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 | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 105 | 76 | 181 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 11 | 14 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 22 |
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 12, 2022
Draft:Hamek War
- Draft:Hamek War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Was suspected to be a hoax by Nythar (talk · contribs), but they removed their own {{db-hoax}} tag without further comment. The draft is unsourced and with vague timeframe, and I found zero search engine results that mention something called Hamek in relation to Najmadin Shukr Rauf. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete No sources; I did a search and didn't find evidence for such a war. Nythar (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
June 10, 2022
Draft:Murat Arik
- Draft:Murat Arik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft for promotional purposes. Kadı Message 19:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Most drafts start out looking like this one and this was created by a very new editor who is learning about Wikipedia norms and policies. I support giving them a chance to improve this draft. Their first days on Wikipedia have been colored by a series of allegations that, if untrue, were a very bumpy introduction to the project. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - It's a draft. Drafts are not deleted at MFD for being promotional. They may be deleted as being purely promotional via G11, but this is not a G11 draft. There are three ways to deal with drafts that are not ready for article space: ignore them; advise the author how to improve them; improve them. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Deletions for promotional / notability etc. concerns don't apply to drafts. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Did you see the external links, @Liz @PerfectSoundWhatever @Robert McClenon? Kadı Message 07:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- What is the issue with them? Just looks like improperly formatted references to me. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 13:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- @PerfectSoundWhatever, Unreliable websites, Instagram link and his website for backlink. Kadı Message 20:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's a draft. Please read Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. A majority of drafts have similar issues; we don't delete drafts for reliability of sources. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 20:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wow, interesting! I understood the problem now. I am from Trwiki and there is no draft process there. I realized that I mixed the tr and enwiki's rules :) Thanks for pointing out, @PerfectSoundWhatever. Kadı Message 20:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Glad I could help!
— PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 23:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Glad I could help!
- Wow, interesting! I understood the problem now. I am from Trwiki and there is no draft process there. I realized that I mixed the tr and enwiki's rules :) Thanks for pointing out, @PerfectSoundWhatever. Kadı Message 20:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's a draft. Please read Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. A majority of drafts have similar issues; we don't delete drafts for reliability of sources. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 20:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- @PerfectSoundWhatever, Unreliable websites, Instagram link and his website for backlink. Kadı Message 20:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- What is the issue with them? Just looks like improperly formatted references to me. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 13:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Did you see the external links, @Liz @PerfectSoundWhatever @Robert McClenon? Kadı Message 07:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Drafts are generally isn't deleted in MfD for being promotional (if it is eligible for deletion then we just go CSD G11). The draft in question has some puff and the author has some COI issues, however, which is fixable. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Draft is fixable, and it isn't exclusively promotional. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Murat Arık Photographer
- Draft:Murat Arık Photographer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft for promotional purposes. Kadı Message 19:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Basically a copy of Draft:Murat Arik which is also been nominated at MFD. I support leaving the best version alone and turning the other draft into a redirect. By the way, I look at expiring drafts all day long and it isn't uncommon for brand new editors to create several versions of the same article with different titles. They need to learn that this is unnecessary. Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Draft:Murat Arik. This is not a Speedy Redirect because that only applies to redirects to articles, but this is similar in that it should also be redirected. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Draft:Murat Arik, per Robert McClenon. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/List of Templates/doc
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/List of Templates/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
The templates this documentation page is referring to: Template:Al-Odah, Template:14HighValue, Template:CSRT, Template:CSRT-No, and Template:CSRT-Yes, have all been deleted, so it is no longer useful to keep around a doc page stating that these templates are controversial. Hog Farm Talk 13:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as an unused and obsolete template documentation page. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Either Delete or Mark Historical - Why not mark historical? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing much to mark historical, as it doesn't seem to have been widely used in its time and it doesn't contain much wisdom for future generations. I'm not familiar with the old history here, but it doesn't seem useful to retain, and I've never really undestood the idea behind marking old superseded junk as historical when it was never widely used and lacks any clear future benefit. Hog Farm Talk 16:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Per the guidance on this, WP:HISTPAGES,
They are kept as records of past Wikipedia processes to give context to historical discussions and to inform future discussions on similar topics
. - Marking stuff as historical is intended to be used when there is a continued need to access pages after they has ceased being active, e.g. keeping records of old dispute resolution processes or obsolete policies that were cited in discussions. I agree there is nothing here that would justify keeping as a historical page, all the discussions where the usability of these templates was decided are archived at TFD. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Per the guidance on this, WP:HISTPAGES,
- I'm not seeing much to mark historical, as it doesn't seem to have been widely used in its time and it doesn't contain much wisdom for future generations. I'm not familiar with the old history here, but it doesn't seem useful to retain, and I've never really undestood the idea behind marking old superseded junk as historical when it was never widely used and lacks any clear future benefit. Hog Farm Talk 16:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Celebrities sets bad example for the young generations to follow
