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 | 87 | 99 | 186 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 11 | 13 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 20, 2022
Draft:Ceno (rapper)
- Draft:Ceno (rapper) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
though this has only been submitted 3 times, it's been deleted under other various names by previous paid spam socks. Thankfully, this new creator has disclosed however they don't seem to comprehend that we do not host content on non-notable subjects and despite my explanations of such, continued to ignore it and resubmit it tendentiously. Further, this is a recreation on behalf of a TOU blocked user (who operates a paid editing firm) and hired this editor. With that being said, this is just going to continue to be resubmitted without improvement as it simply isn't possible because Ceno isn't notable at this point in time and draft space isn't an indefinite holding area for wanna-be-notable-hopefuls. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Mark John Paul
- Draft:Mark John Paul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Unsourced BLP. An internet search only turned up searches for the name and non-reliable sources about the person. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 14:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as unsourced BLP; likely an attack page judging by the edit summary.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as unreferenced BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
June 19, 2022
Draft:Elsa Gathergood
- Draft:Elsa Gathergood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Unsourced WP:BLP. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 05:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as patent nonsense. And also given the creator's comments in the edit history, intended to host a blatant hoax regarding Elsa (Frozen). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as unreferenced BLP. At least, without dates of birth and death and in the present tense, it appears to be a BLP, and that is enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft:BitCoin Cybercrime and Fraud
- Draft:BitCoin Cybercrime and Fraud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
WP:U5 technically can't be used on pages outside userspace so I can't speedy-delete it, but this is as blatant an attempt to use Wikipedia as a webhost as it gets. ‑ Iridescent 04:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not a draft. NOTWEBHOST violation by a non-contributor. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as web hosting. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as blatant G10. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as a WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTESSAY violation. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 04:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
June 17, 2022
Wikipedia:Content assessment/A-Class criteria
- Wikipedia:Content assessment/A-Class criteria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
The usefulness of A-class has been debated for years and years, yet mostly gone nowhere. To wit:
- As early as 2009, editors were stating that they didn't know the difference between A-class and GA.
- Another user questioned it in 2015 and asked how it differed from GA.
- A third asked in 2020.
- A long discussion questioned the usefulness of A-class as well. This discussion went around the horn a few times but fizzled out.
The 2017 MFD raised concerns to keep that I'm questioning even further:
the class is used, and this describes what to do if projects want to use it. If projects don't want to use it, that's fine too.
-- This makes no sense. Why would an entire article ranking schematic be optional? GA, FA, C-class, etc. aren't optional.Since it's being used, there's no real reason to delete it. If there is a strong demand to reconfigure WP:ASSESS to indicate that A-class is rarely used, or should not be considered a "standard" grade, that's a different discussion, and it would seem a lot more reasonable than complete deletion.
No such discussion has ever been initiated, and there is no precedent of having a "nonstandard" rating as far as I can tell. It's not like Disambiguation-class or Redirect-class, where the content being assessed isn't even an article.
A perusal of Category:A-Class_articles showed that out of 1,894 subcategories, 1,434 are empty. If my math is right, that's about 75%. And the other 25% mostly have only one or two articles. Most of the only ones with more than one or two articles are war and military related. The 2017 MFD indicated that some of the road and highway sectors use it too, but this seems to have been phased out. What sense does it make to have a rating scale that's only used by a very tiny fraction of articles? This would be like if we suddenly decided that all WP:MUSIC articles get a 🎵 ranking if they're of particularly high quality.
If it's supposed to be a parallel to Good Article, then why isn't there a centralized, formal promotion/demotion process in the vein of WP:GAN/WP:GAR? So far, no one has brought forth any proposals to get more activity, despite having had nearly 15 years to do so. Even the criteria are unclear: An A-Class article should approach the standards for a Featured article (FA), but will typically fall short because of minor style issues. The article may need minor copyedits, but it should be comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and well-written.
This to me seems unnecessarily granular. It seems that if an article is "better" than GA, then it shouldn't take much more legwork to address the "minor style issues" that would otherwise keep it from FA. Take a look at one of the articles I recently got promoted, The Mavericks. It's obviously GA-class, but would it be A-class? Would it be 🎵-class?
