves UBCR and while you've now cited it, you still haven't clarified how it applies. As for the rest of it... that I will ignore, including your opening remarks. (Striking them doesn't make them less rude.) - wolf 03:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep, as Assad is currently a living ruler of a country. If you lived in Syria then people have every right to support him there. Are we going to delete the userbox that says "This user supports Vladimir Putin" next? I can see there being an exception for North Korea because its largely isolated and their editors wouldn't be on Wikipedia anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn’t not support deleting Putin boxes at this point, he kind of crossed a line of basic international diplomacy with the whole unprovoked invasion thing… Dronebogus (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, but its still WP:BIAS, as just because an editor may support these people doesn't automatically make them evil or something. I think we should focus more on their behavior here towards editing and other editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn’t not support deleting Putin boxes at this point, he kind of crossed a line of basic international diplomacy with the whole unprovoked invasion thing… Dronebogus (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep It is unreasonable to think that every syrian hates their leader. We shouldn't bar people from showing support for their country's leader. There are also going to be some left wing people who don't like the US and like anyone who opposes the US, so assad would be part of that. The other userbox's wording of 'foreign jihadists' might be inflammatory and a WP:UBCR violation but this one just voices support for Assad. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per above rationales. I think we need a WP:OTHERPEOPLEEXIST to remind us to get out of our echo chambers.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep with the exception of Nazis and the like, please do not let political biases influence Wikipedia. SK2242 (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
April 30, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AnkuPrince7 |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 02:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC) User:AnkuPrince7
Extremely misleading userpage. This userpage appears to be a copy-paste of someone else's userpage without realising the very point of an userpage. The user claims to possess several advanced rights and permissions, that they were never granted at the first place. They claim that they created 3 articles, none of which appear to have any contributions from them. They also claim about being a participant of AFC among other WikiProjects, relating to which they never made a single edit. The user is now blocked for paid promotion. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
|
April 28, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Diaquotetraamminecobalt |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Speedy Delete, G1 and G3 by User:OverlordQ. Lenticel (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Draft:Diaquotetraamminecobalt
Not sure G1 or something that purely vandalism. PAVLOV (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Life in General/Userboxes/Zapatista |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC) User:Life in General/Userboxes/Zapatista
Blatantly supports terrorism, see "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive". Alextheconservative (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
|
April 27, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Neeraj Joshi |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC) Draft:Neeraj Joshi
An autobiography on the draftspace I rejected - up for deletion due to the personal nature of the article, probably safer to be gone than to wait the 6 months. Kadzi (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
|
April 25, 2022
User:HamzaChahiStudios/sandbox
- User:HamzaChahiStudios/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Promotional sandbox from promo/sock account of HamzaChahiPLtd; original G11 speedy request was declined Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reason I declined the speedy deletion request, and I'm less than impressed by this forum-shopping. The account in question was a username block not blocked for any disruption, and there's nothing remotely promotional about this page which is an utterly generic draft in a {{noindex}}-ed sandbox. We have no policy against writing about yourself, just against writing non-neutrally about yourself, and this is as neutral as it's possible to get. ‑ Iridescent 14:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Respectfully disagree with the assessment that this is forum shopping, Iridescent. I didn't agree with your decline of my G11 nom, so I decided to take the XFD route. Here is my reasoning:
- The account was blocked as WP:CORPNAME. Off-wiki evidence confirms this is a company, not a person.
- The sandbox content was clearly WP:PROMO about a company. Userspace pages are not exempt from this rule, therefore this page should be deleted outright on that basis alone.
- --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Respectfully disagree with the assessment that this is forum shopping, Iridescent. I didn't agree with your decline of my G11 nom, so I decided to take the XFD route. Here is my reasoning:
- It looks a bit short of G11 eligible. The studio looks non notable to my searches. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - It's a sandbox, and there is a small chance that it can be made into a real draft.