- Draft:Celebrities sets bad example for the young generations to follow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Clear WP:NOTWEBHOST violation that wouldn't stand a chance in article space. Nothing worth keeping here. Was prodded by @Demt1298: but prod cannot be used on drafts. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Multiple BLP violations. Possibly speedyable, but let's see if others agree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: An editorial rant. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. A clear delete. I agree with both of the comments above. --Bduke (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- G10 as a {{Db-negublp}}. This is just someone's rant about how celebrities are terrible people that are "corrupting the youth". This is not an article and contains a load of unsourced negative statements about living people. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete for BLP violations. Does not fit any speedy deletion criterion, but needs deleting for BLP violations. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon I think it would fit the
biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced
clause of WP:G10. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - I disagree. There is also neutral editorial commentary. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon I think it would fit the
- Delete We are not a WP:WEBHOST for drunken ranting. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 18:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete mainly because of the BLP violations, but also because this is a rant with little to no encyclopedic value. Glades12 (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as a G10, as this is nothing but an attack page disparaging living persons. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. This is just a rant intended to attack people for being famous and "immoral" (according to medieval standards). Of course, displaying their wealth is also a "major crime". Finally, its spiced up with the old nonsense about the corruption of youth... Its totally worthless. —Sundostund (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Rank and barren pontificating and moralizing, one might say borderlining on bigotry.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
June 9, 2022
User:Zhxy 519/sandbox
- User:Zhxy 519/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#m:Requests_for_comment/Global_de-adminship_for_Jusjih, there are concerns that this sandbox looks like an attack page and tones are inappropriate for us, shouldn't we encourage that user to re-write to avoid too strong tones? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- delete attack page with no obvious value Dronebogus (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. The RFC this was created for was closed as unactionable m:Requests for comment/De-adminship for Jusjih in certain projects. I fail to see why the English wikipedia should host a laundry list of grievances dating back to 2007 based entirely on events that took place on other projects, per WP:Attack page
On the other hand, keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate
. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC) - Delete as per above comments, and because it appears that the author wants to restart an RFC on a User, a procedure that has been disbanded for various reasons including creating more heat than light. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is empty now. It is a draft of previous rfc and I'm not "to restart an RFC on a User". You can check page's history first. Zhxy 519 (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Zhxy 519 Please do not remove deletion tag while this discussion is ongoing Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Anyway, for later users participant this discussion, they may read what this page was via Special:Diff/1092386268. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is empty now. It is a draft of previous rfc and I'm not "to restart an RFC on a User". You can check page's history first. Zhxy 519 (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Shivprasad1966/sandbox
- User:Shivprasad1966/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Business promotional draft relying mainly on self-sourcing, passing mentions, and Wikipedia links. No indication of notability. Blue Riband► 16:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - It's a draft. Notability is not an issue in draft space. Nominator appears to be ragpicking. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Some of the content appears to be copyright-infringing: [1]. However, since the whole draft is not blatant copy-paste from one (or several) links, G12 would not apply. Once the infringing content is removed and revdeleted, I'd go with a weak keep as well – either it will be improved or G13 will eventually take care of it. ComplexRational (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Infringing content removed and RD1 requested. ComplexRational (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, possibly speedy per G11/G12. Spam article full of copyvios. Even with the copyrevdels completed the article is still full of copyvio material, e.g. the first remaining sentence of the "Products" section is copied from another website. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, Copyvio concerns have been addressed. Notability / promotional tone etc. concerns don't apply to drafts. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- These can apply if there are more problemic contents within drafts, and just, this particular one is an example. Just image if someone created a draft contain a lot of pro-Putin contents, then it's highly possible that a random user supports Putin Huilo will saw it full of unacceptable and more than nonsense+gibberish, but if we call that user "Hey notability-related SD tags can't apply to drafts", then what else we can help the later user to avoid their hurt-like-hell? Be smart and be bold to nominate SD for drafts. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- @PerfectSoundWhatever Concerns about spam apply everywhere, G11 is a general criteria that applies to every page in the project, regardless of namespace. The copyvio concerns also haven't been resolved, huge chunks of this article have been copied from the companies website, just with "we" swapped for "they" [2]. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the copyvio was addressed when I wrote my !vote, but the editor reinstated it. I've removed it again and added redvel. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 20:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Even though G12 or G13 won't apply, {{db-G11}} applies. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as a G11. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Memgraph
- Draft:Memgraph (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Procedural move of a PROD by Autorko with reasoning "Duplicate of existing article" (Memgraph). Proposed deletion is not for articles. If in article space, this might qualify as a CSD A10. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've moved the old page to new as it was suggested to me. Can I revoke this request for deletion since there is no need for it anylonger? Autorko (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is a mess! User:Autorko - What do you think that the template on former Draft:Memgraph that says "do not blank, merge, or move it" means? "Do not move it" includes do not move a nominated draft into article space. User:Sammi Brie - It is not necessary to nominate drafts for deletion because they are duplicates of existing articles. They are redirected to the article. That is what Speedy Redirect is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- User:Autorko - Do you have a conflict of interest?