It's clear that there is a massive lack of internal support outside a few niche corners of Wikipedia. The B and C classes aren't nearly this thinly spread or underused. Any discussion about the matter seems to die on the vine every time, which to me indicates a clear lack of interest in sustaining it for any other reason than "the military articles use it" or "we have B and C, so we have to have A". It is this constant lack of momentum to any discussion that drove me to bring it here. For a quality scale to be completely unused by over 75% of the project is utterly nonsensical. If any other category schematic had over a thousand empty categories, it'd be G6'd on sight.
tl;dr: Given the evidence above, which shows a clear lack of support for the A-class schematic as a whole combined with severe neglect of the process, I think that A-class should be archived or deprecated. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Clarification The difference between A-Class and GA-Class is simple. A-Class is purely based on content quality, as judged by a WikiProject. It is used by a WikiProject to indicate that it contains all of the significant content and rigor that the subject matter experts believe should be there, as well as any other internal rules that might be used by the WikiProject. Meanwhile, a Good Article and a Featured Article both have other external things, besides subject matter content, that the WikiProject don't care about. Thus there are two routes to get an article to FA status: B -> GA -> A, and B -> A -> FA. The GA might look pretty but lack some key content; an A-Class has all the content but won't look so pretty.
- In terms of usefulness, I would argue that if any WikiProjects at all are still using it, and find it useful, then why not keep it? We have a lot of "class" levels that some projects use and others don't such as Draft-Class, etc. When we set up the bot, we accommodated the different needs that different projects might have, even if it were just a couple of projects asking for a particular class level. I see no reason to change that. If we reach a point where zero WikiProjects are using it, only then should it be deleted. Walkerma (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I still think the difference between GA and A-class is far too granular. As I said, it's an unnecessary extra step with no formal way to tell if it's met or not, unlike FA and GA. And I still think <25% usage is a shockingly low usage rate for any point on the grading scale. If <25% of articles were using GA-class and 75% were skipping it entirely, would that not also be concerning? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm writing an essay about A-Class in my homewiki, and I noticed this discussion. In my opinion, GAs equivalent to Bplus-Class articles, while A-Class articles can be recognized as Pre-FAs. That is to say, we shall not compare GAs to ACAs, but ACAs to FAs.
- An ACA must undergo a rigorous review to ensure it has comprehensive content, though style-like-stuff checking is not the key point now. Due to A-Class review needs a lot of effort, and there is a substantial overlap between ACR and FAC; the GA-to-FA route is practical for the most of projects.
- I think most projects could consider that can they afford another FAC-like procedure? If not, deprecating their A-Class is a good way. But for projects have a strong A-Class review team, their ACR are meaningful in article improving.--Lopullinen 14:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I still think the difference between GA and A-class is far too granular. As I said, it's an unnecessary extra step with no formal way to tell if it's met or not, unlike FA and GA. And I still think <25% usage is a shockingly low usage rate for any point on the grading scale. If <25% of articles were using GA-class and 75% were skipping it entirely, would that not also be concerning? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Some projects, including Military History, use it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I get that. I just don't see why we should hvae a rating schematic used by less than 25% of the project. There are no policy based reasons or precedents for it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- There's no policy-based reason for removing a major project internal assessment process, either. It's not broken, so why are you trying to break it? Hog Farm Talk 18:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- (After edit conflict) You have said above and repeated here that there are no "precedents" but your whole argument is to overturn a classification system that has been used for well over a decade and is in use on hundreds/thousands of articles. A system in use for over half the life of Wikipedia is a significant precedent. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I get that. I just don't see why we should hvae a rating schematic used by less than 25% of the project. There are no policy based reasons or precedents for it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: The MfD tag placement on the page resulted in a lot of bad category transclusions; I have now added noinclude tags to avoid this. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Strong keep (as MILHIST coordinator). If even just one or two projects want to use it, why care? I've been quite involved in A-Class for MILHIST and have never seen it cause any sizable problems. I don't see why MFD should dictate internal project processes. Hog Farm Talk 18:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- You don't think "over a thousand empty categories" is a problem? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the categories aren't harming anything, and can surely be coded out of the template interface and then deleted if they ain't going to be used. Destroying a used process to remove some category bloat is like cutting of your thumb to remove a hangnail. Hog Farm Talk 20:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- You don't think "over a thousand empty categories" is a problem?"
- Why would it be a problem? No one is affected by them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Can the empty categories be tagged as {{Possibly empty category}}?
