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 | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 23 | 113 | 0 | 136 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
RfD | 0 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 18 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
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 30, 2022
File talk:688 Club logo.jpg
- File talk:688 Club logo.jpg (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Talk page of locally deleted file that contains no discussions. Tagged with {{G8-exempt}} and not eligible for speedy deletion. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 81#File talk pages which consist only of boilerplates, wikiproject tags, and/or text which has been copied to Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete There is no reason to tag a page with G8-exempt if it doesn't contain anything. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- "It doesn't contain anything" is patently false. It contains a WikiProject banner. Were they consulted? We've long held that WikiProjects alone are to be the arbiter of what's appropriate to a WP. We're now saying that other project areas are entitled to exercise unilateral veto power on account of their local consensus? Sounds like a hijacking to me. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think the statement
We've long held that WikiProjects alone are to be the arbiter of what's appropriate to a WP.
is totally accurate. WikiProjects can, for sure, provide valuable guidance when it comes to sorting out issues, but a consensus achieved at a WikiProject is also a local consensus and it can't supersede a community consensus. Is there's any value to keeping this talk page other than it has a WikirRoject banner on it? The {{G8-exempt}} template was added by Miniapolis back in 2015 and maybe there was a reason for doing so back then that no longer applies. File talk pages (even ones tagged with G8-exempt) often end up deleted when the corresponding file is deleted if the reviewing admin feels there's no value to keeping the talk page. This file was originally uploaded as non-free content, but it was deleted per WP:F8 by Miniapolis after the file was moved to Commons in 2015. I've posted a {{Please see}} about this discussion on Miniapolis's user talk page; perhaps they will comment and help clarify things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)- Thanks for the ping, Marchjuly. I used to delete pages like this until I was told in no uncertain terms by Diannaa that, according to WP:G8 (which is policy), they should be kept. The project tag was placed in 2008 by Roswell native, who hasn't edited here since late last year. I don't see why pages like this need to be kept, and it may be time to open a discussion at WP:VPP. All the best, Miniapolis 23:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- The policy states "This criterion excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia, and in particular: [among other things] Talk pages for files that exist on Wikimedia Commons" and that's what this talk page is. So policy states that it should be kept. — Diannaa (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think the statement
- "It doesn't contain anything" is patently false. It contains a WikiProject banner. Were they consulted? We've long held that WikiProjects alone are to be the arbiter of what's appropriate to a WP. We're now saying that other project areas are entitled to exercise unilateral veto power on account of their local consensus? Sounds like a hijacking to me. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
File talk:3amdigital.jpg
- File talk:3amdigital.jpg (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Talk page of locally deleted file. Tagged with {{G8-exempt}} but doesn't actually contain any discussion. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 81#File talk pages which consist only of boilerplates, wikiproject tags, and/or text which has been copied to Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as blatant misuse of G8-exempt. There is literally nothing to keep here. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Lucknow Super Giants
- Draft:Lucknow Super Giants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- Draft:Lucknow IPL Team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Duplicate of article already in mainspace Spike 'em (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
User:AlvinJamesSaldanha
- User:AlvinJamesSaldanha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
WP:NOTWEBHOST. User has contributions outside of userspace however they are almost all 5+ years old, the user page was created somewhat recently. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Autobiographical user pages aren't unusual. This user page should be fine as long as he doesn't attempt to turn it into an article. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Mellohi! WP:UPYES mentions limited autobiographical content. This page seems more like a resume and has no mention of anything related to Wikipedia, it may be more about self-promotion than Wikipedia. Being written in 3rd person, WP:FAKEARTICLE is likely also relevant. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Good morning.