But the originator should be cautioned about promotion.Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Draft:It's Almost Dry (Album)
- Draft:It's Almost Dry (Album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Published article It's Almost Dry already exists, this draft is redundant. QuietHere (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy Redirect - I don't think that there is an easy way to let MFD filers of drafts know about Speedy Redirect, but it would be helpful if it were possible. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- User:Robert McClenon, see [2]. — SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- User:SmokeyJoe - Thank you. That is useful, but most (or at least many) MFD (and AFD) nominations are made via Twinkle, so that the user doesn't see the front matter. I don't think that there is an easy way to let MFD filers who use Twinkle know about Speedy Redirect. It would be helpful if it were possible. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- User:Robert McClenon, see [2]. — SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
April 24, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timmonaey/sandbox |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC) User:Timmonaey/sandbox
Abandoned WP:FAKEARTICLE sandbox from July 2017 that seems to be an unattributed copy-paste of the contemporary revision of BDSM. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pfareryy/sandbox |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 11:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC) User:Pfareryy/sandbox
Abandoned,essentially content-free userspace draft that duplicates the topic of 2017 Northern India riots. It was created by a user who has not edited since February 2018, and most of whose other contributions were creating hoaxes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tiger Nageswara Rao |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. Mainspace article is deleted now (non-admin closure) Ab207 (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Draft:Tiger Nageswara Rao
Topic currently has an article in mainspace that is more developed, draft is redundant BOVINEBOY2008 09:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
|
April 23, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ramin Namdar (composer) |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 11:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC) Draft:Ramin Namdar (composer)
This is a series of hoaxes by an xwiki vanity spammer, which has been deleted multiple times at AFD and elsewhere. Despite the rather bold claims, Namdar is not a notable composer, actor or producer and did not receive production credits when he was 8 (as claimed in the many articles in mainspace that the socks edited that have nothing to do with Namdar). It's time to put an end to this insanity and delete it entirely from WP. Also if anyone needs another reason not to trust IMDB, just take a look at this dumpster fire. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramin Namdar (composer), Ramin Namdar etc... PRAXIDICAE💕 15:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
|
April 22, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject New York Mets/doc |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 00:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject New York Mets/doc
Unused and unneeded doc page for the Mets project. Probably created in error. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
|
April 20, 2022
Draft:Air Purifier CADR Determination
- Draft:Air Purifier CADR Determination (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Wikipedia:NOTAGUIDE PAVLOV (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as spam, five of the eight references given are to the same cleanairdeliveryrate.com site, a low quality affiliate-link blog. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - It's a draft. We don't delete drafts because of crummy references, because the references can and should be improved before resubmission, or in this case submission. It does read like a guidebook, and it should be reworked to describe what reliable sources say about the subject before it is submitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Per WP:NOTHOWTO. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Move to Wikibooks How-to guides would be much better there. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
April 19, 2022
Draft:Snazzy the Optimist
- Draft:Snazzy the Optimist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Surely six declines is enough? Self publicist using Wikipedia as a web host 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Challenge the author to ignore AfC and
unilaterally mainspace it themself(no, they have a COI) Userfy, remove all AfC taggery reworded bold !vote SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC),
Mainspace the draft. Plausibly notable. Six declines shows AfC is not getting to a good solution. Allow nomination at AfD, but encourage the AfC reviewers to watch, not drive, the AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)- It shows that six different people all think this draft shouldn't be mainspaced. Mainspacing this and AfDing (or letting someone else do so) it is a foregone conclusion, and thus a waste of time, as is this draft's continued existence. Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 01:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- No it’s not. It is plausibly notable. Nigerian topics suffer systematic bias against inclusion on Wikipedia. AfC suffers bias to only accepting obvious “keep”s if AfD-ed. Six declines with not Rejects and no useful help from reviewers means that AfC has exhausted is usefulness to the draft’s proponent. The real decision can only be made at AfD. I disagree that it would be SNOW deleted at AfD, but am interested to see how it would play out. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- The AfD is not a waste of time, and is a better course of action than leaving the draft in the AfC system.
- Maybe the immediate action should be to Userfy, tell them they may mainspace it themself, but it does not have the support of AfC reviewers.
- I strongly Oppose deletion of this draft as it is plausibly notable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe Perhaps you would be kind enough to show how he passes WP:NMUSICIAN (or WP:BIO)? If you can do so I feel your argument would be totally acceptable. If not then I believe it fails. Please take your argument about systemic bias to a forum where it can be discussed. This not the correct venue. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- User:Timtrent, if I thought this passed an SNG I would promptly mainspace it, as I have done before from MfD. I don’t know for certain either way. The problem then is that MfD is the wrong forum for deciding notability.
- XfDs are the right forums for discussing systematic bias, you are certainly wrong about that.
- I think you completely misread my subtext. If the notability is ambiguous and AfC can’t decide, repeatedly declining never accepting or rejecting, and can’t give the author actionable advice that they can understand, then the draft needs to be kicked out of AfC. This is a conundrum. I’m suggesting that the author should be challenged with: We can’t help you, but it’s within your right to mainspace it yourself and see if it gets deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe Perhaps you would be kind enough to show how he passes WP:NMUSICIAN (or WP:BIO)? If you can do so I feel your argument would be totally acceptable. If not then I believe it fails. Please take your argument about systemic bias to a forum where it can be discussed. This not the correct venue. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- It shows that six different people all think this draft shouldn't be mainspaced. Mainspacing this and AfDing (or letting someone else do so) it is a foregone conclusion, and thus a waste of time, as is this draft's continued existence. Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 01:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- If reviewers thought the topic could not meet the SNGs then they should have Rejected, not Declined. It’s not clear whether KylieTastic (20:09, 15 March 2022) & Liance (20:29, 14 March 2022) were referring to the draft and listed references, or the topic and sources that exist. The first is encouragement to beef up the draft, and the second is a reject/delete rationale. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe mostly comments/reviews should be taken as based on the content submitted unless the comment says a deeper look has been done. However I do think I did a brief extra check due to the claim of a charted single. However with only one song released in Oct 2021 it could be just WP:TOOSOON. Also the source for reaching 35 in the iTunes chart i find dubious as the drill down graph only shows one logged position at 90, so maybe just a temporary/daily/hourly high?. However only having 21 subscribers on YouTube, 110 monthly listeners on Spotify and 1 follower on soundcloud they do not appear to be notable for there music. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Kyle. I agree with you. I think this is arguably GNG-meeting, but it is the only GNG source, which goes straight to TOOSOON. I think the author is pushing too hard, he needs a clear message, but deletion of the draft is too much. AfD deletion, citing TOOSOON, would be a suitable outcome. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe mostly comments/reviews should be taken as based on the content submitted unless the comment says a deeper look has been done. However I do think I did a brief extra check due to the claim of a charted single. However with only one song released in Oct 2021 it could be just WP:TOOSOON. Also the source for reaching 35 in the iTunes chart i find dubious as the drill down graph only shows one logged position at 90, so maybe just a temporary/daily/hourly high?. However only having 21 subscribers on YouTube, 110 monthly listeners on Spotify and 1 follower on soundcloud they do not appear to be notable for there music. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Delete Snazzy:
- Six declines is more than enough. Many AFC reviewers seldom reject a draft. The lack of a rejection does not mean that any of the reviewers thought that there was a likelihood that the draft could be made to pass acceptance, only that none of them said that it would never pass acceptance. After six declines from six different reviewers, the likelihood that it will pass acceptance becomes negligible.