- Why does anyone care about empty categories? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- You don't think "over a thousand empty categories" is a problem? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I have notified WP:WikiProject Military history and the Village Pump of this MfD. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep WP:MILHIST produces a large number of FA-class articles and there are frequent attempts to copy what works there and apply it to other projects (with a mixture of success and failure). There have also been attempts over the years to try to restrain the number of FA articles related to the military, as if reducing the amount of effort put into the military articles by volunteers will somehow result in those volunteers gaining an interest in improving other topics that they are not interested in. If A-class assessments by Wikiprojects are part of the process used to produce this high quality content, what benefit is gained by removing it? Other projects that don't use A-class are not affected by the removal but it harms the projects that do use it. There is no need to hold back successful projects to the pace of the less successful ones. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep (also a MILHIST coord). One would also expect questions on why we would have B and C ratings and no A. There will always be questions about why things are a certain way, and the fact that 3 different individuals asked that question over the last 15+ years the A-class rating has been around is not really evidence that it's unnecessary. That the projects where you participate don't use the A-class review process also isn't a good reason to get rid of it. Here's the bottom line on questions like this one: is the subject up for deletion a net positive or net negative? If the former, it should be kept, if the latter, deleted. I don't think a case can be made that A-class is a net negative. Parsecboy (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep' 1) Other projects do use it (such as WP:HWY/ACR), and 2) I don't know that deleting the page would actually remove A-Class, that would require a RFC. --Rschen7754 19:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep (also a MILHIST coord) A-class is not parallel to GA; B-class is parallel to GA. GA is a review by a single editor, and is pretty much the minimum standard for an encyclopaedia article. MilHist A-class requires review by three editors, along with source and image reviews. Unlike FA, it is always available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Procedural keep Surely MFD is not the correct venue for discussing such a significant change into content assessment. An RFC at some other venue (WP:VPP?) would be much more suitable and would gain a lot more attention. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Commenting wearing my FAC coordinator hat, I consider there to be a large gap between the standards required of at GAN and those of FAC. ACR makes a fine halfway - or two-thirds - house, especially for those newer to the FAC process. That more projects do not have active ACR processes is a shame and I feel it would benefit Wikipedia as a whole to see more of them, rather than fewer. Or, as suggested, none. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why do we need a midpoint though? No one's proved why it's needed for any other reason than "well, one project uses it". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This is all the discussion I didn't see the last 874 times A-class was discussed. What brought you all out of the woodwork? If it is truly being used by the military projects, then could we at least reach a consensus to prune it from all the projects for which it has little to no use? As I said earlier, if any other category schematic had over a thousand empty categories, they'd be G6'd on sight. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep bunk nomination rational. If you don't know what the category is for, ask, don't MFD it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I am not involved with MILHIST but if it is useful to that project, then that is good enough for me. Cullen328 (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment (MILHIST coord here) Yes, it is well-known that not many projects have any use for A-class, outside of MILHIST. Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism had an A class process in 2018 that died out after one article was processed through it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones apparently still has a process, though I am unsure of the mechanics of it. TPH is right to criticize the claims that the defining attribute of an A-class article is that it "will typically fall short because of minor style issues." I think the reality is somewhat looser on this, though at MilHist I and quite a few other users will try and demand close to what FA standards would be, with maybe one or two small notes that a source should be replaced or some subject is deserving of slightly more detail. That all said, simply up and removing the option for projects to have an A-class would cause more harm than good. My first ever FA went GA -> A class -> FA class, and it was helpful to have it reviewed by people who knew the right content questions to ask before I brought it to FA. Please do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I would be fine with creating a restriction, whereby for example if MILHIST determines an article to be A-class only the class rating for the military history project can be change to say "class=A", since I've seen bad low quality articles dubbed A Class by persons from small projects without going through any review process. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep – Per many of the exceptional rationales presented herein, such as arguments presented by HOG FARM, Ljleppan, Gog the Mild and others. In my opinion, the nomination is looking for a solution to a problem that does not exist. North America1000 23:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This whole nom strikes me as bordering on a "foolish consistency".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep for just about every reason other editors have stated above. No need for this to be removed. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Farawayman (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete but allow adaptation of its content by individual WikiProjects.