- I will not be attempting to turn this into an article. There is PLENTY about me on the internet and this was not an attempt to be featured on wikipedia. I use wikipedia a great deal and correct a great many grammar and spelling mistakes, even if I am not logged in. It would be wonderful to have this not deleted, but I respect your decision.223.182.97.2 (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Alvin J Saldanha 223.182.97.2 (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. This really looks like resume and self-promotion to me. —Sundostund (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
June 28, 2022
Draft:WWWJ-FM
- Draft:WWWJ-FM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This is a speedy declined by the creator. The article purports to describe a 94.7 FM radio station in Atlanta, which does not exist. (Atlanta has WUBL on 94.9, so there couldn't be one.) There is also no radio station with the call sign WWWJ at this time. This is a blatant hoax, no matter what the creator claims, and it should be deleted as unsuitable to become an encyclopedic article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- As stated in the article specifically, this station has not yet been added to a broadcasting tower but is in the process of doing such. Second of all, that isn't a government website. Rfmanradgh (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- FCCData.org is a reliable aggregate of information from the FCC's database systems. That it is not directly operated by the agency is immaterial to the issue at hand. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 18:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- The FCC records do not show this station exists, there is no WP:SIGCOV through reliable sources, the website used as a source for three of the four citations is very suspicious and Rfmanradgh, the author of the page, is claiming to own the station. Which, if it was the case, would be a massive WP:COI and he would have no business working on it. Support the speedy deletion as a hoax per nom. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 17:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- If y'all beleive I am fake, you are highly encouraged to delete it. I am not a hoax and I don't need to prove it to a private non-profit. Rfmanradgh (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the station is for real, that's all well and good. But articles need to have reliable sources and significant coverage in the media to back up claims. You can't cite just the station's website and social media pages. Moreover, you can't write an article on something that you own. It's simple common sense. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 21:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- If y'all beleive I am fake, you are highly encouraged to delete it. I am not a hoax and I don't need to prove it to a private non-profit. Rfmanradgh (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- The speedy was declined by user:Johnj1995, not the creator. I don't think it's a hoax as it does seem to exist online. It has no chance of being accepted in its present state, but we normally give drafts time to develop. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's the thing, it IS a hoax as it claims to be a physical radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, and it clearly is not. Internet radio stations can have articles but if there's lots of SIGCOV to justify it, not by simply citing the website. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 00:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I never claimed to be licensed by the FCC. Rfmanradgh (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- As I highly stated and bolded in the article, it clearly states that it is not license by the FCC and is not publicly on radio currently. Rfmanradgh (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Licensed doesn't mean license with FCC, I just have a royalty license so far.. Rfmanradgh (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Inasmuch as you made this edit a full two hours after this deletion request was posted by Sammi Brie (after previously claiming the station signed on at 94.7 FM on January 1, 2022) we do not do articles on terrestrial radio stations that don't exist, internet radio notwithstanding. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 00:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- As I highly stated and bolded in the article, it clearly states that it is not license by the FCC and is not publicly on radio currently. Rfmanradgh (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I never claimed to be licensed by the FCC. Rfmanradgh (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Pawnkingthree: This is a topic area where it takes one search of 30 seconds or less to learn what's a hoax and what isn't. This isn't even the first draft G3 for this very reason: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:KFBG-TV (2nd nomination). An article on a nonexistent broadcast station has no chance of meeting the GNG by definition, and the vast, vast majority of internet stations are not notable at all. I can start an internet radio station and call it WSMM, but it takes one easy search to learn that there is no station that currently broadcasts with that call sign. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's the thing, it IS a hoax as it claims to be a physical radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, and it clearly is not. Internet radio stations can have articles but if there's lots of SIGCOV to justify it, not by simply citing the website. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 00:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - The above arguments appear to be about whether an article satisfies verifiability. But this is not an article. This is a draft. Drafts are not deleted on account of notability or verifiability. They are declined on account of notability and verifiability, and that is not the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Robert McClenon. Draft MFDs are not a duplicate of article AFDs, and we allow some latitude for this.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Kashifm786