- I have previously said that we need clearer guidelines about rejection, and will say it again; but we do not need clearer guidelines about rejection to delete a draft that is repeatedly declined under unfavorable circumstances.
- I consider the suggestion that we advise a conflict of interest editor to mainspace a declined draft to be a bad idea. It will be taken by other COI editors as encouragement to mainspace their declined drafts with or without encouragement from the community.
- Being in the Top 40 for national iTunes (or worldwide iTunes) is not one of the musical notability criteria.
- We should only very rarely encourage autobiographical submissions, and this is not one of these cases. We should and do discourage autobiographical submissions, and this illustrates one of the reasons why autobiographical submissions are a waste of volunteer time.
- Any reviewer who thinks that there is a greater than 50% chance that it will survive an AFD can mainspace this draft in the next six days. It is not necessary to keep it around longer in the hope that it will find a proponent.
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- The declines each tell the author that there is potential to improve and make worthy by editing. This is why MfD usually shouldn’t be used on a never rejected draft.
- We could modify MfD instructions to say that drafts should have been rejected, however, here the justification for mfd is tendentious resubmission, but the problem is the topic is plausibly notable.
- Robert is quite right about the COI issue. COI authors are required to use WP:AfC.
- Autobiographies are discouraged, but autobiography is not a reason for deletion, just a bad indicator.
- If I were !voting on this page at AfD, my !vote would be “Draftify”. “Plausibly notable, TOOSOON, needs a non-COI interested editor.
- If this draft is deleted, the decision to delete should not be considered prejudicial to recreation by a non-COI editor.
- A viable alternative to deletion due to tendentitious resubmission is to WP:BLOCK the editor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion, notability isn't hopeless, which is probably why it hasn't been rejected yet. I believe the article has more than a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of this making it to mainspace. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 17:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - On principle I will vote keep on MFDs for drafts. If deletion was necessary, it would be done through G13.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep because G13 exists. casualdejekyll 16:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete G13 covers only drafts which are not being edited. If they ar being edited, however,unconstructively, itdosnot aply. The way to remove hopeless drafts is MfD, and on principle I will generally vote tp MfDa draft which does not have potential for an article after multiple revisions. We have an immens AfC backglog, and it will not help to keep around hopelss content. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- The author has not edited for two weeks. The draft has been rejected, with not further edits, for a week. This is all that needs doing. To bring every hopeless draft through the MfD process is to waste far more volunteer time than to let it linger six more months. Six months lingering allows the author leisurely reflection on the reasons for deletion, and enough time for them to respond to the possible unfair rejection. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Katangais/Userboxes/Ian Smith
- User:Katangais/Userboxes/Ian Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Beside being rather obscure and not widely used, this userbox can be considered very inflammatory and divisive. Stating that you support Ian Smith, the head of the racist regime in former Rhodesia, is not much different from stating that you support apartheid in South Africa (the closest ally of the Smith's regime, by the way), or the Ku Klux Klan and the Neo-Confederate "enthusiasts" in the US, for instance. —Sundostund (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Historical. Not offensive except to someone digging looking for offence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but the argument that its historical can hardly be acceptable for this userbox. By using that logic, it would be possible to allow almost all kinds of userboxes supporting historical racist regimes. And where the end would be, with the userbox stating support for Adolf Hitler? Would that be acceptable? I don't think so. —Sundostund (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think you can compare the two as Hitler started World War II in Europe, and oversaw The Holocaust. As noted in the previous MfD we have had polarizing politicians here in the US such as Donald Trump and Barack Obama. What makes Ian Smith any different other than being a controversial figure? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, in some aspects, Smith is worse than Hitler, however strange it may sound. Without any doubt, Hitler had the support of the wast majority of people in his country (at least in some periods of his rule), while Smith's unique "accomplishment" (comparable only to the apartheid regime in South Africa) is that he presided over the regime which simply barred about 80% of his country's population (its native African people) to even vote against him (with separate voting rolls for blacks and whites), and gave all the decision-making to the minority white electorate. Trump and Obama both won open, fair and highly contested elections, so they can't be even on the same page as Smith, when it comes to being polarizing and controversial. —Sundostund (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- “Rather obscure” is a really bad reason for deletion. It does NOT say “… support Ian Smith”, but is couched past tense and implies lack of current support.