- Several users cited the page's utilty to the MilHist WikiProject. While this is a valid reasoning, we shouldn't have to keep an information page that is chiefly useful for only a few WikiProjects (e.g. MilHist) for the whole Wikipedia. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wrong venue. This appears to be a proposal to deprecated A-class assessment, and implementation of such an outcome, were it accepted, would have to involve a wide variety of tasks beyond the deletion of this one page being discussed at MfD, including reworking the WikiProject template system, bots, and categories. In any case, there clearly is the case for deleting the categories for WikiProjects that do not make use of the class, and WikiProjects should be encouraged to review their existing pages. But we may first need to adjust the WikiProject meta templates to avoid the categories showing up as red links and the criterion showing up on project pages where it's irrelevant. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agree completely - presenting this as a simple MFD of a single page when it's really "we should make major changes to the general assessment system" is not helpful, regardless of the merits of the proposal. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thirded. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- If I had done it in any other venue, it would have sat unnoticed for years and years, just like literally every other discussion on A-class content ever. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agree completely - presenting this as a simple MFD of a single page when it's really "we should make major changes to the general assessment system" is not helpful, regardless of the merits of the proposal. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, in use by at least one project. While I think removing A-class from projects without a functioning review process (99% of them) is probably beneficial, I'm not sure such a fairly small change is worth the effort. (I would support a general re-evaluation of the content assessment system). But none of this is for MfD, and I suggest to close this soon and find a more productive venue for the discussion. —Kusma (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wrong venue.
- Use Wikipedia talk:Content assessment/A-Class criteria. If no one responds, see Wikipedia:Publicising discussions. If still no one responds, do it. MfD is wrong because deletion is not being sought. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
June 16, 2022
Draft:A YOUNG SINGER/RAPPING/HIP HOP ARTIST reece
- Draft:A YOUNG SINGER/RAPPING/HIP HOP ARTIST reece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This is a draft submission rejected by Theroadislong. The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO as a Google search did not turn up any relevant results. In this case, no amount of editing can overcome the subject's lack of notability. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 20:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: As an unsourced BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Notability is not the issue, and does not apply to drafts. BLP policy does apply, and this is unsourced. (Otherwise, it would just be a draft that needed rejecting.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as both BLP problem and G11. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - looks kinda promotional, also completely unsourced and is a biography of a living person. Those tend to get deleted. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 03:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete G11 self-promotion. Also concerned if the artist is young as per oversight. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 13:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Tennisuser123/Hemisphere Airlines
- User:Tennisuser123/Hemisphere Airlines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This is a hoax and so unlikely to be useful for the project per WP:UP#GOALS and WP:FAKEARTICLE. The US doesn't have a flag carrier (it does have three primary airlines but they are not flag carriers). It most definitely does not have an airline named Hemisphere Airlines.
I would understand if the page were being used to test infoboxes, wikitables, or article writing. I'm also aware that we generally give wide latitude to pages in userspace. However, per WP:FAKEARTICLE, "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles ... Actual fake articles should be deleted as incompatible with the purpose of the project."
There seems to be a not-insubstantial amount of prose devoted to the destinations and fleet of this fictitious airline. It contains fake statistics like "Hemisphere and its subsidiaries employ 70,000 people worldwide. The airline reported $17.2 billion in annual revenue in 2017 and consistently places on the S&P 500 Index. The airline transports over 16 million passengers per year, averaging approximately 380,000 passengers per day, or approximately 13.8 million per year." These statistics are easily debunked by a quick search online. Since this user subpage exclusively contains information about a fictitious airline, I believe this falls under WP:FAKEARTICLE. Epicgenius (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fiction presented as fact is never ok. We quickly delete fictitious history pages. This looks no different. One thing different is the user has a long history of contribution. Maybe they can explain? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as a fake article and as a hoax, without commenting on whether it is an obvious hoax calling for G3, but both obvious and unobvious hoaxes can be deleted at XFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as a WP:FAKEARTICLE. Not sure what the users objective was here. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Tennisuser123/Levittown Branch
- User:Tennisuser123/Levittown Branch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This is a hoax and so unlikely to be useful for the project per WP:UP#GOALS and WP:FAKEARTICLE. The Long Island Rail Road has no such branch. The stretch of railroad in question is described as Central Railroad of Long Island#Garden City–Mitchel Field Secondary - it is a freight line, not a passenger branch.
I would understand if the page were being used to test infoboxes, wikitables, or article writing. I'm also aware that we generally give wide latitude to pages in userspace.