- Draft:Kashifm786 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Unsourced autobiography of a non-notable BLP. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 17:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oversight as unwarranted personal information. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft:David Greenbaum
- Draft:David Greenbaum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Unsourced stub biography of living person that does not make credible claim of significance. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Unsourced BLP. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 17:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as an unsourced BLP. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
User:0mtwb9gd5wx/List of Trojans for Representative Government members
- User:0mtwb9gd5wx/List of Trojans for Representative Government members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Inappropriate use of wikipedia, speedy deleted already as A7, but then restored. There is no imaginable potential for an article. DGG ( talk ) 15:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Acceptable compilation of encyclopedic information in userspace. Obviously unsuitable as an article in this form, but the fact that so many people later involved in the Nixon administration and Watergate were tied to a single student election is significant, and I for one was not previously aware of it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Within reasonable leeway for a contributor. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
June 27, 2022
Draft:The Handmaid's Tale Novel - Parents' Guide
- Draft:The Handmaid's Tale Novel - Parents' Guide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Violation of WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:NOTGUIDE. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 19:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - It's a draft. It needed declining or rejecting. The reasons given are reasons to decline or reject a submission,and it was declined. It may or may not be able to be made either into an article or part of an article by attributing the opinions to reliable sources. The nominator should stop ragpicking. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Fails WP:NOR, but we don’t delete most drafts per WP:NDRAFT; bringing them to MfD defeats the purpose of draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - These wholesale draft MFDs are getting out of hand.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Abhay prakash
- Draft:Abhay prakash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Unsourced autobiography of a non-notable BLP. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 19:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Unsourced draft BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: As an unsourced BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as an unsourced and unserviceable BLP. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
June 26, 2022
Wikipedia:WikiProject Drain Gang
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Drain Gang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Stillborn one-member (plus one person who literally did nothing but add themselves to the participants list) on a topic without a broad enough scope for a WikiProject * Pppery * it has begun... 23:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- thats fair actually you can delete it JSIAmKidding (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
June 25, 2022
Draft:Lee Jun-seok (police)
- Draft:Lee Jun-seok (police) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Copy of Seolhwa–Myeonggok station under an implausible title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Disruptive copy created by blocked disruptive editor. Redirection is not a plausible option. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as nonsense. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
June 24, 2022
Draft:Jeep Game
- Draft:Jeep Game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Violation of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day/number 2 of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. This could be tagged under WP:A11, but the page is in draft namespace. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 22:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - Would need rejecting if submitted. If not submitted, it is web hosting. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Since we're here, we might as well delete the page per the WP:NOT issues described above, but generally speaking these sorts of drafts are not problematic enough to require a trip to MfD: they can be left to die a natural death via WP:G13. See WP:NDRAFT. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Draftspace is for drafting things that could be an article someday. But this in particular is not even an attempt to create an article. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 12:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Christianity: Omnipotence, Omniscience and Free Will
- Draft:Christianity: Omnipotence, Omniscience and Free Will (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Blatant violation of WP:NOTESSAY. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 11:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete personal essay based on OR interpretation of primary Bible texts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete due to being an essay, not an article. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as Wikipedia is not for web hosting. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
June 22, 2022
Draft:ATINER Athens Institute for Education and Research
- Draft:ATINER Athens Institute for Education and Research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
despite claims that this doesn't meet WP:ATTACK, it does. It may very well be a predatory publisher but there isn't coverage of it being such. WP:ATTACK outlines this, as does {{db-attack}} vs {{db-negpubblp}}
In any case, this shouldn't be held on Wikipedia in hopes that we might one day be able to substantiate the claims here which are overtly negative and largely not supported. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, or at least, disagree with the rationable above.
- WP:CSD#G10 is for attack pages on people (dead or living), this isn't it.