- If a Wikipedian reported their membership in the NAZI Youth, that would be acceptable as a statement of their personal history without violating NONAZIS. Many people supported the late Ian Smith, and an admission of that is not automatically forbidden. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- “Rather obscure” is a valid reason for deletion, IMHO. After certain amount of time, there is no reason to keep countless userboxes that hardly anybody actually identify with, and therefore use. Regardless of the wording, current or past support, I find it unacceptable to have an userbox which clearly endorses the leader of a racist regime, his premiership or him personally.
- So far, I never encountered a Wikipedian proud of their membership in the Hitler Youth, and I hope I never will. I would find an userbox related to their "happy memories" in that organization as highly unacceptable, and would certainly support its deletion. There must not be allowed to picture the Nazi regime in a positive or nostalgic way, including the one you mentioned.
- —Sundostund (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think you can compare the two as Hitler started World War II in Europe, and oversaw The Holocaust. As noted in the previous MfD we have had polarizing politicians here in the US such as Donald Trump and Barack Obama. What makes Ian Smith any different other than being a controversial figure? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but the argument that its historical can hardly be acceptable for this userbox. By using that logic, it would be possible to allow almost all kinds of userboxes supporting historical racist regimes. And where the end would be, with the userbox stating support for Adolf Hitler? Would that be acceptable? I don't think so. —Sundostund (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NORACISTS, or at best “substantially divisive” per WP:UBX. Seems like an unnecessary “both sides” userbox nobody is going to use and not an actual attempt at disruption. Dronebogus (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Sufficiently divisive. As the first, last, and only Prime Minister of Rhodesia, he's synonymous with the former white ethnostate. From his article:
Smith, who has been described as personifying white Rhodesia, remains a highly controversial figure.
Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC) - Keep as the userbox isn't specific or clear which things about him were supported. Are we talking about events before or after Rhosedia's Declaration of Independence? Ian Smith's time in office is recent enough for those around to remember good or bad things about him. I also want to note that the nominator's rationale is similar to the last "Keep" Mfd regarding this userbox. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have to admit I'm very surprised it closed as keep the first time, the userbox originally read "Ian Smith did nothing wrong" which is much worse than what it says today. Vanilla Wizard 💙 05:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh gaw. Dronebogus (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- The older version was much more offensive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have to admit I'm very surprised it closed as keep the first time, the userbox originally read "Ian Smith did nothing wrong" which is much worse than what it says today. Vanilla Wizard 💙 05:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Without resorting to whataboutism, I feel it’s necessary as the creator of this infobox to discuss the context in which I made it- it was part of a group of three expressing support for all three past and present Zimbabwean heads of state: Smith, Mugabe, and Mnangagwa. All three are controversial. All three have been accused of human rights abuses, and in the case of the latter two, participation in ethnic cleansing (in the case of the former, heading up an ethnostate). My impression is that it is infoboxes expressing support for controversial politicians is OK, as long as it’s not outright inflammatory in the sense that it attacks or disparages specific groups. If the mere presence of controversy is considered divisive and/or inflammatory enough that an infobox must be deleted, I invite the users here to also nominate my Mugabe and Mnangagwa userboxes for deletion ASAP and will take this precedent in mind when creating userboxes in the future. However, nominating this userbox for deletion on the (subjective) grounds that Smith represented a peculiar or unique type of evil is problematic, for the reasons already discussed above.