- User:Autorko - Why are you moving a page that has no visible text but only a copyvio notice into article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that I have conflict of interest. I'm contributing to open source parts of that project, same as I do with some other opensource software, GPL, and similar projects for past 5 years. So if contribution to opensource project that I'm writing about on Wikipedia is a conflict, then I have "conflict of interest". Autorko (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep in draft space after the copyvio is dealt with so that the remainder of the draft can be viewed. What happened to the copy that was in article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like Draft:Memgraph was moved to Memgraph and then back to Draft space, all after this MFD was filed. Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
June 8, 2022
Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission1
- Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Misplaced draft, unreferenced, presumably a copy of the long-deleted Draft:Miguel B. Decena Jr. John of Reading (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: As an unsourced BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: BLP violation go bye-bye. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Biographies of living people without sources would get deleted sooner or later. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 16:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - I don't see a guideline calling for deletion of unsourced draft BLPs. Maybe there should be one. Unsourced BLPs in article space can be deleted. This is a misplaced draft in project space that has been abandoned by a soft-blocked originator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - Does the disapproval of unsourced draft BLPs mean that unsourced BLPs should not be pushed into draft space, as are other unsourced articles, and that they should instead be tagged for BLPPROD (or for A7 when appropriate)? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. WP:BLP applies in every namespace. Building content on a living person, with no sources, is incompatible with WP:BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- User:SmokeyJoe - BLPPROD only applies in article space. If you are proposing that it also apply in user space and draft space, that can be discussed in a policy forum. I see that the BLP policy states that it also applies in user and user talk space. A non-contentious change should be made to the wording of the policy to add draft space. I agree that is a basis for the deletion of unsourced BLPs from any non-article space via MFD. There isn't currently a more expeditious procedure for the deletion of non-article BLPs. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- “Unsourced BLP” is an excellent deletion reason at MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Broadening WP:BLPPROD to all namespaces has a strong argument. Against it is that BLPPROD in draftspace would be a pseudo-CSD, and so the WP:NEWCSD need to apply, and it currently fails only #3 “Frequent”. That makes it a perfectly good argument for MfD. Attention is drawn, and anyone interested in keeping the draft need only add a single (reliable) source before the end of the MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- “Unsourced BLP” is an excellent deletion reason at MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- User:SmokeyJoe - BLPPROD only applies in article space. If you are proposing that it also apply in user space and draft space, that can be discussed in a policy forum. I see that the BLP policy states that it also applies in user and user talk space. A non-contentious change should be made to the wording of the policy to add draft space. I agree that is a basis for the deletion of unsourced BLPs from any non-article space via MFD. There isn't currently a more expeditious procedure for the deletion of non-article BLPs. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. WP:BLP applies in every namespace. Building content on a living person, with no sources, is incompatible with WP:BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per above. starship.paint (exalt) 04:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Per {{Db-a7}}. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226 A7 (and the "A" series of deletion criteria generally) only apply to pages in the article namespace, see WP:ACSD 192.76.8.78 (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as a draft that has been abandoned for 2 years and contains large amounts of unsourced content on a living person. This may not be an autobiography either (since the creator's username is different), which exacerbates said BLP issues. Glades12 (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
June 5, 2022
Draft:WP:UNCERTAIN
- Draft:WP:UNCERTAIN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft of a new proposed guideline by a now-banned editor, barely written and nobody else has contributed despite being pinged to do so, a week ago. starship.paint (exalt) 16:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I normally always !vote keep for drafts since G13 would take care of the ones that are inactive. But this is pretty clearly an attempt at dodging the outcome of a prior MFD. Delete per nom. WaltCip-(talk) 16:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear, WaltCip's description of
this is pretty clearly an attempt at dodging the outcome of a prior MFD
is referring to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:What MEDRS is not, which was initiated on 28 May; the now-banned user started this draft on 29 May. The original MFD was later closed as delete. starship.paint (exalt) 02:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear, WaltCip's description of