- While negative, it's a legitimate draft. It's not one that has any chance of being accepted as is, or from the current writer unless it undergoes a significant rewrite, but the issue is that sourcing is bunk, and does not show notability, not that it's an "attack page". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- It literally is in WP:CSD, @Headbomb and that's why {{Db-attackorg}} exists - it says entity, not living person. The idea that we don't have a speedy deletion criteria to cover attacks on businesses or organizations because they aren't living people is ridiculous and sets a precedent for anyone to disparage a company that pissed them off.PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- CSD also says 'unsourced'. This is sourced. Badly, but it is sourced. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's for db-negpubblp - specifically unsourced accusations/negative content about BLPs. Not to mention, other than a brief mention in one single source in that draft, the negative claims are unsourced. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is one sentence out of the five that is badly sourced synthesis. The rest of the claims are sourced. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Removed all badly sourced sentences. All sentences now are what is the review of OTHERS e.g. University of Colorado Beall's List of Predatory Journals and Publishers and California Institute of Technology. Reputation wise these sources are of the highest esteem and prestige,
- 26 references of University of Colorado, California Institute of Technology, All European Research Institutes, JSTOR merit this short article with scholarly prestige and merit your credit please. UniversityRecords (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- As mentionned at the help desk, this is not a matter of adding anything in particular, it's a matter of writing the article based on what sources say about ATINER. For example, none of your sources show that
- ATINER is a fake peer review paper mill
- 17 Predatory Journals per quarter
- +70 Predatory Conferences per year
- +210 Books +603 abstract Books
- +2,738 Paper Series
- Fake Journals: Fake peer review with ISSN
- Your citations are at best random tidbits of information, which you've synthesized yourself into these claims.
- What you need is to have a source which discusses ATINER in depth. See OMICS Publishing Group and SCIRP for example of predatory publishers which have attracted significant coverage in reliable sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you indeed Headbomb. Removed "fake peer review". Just added the source www.atiner.gr of 17 Predatory Journals per quarter, +70 Predatory Conferences per year, +200 Books, +600 abstract Books, +2,738 Paper Series(Fake Journals with ISSN).
- I'll keep working on adding high reputation references. UniversityRecords (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- +2,738 Paper Series(Claimed Journal Papers with claimed peer review and ISSN).
- Please note that a Journal paper is peer review and ISSN. On average there are +2 co-authors per Journal paper a very conservative number.
- More than 5,478 Authors have been deceived to believe they have published a claimed peer reviewed Journal paper with ISSN after paying Conferences registration fees.
- Paper mill definition is fake-paper factories that churn out sham science (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00733-5)
- Should I include the above in the draft or is it self evident ? UniversityRecords (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- None of the sources support the claims you are making here. You need a source that specifically address ATINER having deceived 'more than 5,478 Authors'. A source that simply says 5478 authors have published a paper in ATINER journals is insufficient. Likewise, you need a source that specifically mentions ATINER being a paper mill, not just a general definition of a paper mill and claim that ATINER fits that model. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Understood removed from body of text all these unsupported claims.
- Added a scholarly source https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ lists ATINER a predatory publisher.
- Added a scholarly source that clearly states Author paid Conference registration fees to publish Paper with ISSN. https://researchprofiles.herts.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/inchoate-offences-in-cyberspace--a-moveable-feast-or-the-end-of-harm(4306efea-4c86-4934-9b0f-8edde5a57dfc).html UniversityRecords (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- None of the sources support the claims you are making here. You need a source that specifically address ATINER having deceived 'more than 5,478 Authors'. A source that simply says 5478 authors have published a paper in ATINER journals is insufficient. Likewise, you need a source that specifically mentions ATINER being a paper mill, not just a general definition of a paper mill and claim that ATINER fits that model. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- As mentionned at the help desk, this is not a matter of adding anything in particular, it's a matter of writing the article based on what sources say about ATINER. For example, none of your sources show that
- There is one sentence out of the five that is badly sourced synthesis. The rest of the claims are sourced. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's for db-negpubblp - specifically unsourced accusations/negative content about BLPs. Not to mention, other than a brief mention in one single source in that draft, the negative claims are unsourced. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- CSD also says 'unsourced'. This is sourced. Badly, but it is sourced. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- It literally is in WP:CSD, @Headbomb and that's why {{Db-attackorg}} exists - it says entity, not living person. The idea that we don't have a speedy deletion criteria to cover attacks on businesses or organizations because they aren't living people is ridiculous and sets a precedent for anyone to disparage a company that pissed them off.PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:G10. At the time of writing this reply, the draft article contains six "paragraphs". Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 are directly attacking the organisation. Paragraph 3 is indirectly attacking it. G10 is pretty clear that
These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to.