- Not that this really ought to matter, but I’m not white or some far right racist ideologue, and in fact hail from a country with a very recent colonial past (Malaysia). I like looking at different perspectives of Zimbabwean history because I find it interesting, not because I’ve got a horse in this race. I resent the sly implication in some of the comments above that this userbox was created for no other apparent reason than to push white supremacy. --Katangais (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have nominated this userbox since I consider it to be particularly inflammatory and unacceptable, in the same way as I would think of an userbox stating support/nostalgia for apartheid. Thankfully, I didn't encounter something like that on Wikipedia, so far... I support the idea of nominating userboxes about Mugabe and Mnangagwa for deletion as well, and I will certainly vote for their removal, if it comes to their nomination. —Sundostund (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- RE:
that Smith represented a peculiar or unique type of evil
- Respectfully, there's good reason why you won't find a lot of public pro-Rhodesia userboxes using the search feature at Wikipedia:Userboxes, and it's not unreasonable to consider this to be one, even if it wasn't created to reflect your beliefs. I was never under the illusion that you had any bad intentions when creating it, and I certainly hope that I didn't imply that my !vote against your userbox is in any way a condemnation of you as an editor. The problem - to me at least - is not just the mere presence of controversy, or even that I find Smith reprehensible, it is that he is uniquely synonymous with the white ethnostate in a way that other leaders aren't. I view this as comparable to a userbox expressing support for the presidency of Jefferson Davis; it's a situation where the person and the state they led cannot be easily separated. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC) - The point isn’t that the box is inherently offensive, or that the creator does or does not intend it as such, but that the box has an unnecessarily high likelihood of causing division. Dronebogus (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is the weakest rationale I’ve seen for deletion so far. If an unnecessarily high likelihood of promoting division is grounds for deleting this box, I suggest you nominate every userbox expressing support for Donald Trump for deletion as well. Katangais (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, that rationale isn't weak at all. An unnecessarily high likelihood of promoting division sounds like a very valid reason to consider whether or not we keep a political userbox, especially the one as inflammatory as this... Also, I can very easily imagine Wikipedia without userboxes expressing support for Donald Trump, and I am not disturbed by that thought in the least. —Sundostund (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I hope this doesn't come off harshly, but I can't help but notice that you started your !vote with "Without resorting to whataboutism" but your frequent suggestions that if this one isn't kept, then your Mugabe userbox and your Mnangagwa userbox and any userboxes about Trump etc ought to be deleted too is very much whataboutism. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Bringing up these other userboxes is an attempt to frame this discussion in context. I’m not using whatsboutism as an outright argument for keep, merely emphasizing the context in which this discussion is taking place. That distinction is important because it will set precedents for many other userboxes which may be deleted on similar grounds in the future. Note that the original discussion took place because a user was going around nominating every single userbox for right-wing politicians in developing nations for deletion. Katangais (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is the weakest rationale I’ve seen for deletion so far. If an unnecessarily high likelihood of promoting division is grounds for deleting this box, I suggest you nominate every userbox expressing support for Donald Trump for deletion as well. Katangais (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, preventing someone from expressing their support for a controversial figure doesn't make that support magically disappear. it's not like the userbox is directly racist, it doesn't read as "I fully agree with every controversial decision Ian Smith made and he did nothing wrong." — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 17:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NORACISTS. This userbox is a definite violation of WP:UBCR. Some people might feel intimidated by this. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment 'Some people might feel intimidated' by statements of support for any historical figure. Leroy Patterson IV (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Strong keep - I do not like polemical userboxes, I don't know what purpose they serve on Wikipedia and I wouldn't use one. But it is not our duty, nor indeed our right to decide which opinions users may or may not express. If you feel the statement is divisive or inflammatory, the same can be said of any opinion, or any historical regime under which people suffered. The user in question may express his opinions at his leisure. Leroy Patterson IV (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- With all due respect, we do reserve the right to delete userboxes expressing divisive or inflammatory opinions, but we do so on a case by case basis. Some inflammatory polemical userboxes are deleted very quickly, others are kept very quickly, and then you have cases like this where it's borderline and hard to find a very strong consensus either way. Not all historical regimes, figures, or ideologies are equal; no one would agree to keep a userbox expressing support for a certain regime, but this doesn't open the door to a slippery slope in which userboxes relating to any and all historical regimes under which people suffered are to be deleted. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
User:TheStrayDog/Userbox Let's Go Brandon
- User:TheStrayDog/Userbox Let's Go Brandon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Let’s Go Brandon is a troll/insult phrase meant to be understood as a euphemism for “fuck Joe Biden”. I cannot see this being used in a constructive manner, seems purely disruptive and possibly even constitutes an attack page. Dronebogus (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Has infiltrated popular culture. Unless Wikipedia writes down objective rules for politics in Userboxes on userpages, these things are best tolerated. Censorship battles are much worse. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. It does appear to be quite unconstructive, and may constitute an attack page. —Sundostund (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep: Wikipedia is not censored. And there are a bunch of userboxes against another politician, and per Wikipedia:ATTACK, attack pages are "primarily to disparage or threaten its subject", which this does not. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 06:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)- Uh, how is this not an attack page if LGB literally just means “fuck Joe Biden”? And WP:NOTCENSORED is completely irrelevant to userbox content. WP:OTHERSTUFF is also a terrible argument— just nominate the Trump boxes if you think they’re disruptive, which most of them aren’t. Dronebogus (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Can you cite an example of disruption of Wikipedia due to this userbox?
- I don’t read this message, either version, as an attack, but instead as an expression of disapproval. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- That isn’t an argument. We don’t nominate boxes because of specific incidents of “disruption”, which is impossible to prove, but because of the broken window theory— if we don’t have some kind of basic standards eventually there’s going to be loads of far worse userboxes citing WP:OTHERSTUFF as precedent. Dronebogus (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. “It could disrupt” is very different to “it disrupts”. This userbox will never disrupt anything, because it is already big outside Wikipedia. It may be insulting, but it is not trolling, and it is not disruptive to Wikipedia. Userboxes are not required to be constructive. I think the broken window theory is disputed, a correlation, not a cause. Deleting this userbox will confuse userbox standards, not set them. The current stand exists, just lower than you seem to think is right.