- Delete as a stub potentially created to further WP:TE of the now-banned creator. I would not be opposed to an editor in good standing seeking to build a good-faith draft in this location, but without additional near-term edits the stub should be removed. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I am in very good standing and would be happy to work on this draft. We don't retroactively delete everything a banned editor contributed, and I don't think the ban was justified. Francesco espo (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- The draft is one line long and has a shortcut as a title. Why not simply start your own version (with a proper title)? Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
June 4, 2022
Wikipedia:List of youtubers that give content warnings for epilepsy sufferers
- Wikipedia:List of youtubers that give content warnings for epilepsy sufferers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Delete. Not a topic for WP. and in any case not verified in articles Smerus (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete We are not a WP:WEBHOST (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 20:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Move to
draftspace oruserspace It's an attempt at an article, just in the wrong namespace. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC) - Draftify - Possibly worth keeping but not as an article.--WaltCip-(talk) 21:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Userfy: It could be the beginning of content suitable for mainspace somewhere. Do not Draftify, as it is not on a pathway to being an article. As it does not speak to Wikipedia and epilepsy intersection issues, it does not belong in projectspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Draftspace is not restricted to article content, as it notes in WP:Drafts
very rarely, new pages for non-article namespaces such as the Portal:, Template: and Wikipedia: namespaces are first incubated in the draftspace
. Since this has multiple authors and one of them tried to move it to draftspace via a cut and paste move draftification seems the best option to me. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Draftspace is not restricted to article content, as it notes in WP:Drafts
- Userfy as per SmokeyJoe. Is userfy a Wikipedia jargon term (as draftify is)? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- History merge into Draft:List of youtubers that give content warnings for epilepsy sufferers to repair a cut and paste move, then leave the resulting page in draft space. One of the people working on this seems to have realised that it was meant to be in draft space, but they cut and paste moved it rather than using the pagemove functionality. This needs history merging into the draft to restore attribution to the other account, then it should be left in draftspace as a misplaced draft. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTDIR as this would fall under "repositories of loosely associated topics". I mean... should we also make a list of Youtubers who give warnings for mature content? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Likely not notable, wrong namespace, and reliable secondary sources would be hard to find, if they exist at all. Also, AFAIK, its usually spelt YouTubers, not youtubers, and sufferers is poor word choice to say the least. MxYamato (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I can't think of how this would be on-topic for the WP namespace either. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 19:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per weeklyd3. starship.paint (exalt) 03:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. The page detracts from the purpose of Wikipedia. AKK700 15:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Merge with Draft:List of youtubers that give content warnings for epilepsy sufferers, per that IP. Wrong namespace, and we don't delete drafts for being unsourced, so it's fine to just keep it as a draft. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Its never going to be article though so what's the point in doing so? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just to second the point made by Knowledgekid87 - this is just inappropriate for a WP article, to draftify it is to suggest, against all WP principles, that it is, or ever could be, an appopriate topic for WP.--Smerus (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Seanisverybest/sandbox/~
- User:Seanisverybest/sandbox/~ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Patent nonsense, gibberish, violation of WP:UP#GOALS, WP:NOTAWEBHOST. Page is 2 million bytes in size, 51st largest page on the English Wikipedia [4]. User’s last edit was to this page in March 2020. MxYamato (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete User pages aren't a free pass to do anything. There is more leniency in userspace but creating a page with over 2000 (useless) citations seems like a waste of server space. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 20:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted pages are still kept in server space. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - It's a sandbox full of sand. Stop ragpicking. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This page consists of the same citation repeated over 15,000 times. The article creator hasn't edited on Wikipedia in over two years. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per JayPlaysStuff. starship.paint (exalt) 03:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and blank as a sandbox. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, blank if needed It's a sandbox. Deleted articles are kept in server space, so this page's deletion will accomplish nothing. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete inappropriate tones are facing-to-facing {{db-attack}} if no conflicts. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Armin111222/sandbox
- User:Armin111222/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Patent nonsense, gibberish, violation of WP:UP#GOALS, and WP:NOTAWEBHOST. Page is ~2 million bytes in size, user has made a grand total of 4 edits, last one dating to March 2014.