However, per WP:FAKEARTICLE, "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles ... Actual fake articles should be deleted as incompatible with the purpose of the project." Since the track in question has no stations and is a freight line, statements like "Currently, the Levittown Branch is the sixth-busiest on the LIRR, serving over 20,000 passengers daily and over 7.3 million annually, with ridership up by 6.8% since 2007" evidently cannot be true. This user subpage has been around for five years without any edits and, since it mainly contains information about a fictitious passenger railroad branch, I believe this falls under WP:FAKEARTICLE. Epicgenius (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Delete as a fake article and a hoax. Weak delete only because I have not tried to verify the truth or falsehood of the page and am relying on the statement by the nominator. If the originator wants to keep it, they can add references, which are not normally required in a user page draft (and the references may be verifiable or unverifiable). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I see your point. It is unfortunately difficult to prove the absence of something, especially if it's relatively obscure. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I can confirm that no such branch exists; the right of way is in fact abandoned between the freight spur in Garden City and BETH interlocking in Farmingdale [1], and there are no concrete proposals to reactivate this segment. True, it's not a blatant hoax in mainspace, though Wikipedia is not the place for such "fantasies" (WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:NOTWEBHOST). ComplexRational (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Bromyard Cricket Club
- Draft:Bromyard Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
miss-use of Wikipedia as a web host, we are not a permanent repository of random non notable cricket club details, user clearly has no intention of submitting for review. Theroadislong (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- (Comment) This is a wholly incorrect statement to make and unfounded. The user Theroadislong clearly has no cricket specialist knowledge and to suggest my edits are ‘random non notable cricket club details’ is offensive. This club has had notable players that have played International and First Class cricket for them. To suggest they are non notable suggests that the user has decided he will remove edits without careful understanding of what they contain. This cricket club plays in the same division as Old Hill Cricket Club that have their own Wiki page. I challenge the thoughtless process this user has used to suggest it be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerupdate (talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Then why do you not submit it for review? Theroadislong (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NDRAFT. It looks like a draft. There is no evidence presented of NOTWEBHOSTING. Pageviews indicate no NOTWEBHOST abuse. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I recommend to Writerupdate (talk · contribs) that they userfy the draft, strip the afc tags, blank it, and get more experience improving content before trying to write new pages. Writing new pages is a big challenge. Come back to it when you have more experience.
- I think that this draft does not have a pathway to mainspace. The Author may read WP:DUD, and may unilaterally mainspace it, and then it will be deleted at AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NDRAFT. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The subject does not meet either NCRICK or GNG, therefore it is entirely fair and correct to describe this as non-notable. The draft was declined nearly 11 months ago for inadequate referencing, and nothing has been done to address that. Instead, the creator keeps updating the statistics and other content which has no bearing on this issue, very much suggesting that there is no attempt to get the draft ready for publication; nor, indeed, has it been resubmitted since last July. The ultimate aim of a draft must surely be to produce a published article, otherwise we are merely providing a web hosting service, as the nom asserts. (And finally, just to point out that WP:NDRAFT is an essay, not a notability guideline.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Abuse of Draft space. This is not what Draft was intended for 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Can it please be explained to me why two cricket clubs in Bromyard’s division have Wiki pages? Namely Stourbridge CC and Old Hill CC. If anything Bromyard is more notable having listed on this draft the names of Internationals and First Class players that have played for them. If the issue is the statistics I can remove them and resubmit for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerupdate (talk • contribs) 09:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think one root of the problem is that you are not up to speed with WP:NOR. Your draft reads as an original study. It’s hard to explain how to fix it, but if you spend some time working on improving existing content, it will help you. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Writerupdate See other poor quality articles exist, Stourbridge Cricket Club should probably be deleted too, it has zero references. You appear to have no intention of re-submitting the draft and you're just using the space to record club details. Theroadislong (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The space here on Wiki is not to record this club’s statistics. They can all be found on their Play Cricket web page which is also referenced on the draft so it is sourced. You edited this draft and took away the statistics so you obviously feel without those it is suitable. When I added the statistics back on you felt the need to submit for deletion as you nose got put out of joint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerupdate (talk • contribs) 11:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep this was a candidate for CSD U5 web host but now that the extensive stats were removed after the MFD was proposed, it could be considered on its own, should stay at draft. If the stats are restored though, then it should be deleted. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 13:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Old business