- There IS no standard. Every single userbox debate is case-by-case with a limited, non-binding reliance on precedent and the most likely deliberately vague limits set by WP:UBX and WP:UP Dronebogus (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- The is a standard, just poorly documented and below your preference. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. “It could disrupt” is very different to “it disrupts”. This userbox will never disrupt anything, because it is already big outside Wikipedia. It may be insulting, but it is not trolling, and it is not disruptive to Wikipedia. Userboxes are not required to be constructive. I think the broken window theory is disputed, a correlation, not a cause. Deleting this userbox will confuse userbox standards, not set them. The current stand exists, just lower than you seem to think is right.
- That isn’t an argument. We don’t nominate boxes because of specific incidents of “disruption”, which is impossible to prove, but because of the broken window theory— if we don’t have some kind of basic standards eventually there’s going to be loads of far worse userboxes citing WP:OTHERSTUFF as precedent. Dronebogus (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Uh, how is this not an attack page if LGB literally just means “fuck Joe Biden”? And WP:NOTCENSORED is completely irrelevant to userbox content. WP:OTHERSTUFF is also a terrible argument— just nominate the Trump boxes if you think they’re disruptive, which most of them aren’t. Dronebogus (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral. I personally think the whole "Let's Go Brandon" thing is a childish and ridiculous way of going about it. There are plenty of other ways (and I'm sure userboxes) of showing disapproval for Biden. I don't have a strong opinion though either way as the term is regrettably in popular culture now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - I really don't think it matters in the grand scheme of things whether or not this userbox exists. And it's in an individual's userspace, for which wide latitude is given. There's really no need for censorship.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ibrahim Coker/sandbox |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Titoxd(?!?) 19:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC) User:Ibrahim Coker/sandbox
This is fictional history set in the near future written in the past tense. I am not tagging it as a hoax for speedy deletion as G3 because it is in a sandbox, and a considerable amount of leeway is allowed with regard to the use of sandboxes. However, user page guidelines apply to sandboxes, and they include a rule against user pages that look like articles, and this looks like an article that contains untrue history. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
|
April 18, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alexbarbershop |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 12:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC) User:Alexbarbershop
Seems to violate WP:webhost RockstoneSend me a message! 22:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Talk:Bullitt County, Kentucky/production
- Talk:Bullitt County, Kentucky/production (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Abandoned subpage from 2011 with no present-day purpose. Last MFD closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation. I see no historical content worth keeping Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Mark historical - Nothing significant has changed since earlier this month. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. No reason to delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Long Island
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Long Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Going through the list of members, most of them have not edited since 2015 at the latest. One of the co-founders is retired and the other is banned.
The project was first tagged inactive in 2010 and has been re-tagged since 2020. The only non-trivial edits on the project page were made by a banned user, and the talk page was never used once. In short, there is nothing to archive here. With virtually no activity from the start, and most of the existing activity being the creation of a banned user (WP:DENY), I suggest deletion and redirection to WP:NY, which covers the content better. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep or merge into Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state). The template for articles tagged under "WikiProject Long Island" already reads "WikiProject New York (state) / Long Island" - might as well make it into a task force. Going through the project's talk archives suggests that this was, at one point, a somewhat active project, but this was a very long time ago. Quite a few discussions from '08 to '12, a couple in '14, and not much after that. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state). Dronebogus (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I was behind the idea of merging WP:LI and some of the others into WP:NYS, at least in terms of the template. I can't find the discussions. The idea was to convert them into task forces. Given that, is there need to delete the main page? Why not just redirect the talk page to WT:NY? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to wikiproject NY. That wikiproject is much more active than this one and it would bring long island articles to a bigger userbase (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Merge with Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state). There is no need for such a narrow subject when the state can be discussed as a whole. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Old business
April 15, 2022
User:XKV8R
- User:XKV8R (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Violates WP:NOTWEBHOST but unqualified for U5 so here we are. This page, and User:XKV8R/CV, are blatant self promotion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - This would have been a valid draft that would probably have been declined. If it had been a draft, it would have expired as WP:G13G13 by now. As a user page, it is a fake article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - If it were in draftspace it would have expired, but it's in userspace and therefore does not expire. Lots of people write biographies of themselves on their user page. If there's confusion about whether this is an article, there are templates to make it clear. I don't think we should be saying people can't put biographical information on their own user page so long as they're WP:HERE. With a few thousand edits, that seems the case here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- The amount of links on the userpage is against WP:NOTCV which states that
Limited autobiographical information is allowed, but user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia.
. The user's live edits within userspace is standing at ~25% (~500/~2000) and I believe that out of the 1300+ deleted edits, a large majority of them were edits at User:XKV8R/CV. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)- In practice, we give a huge amount of leeway to all but new users to write about themselves and add random information about their interests that have little to do with Wikipedia (cf. most userboxes). But even if it were the case that this is too much, that doesn't mean we need to delete the history. There are options like trimming/blanking that come before that (although blanking here wouldn't be appropriate because there are multiple sections explicitly connected to their wiki activities). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- The amount of links on the userpage is against WP:NOTCV which states that
- Keep: Not unreasonable and could be notable. Move to User:XKV8R/Robert Raymond Cargill and leave it alone. Encourage the main Userpage to be used for introducing the editor, not a formal biography. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Are we really doing this again? After all of the law suits and court cases? This entire page was subject to trolling and cleanup and censoring and adjudication during the 2007-2010 legal disputes involving People_v._Golb, and publicized on the front page of the Chronicle of Higher Ed (https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-fall-of-an-academic-cyberbully/). Let's not rekindle the fire.