66th largest page on the English Wikipedia [5]. MxYamato (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete No use I can think of of having ~2mb of the letter "I" especially on an inactive user's userspace (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 20:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Leave those sandboxes alone. Stop ragpicking them. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per JayPlaysStuff. starship.paint (exalt) 03:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, blank if needed It's a sandbox. The damage is done; deleted articles are kept in server space, so this page's deletion will accomplish nothing. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and blank This is a sandbox, gibberish is no problem in those. It is not trollishly offensive, BLP-violating, or oversight-worthy, so it doesn't need the deletion button. It can be blanked if it's such an eyesore though. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete inappropriate tones are facing-to-facing {{db-attack}} if no conflicts. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and blank It's a sandbox, the material is not a copyvio or a BLP violation. Just blank it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Blackture/sandbox
- User:Blackture/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Patent nonsense, violation of WP:UP#GOALS , WP:NOTAWEBHOST. User’s last contribution was on 8 June 2020, 2 years back. All their contributions are limited to their own user space. Other user page(s) are in a similar state. This page is the 47th largest on the English Wikipedia (see: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/largestpages/en.wikipedia.org?include_pattern=&exclude_pattern=). MxYamato (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest that as a rule, you first consider blanking very large pages when the author is long inactive. {{Inactive userpage blanked}} was made for things like this. You can do that as a simple edit, no formalities required, but ideally explain why in the edit summary.
- I suggest that inactive user is never a big part of a deletion rationale. If it is ok for and active user, then it is ok for an inactive user. There are no timelimits. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you on the other page, but this one is plain gibberish? MxYamato (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t agree that “gibberish” is a reason to delete a sandbox. Gibberish includes testing, and sandboxes are intended for it, and users should not be asked to explain their testing in sandboxes. There may be something offensive in it, but merely being gibberish is not offensive for a sandbox. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- UP#GOALS are very liberally interpreted in userspace.
- For NOTAWEBHOST, the deletion nominator needs to explain how they think it is being used for external purposes. I think the content does not look useful to others. I think that https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2020-05-14&end=2022-06-03&pages=User:Blackture/sandbox is evidence against it being used as a webhost. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I’m not asking anyone to explain their test edits. I’m saying that this user has content that is gibberish, quite old, and the 47th largest page we have on enWP. Usual testing generally does not include ~2 million bytes. My point is given the sheer size, and the age and incomprehensibility, this page should be deleted. MxYamato (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t agree that “gibberish” is a reason to delete a sandbox. Gibberish includes testing, and sandboxes are intended for it, and users should not be asked to explain their testing in sandboxes. There may be something offensive in it, but merely being gibberish is not offensive for a sandbox. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you on the other page, but this one is plain gibberish? MxYamato (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - It's a sandbox. User:MxYamato - Please stop ragpicking large sandboxes. They are full of silicon dioxide. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per MxYamato. starship.paint (exalt) 03:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and blank It's a sandbox, gibberish isn't a reason to delete it. We could blank it though for decongestion. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and blank per SmokeyJoe. Also @MxYamato note that the page was not tagged for mfd, which I have added just now. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, blank if needed It's a sandbox. The damage is done; deleted articles are kept in server space, so this page's deletion will accomplish nothing. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete inappropriate tones are facing-to-facing {{db-attack}} if no conflicts. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
May 31, 2022
User:Σούπερμαν/Userbox/Dnote
- User:Σούπερμαν/Userbox/Dnote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
I'm aware that this is an anime reference but I don't think we should have userboxes that resemble death threats, even if meant as a joke. Spicy (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Cute userbox, but yes, the wording is not ideal. Maybe (if the user is still active) you could ask them to reword it for something that's a bit less on the nose. WaltCip-(talk) 17:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as there is no particular person or persons involved here. The link to "Death Note" is clearly there to indicate that it refers to a work of fiction. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. There should be no userboxes around that mention death threats in any way. IMHO, this userxbox is tasteless and immature, at best. —Sundostund (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Death jokes don't belong. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Death note is a fairly known work of fiction, and in any case it's linked. It isn't threatening a specific person, it's a tongue-in-cheek dig at vandals (although an argument could be made for WP:DENY. Maybe reword it but I don't think it should be outright deleted. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 20:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per Sundostund. starship.paint (exalt) 03:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- weak delete obviously not a serious threat, but creates a bad precedent for “lol just kidding” threatening userboxes, which we certainly don’t want. Dronebogus (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- delete Attack page. PAVLOV (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Old business