- A User can have a user page. User:Minorax has one, and puts on there what Minorax pleases. User:Robert McClenon has one. So why can't I? Perhaps mine looks like a CV because I'm a professional scholar (Go Hawks!), and that's how we do things. I'll tell you what I told the WP censors a decade ago: if you try flexing your muscles and driving the scholars off of wikipedia—especially those of us who defend and promote (and contribute) to the project—then it diminishes the integrity of the entire service. How about you let people portray themselves as they wish? Would you like it better if I put a sleeping cat animation and an article of the day on my user page? One of the beauties of WP is that we're not all the same, and we have different areas of expertise. I've been on this platform for 15 years, and NOW you want to delete it?. How about we find better things to do than patrol scholars' User pages. Thanks. -bc XKV8R (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- While I support keeping here, regarding
Perhaps mine looks like a CV because I'm a professional scholar (Go Hawks!), and that's how we do things.
-- What you're seeing in this nomination is a reaction to breaking cultural norms about user pages. The norm is for a userpage to be primarily about Wikipedia-related activities, sometimes with some biographical details thrown in. That's true for a regular Randy in Boise as well as all but maybe one or two of the hundreds of academics I've known who edit Wikipedia. Now, I don't think we should have strict rules against it, and don't support this deletion nomination, but that's why you're going to get some very mildly resentful sideways glances. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)- If the “WIKIPEDIA INTERESTS” were at the top, it would look more like a Userpage from the start.
- I move {{userpage}} to the top.
- I’m include to cut his note:
as “private” is not correct, and the shouty part is not his right. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)“NOTE: This is the private user page of Dr. Robert Cargill. DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE for any reason!!”
- This comment goes back to the sockpuppet legal cases that resulted in the conviction of Raphael Golb. He and his aliases were creating problems on my workspaces. But goodness, tell me again why we're arguing about a USER page? XKV8R (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Somebody read your Userpage as an attempt to host your biography in an improper place. They should have raised their problem quietly with you first, but didn’t. I’d suggest to you that I’d mention Wikipedia near to the top, as many people don’t read the whole thing, and on Wikipedia, your Userpage is supposed to be introducing you as a Wikipedia editor.
- They also responded without apparently noticing that you have a good number of Wikipedia contributions in your contribution history. I think there is no real problem, and you are being picked on for no good reason. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- This comment goes back to the sockpuppet legal cases that resulted in the conviction of Raphael Golb. He and his aliases were creating problems on my workspaces. But goodness, tell me again why we're arguing about a USER page? XKV8R (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- While I support keeping here, regarding
- Why is User:XKV8R/CV deleted? The log says:
WP:CSD#U5 didn’t apply. “Multiple reasons” beginning with an incorrect reason looks bad. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)15:43, 15 April 2022 Deor (talk · contribs) deleted page User:XKV8R/CV (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria U5, G7)
- Delete. XKV8R had blanked User:XKV8R/CV himself in 2011, and it had remained blank until Minorax tagged it and I deleted it a week ago. Personally, I find it hard to imagine a clearer case of WP:FAKEARTICLE than this user page. (And the supercilious and insulting "Disclaimer" section at the bottom seems to show that the user has little interest in collaborating to create an encyclopedia, instead mainly wanting to throw his scholarly weight around. If I were an associate professor of Classics who thought that "curriculum vita" was acceptable Latin, I'd be more humble.) Deor (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- User:Deor, U5 requires the author to be a non-contributor. Blanking in Userspace does not make G7. Did User:Minorax mis-tag, and you deleted contrary to policy? SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- The page had been blanked for 11 years and the previous content was basically identical to that of User:XKV8R. When Minorax tagged it, I saw no reason not to delete it. If you disagree, bring it up at DRV or ANI. Deor (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- I do disagree, but it is not worthy of DRV or ANI. DRV would require a good reason to undelete. I would support User:XKV8R’s request for review at DRV, but it’s not a case I would take there. I dispute the method of deletion, misapplication of U5 and G7. I understand that Minorax put you in a difficult position by misuse of the CSD tags on a undesirable unimportant redundant blanked page that you think should be deleted, but the better response would be to refer Minorax to the objective criteria at WP:G7 and WP:U5. I also understand that loose use of U5 is common, and I routinely object to it. Ideally, you would acknowledge that the specific criteria entered into the log did not apply, and I read your responses as close enough to that. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- The page had been blanked for 11 years and the previous content was basically identical to that of User:XKV8R. When Minorax tagged it, I saw no reason not to delete it. If you disagree, bring it up at DRV or ANI. Deor (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. XKV8R had blanked User:XKV8R/CV himself in 2011, and it had remained blank until Minorax tagged it and I deleted it a week ago. Personally, I find it hard to imagine a clearer case of WP:FAKEARTICLE than this user page. (And the supercilious and insulting "Disclaimer" section at the bottom seems to show that the user has little interest in collaborating to create an encyclopedia, instead mainly wanting to throw his scholarly weight around. If I were an associate professor of Classics who thought that "curriculum vita" was acceptable Latin, I'd be more humble.) Deor (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
April 13, 2022
Template:User Ez
- Template:User Ez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
There is no such language that exist or EZ code does not exist. Airtransat236 (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Kurmanji#Dialect continuum. Dortana (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The code needs to be changed to KMR per Template:Lang-kmr. This is a dialect of Category:User templates ku. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Rename to KMR-EZ Airtransat236 (let's talk) 16:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
April 10, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tennis |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. Consensus to keep - broader discussions about portal space should take place elsewhere. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Portal:Tennis
Unmaintained and out of date—the "Upcoming tournaments" section includes tournaments that became defunct 5+ years ago—so does a disservice to readers and reflects poorly on Wikipedia. Receives just 20 views per day despite being linked on 55000 pages including articles that get millions of views a year, e.g. Serena Williams. Letcord (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
|
April 7, 2022
User:S-Kay Kin/sandbox
- User:S-Kay Kin/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Violation of no original research and what Wikipedia is not. Per WP:USERFY#NO, material already not permitted in user namespace is not allowed to be userfied. See also: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Brittany Hudson/sandbox, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender Analysis of "Minty Minty", Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender Theory In 'President Daisy', Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Silk food, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Inability to Smile, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Undisclosed Jamaican school writing project. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 20:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Pure WP:OR, and depressing since an instructor has set an injudicious project, top the disadvantage of the students. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Undisclosed Jamaican school writing project is discussing the project 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - this is clearly a student using their sandbox to try to write and develop wiki articles, which is exactly what the sandbox is for. This stuff gets userfied because userspace is an appropriate place for it. Let the editor practice and make mistakes. No need to delete good-faith attempts at editing when there is no copybio or BLP vio. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all, preferably speedy, as a cocktail of OR, SYNTH, NOTESSAY and NOTHERE. And it's pretty poor to see Wiki Edu condoning this kind of thing. SN54129 12:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per L - this is a sandbox, not a mainspace article wizzito | say hello! 03:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per above. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per L. Nobody will see this apart from the person who wrote it, anyone helping that person, and people digging through other people's userspace looking for stuff to delete. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Refer the student, and the professor, to Wikipedia:School and university projects. Someone is doing something that does not appear aligned with the purpose of Wikipedia, and is using Wikipedia as a web Host. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete and refer as suggested just above. Thee is good reason to try to advise the students andthe instructor; there is no good reason to keep the material. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WEATHERMAN
- Wikipedia:WEATHERMAN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Article presents only a single view or definition of what the phrase means and does not go into depth or talk about any philosophy, approach or standard when it comes to editing or thinking about Wikipedia. I do not believe that providing a link to the essay would assist new users understand what Wikipedia is about. Gusfriend (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete the best “huh what?” statement since “plastics”. Not helpful to anyone, unclear what this even means in regards to WP. Dronebogus (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- I’ve created an advice page that’s equally useful Dronebogus (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, since these two essays seem to be covering essentially the same topic and point of view, they are used in pretty much the same context in discussions, this essay doesn't really add anything that isn't better discussed in the other essay and I don't see how quoting lyrics from a copyrighted song and saying "we should do what this song says" is compatiable with the WP:Non-free content Policy. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Too small to be a copyright violation, if it was Wikiquote wouldn’t exist. Dronebogus (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment If we were to put in a redirect then I would actually prefer WP:SNOW as you can tell which way the wind is blowing, it is all heading in one direction, and it is time to invoke WP:SNOW. Which again highlights the lack of depth or explanation in the article. Gusfriend (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Just because the nom disagrees with the essay is not a valid deletion reason. There are big disclaimers on essays that say they lack community consensus—this is perfectly fine and acceptable for essays. If the essay sucks, you don’t have to cite it and you are free to write a counter-essay. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - This essay doesn't say enough to be worth keeping or deleting, but it isn't against policy, and none of the reasons to delete it apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Userify or weak delete. There is no essay here to be kept or deleted, as Robert McClenon correctly pointed out. I don't think it needs to be redirected to WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue because I don't think anyone has ever keyed Wikipedia:WEATHERMAN. This page started as a single vague sentence in 2013, and it was never developed into anything more than that. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Userify or delete. This is vague and confusing as others have already pointed out. I don't see any disagreement with the essay from the nominator, but rather confusion on if its helpful or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. It is short and to the point. We don't need a bureaucratic over-long semi-guideline to make the point. Wikipedia has become insanely overcited. Nowhere else in scholarship, or the internet generally, is the little blue number disease so prevalent. Anything that fights back against that has got my vote. SpinningSpark 08:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Userfy as a disputed single-author essay. No case for deletion over userfication. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. There isn't enough content here to keep. Titoxd(?!?) 19:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect only makes sense if the text of this page is merged into the target. Otherwise, it turns WP:WEATHERMAN into a WP:EASTEREGG that will totally baffle anyone who follows it. SpinningSpark 12:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. sufficiently famous. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)