and having reviewed the page history, there appears to be no neutral version to revert to. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)- @Sideswipe9th: we can have negative articles. Of the six sentence, one is problematic (#4), the others are sourced (badly so, but they are sourced). We shouldn't expect predatory publishers to have much in the way of a positive coverage, take OMICS Publishing Group for example. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- A poorly sourced attack sentence is still an attack sentence. WP:ATTACK clearly says
An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced.
Emphasis mine. While there is a slight disconnect between the text at ATTACK and G10 with respect to poorly sourced, I believe the intent of G10 is to cover both unsourced attack pages and poorly sourced given that ATTACK is policy. - OMICS is an interesting counter example, while it is a negative article, it is not an attack article. It is well sourced, including both media and academic sources, and is reasonably well balanced given the nature of sources about it. Conversely ATINER is none of those things. While there may be a future version of ATINER that is not an attack page, at present it is an attack page and so subject to G10. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- unsourced or poorly sourced applies to biographical materials. This isn't a biography. It's not even an article, it's a draft. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Replying in parts
unsourced or poorly sourced applies to biographical materials.
I do not believe the text at ATTACK or G10 supports this interpretation. I read thatentirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced
applies to all such articles, not only biographical ones.This isn't a biography. It's not even an article, it's a draft
Per ATTACKAn attack page is a page, in any namespace
. Any namespace includes the Draft namespace.
- Even if the poorly sourced part only applied to biographical articles, which I do not agree, the policy itself still applies to the draft namespace. Even if poorly sourced material is considered sourced, it is still an attack page by nature of the content within it. As such, ATTACK and CSD:G10 applies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Replying in parts
- unsourced or poorly sourced applies to biographical materials. This isn't a biography. It's not even an article, it's a draft. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- A poorly sourced attack sentence is still an attack sentence. WP:ATTACK clearly says
- I am adding more neutral paragraphs. Please give me more time. Don't' you want to be objective ???
- You are deleting what is the review of California Institute of Technology for ATINER, the review of University of Colorado, All European Research Institutes, 27 Sources from JSTOR, Universities and Scholarly sources. UniversityRecords (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I believe policy requires this page to be deleted. There is nothing preventing you from working on it offline, and resubmitting a new draft in the future. But as there is no neutral version to revert to, and it is very poorly sourced, I believe it should be deleted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th: we can have negative articles. Of the six sentence, one is problematic (#4), the others are sourced (badly so, but they are sourced). We shouldn't expect predatory publishers to have much in the way of a positive coverage, take OMICS Publishing Group for example. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've culled the draft to what sources actually say about ATINER. I've left a claim which seems likely but is unsourced.
- This still doesn't pass WP:NORG btw, but this address the most of the sourcing and synthesis issues. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Headbomb much appreciated indeed. Thank you a million indeed.
- Added two sources with Greece legislation under your citation needed.
- Thank you indeed again for all your great help. I really appreciate it,
- Going to say goodnight to you gentlemen it's past midnight in Greece.
- Talk to you tomorrow. All the best wishes, P. UniversityRecords (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Citations needed:
- 3. https://www.uom.gr/en/uri
- 4. https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/legislation-27_en UniversityRecords (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete and Do Not Salt - As of about 0315 GMT, 23 June, there are only two sentences, and nothing descriptive, only negative. This draft may not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria exactly, but a page that is close to the speedy criteria should be deleted at XFD. That is one of the reasons why we have discussions for edge cases. This draft will not be a basis for a draft article. It should be deleted to blow it up, and possibly start over. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Dear Mr. McClenon, thank you indeed for your constructive feedback "blow it up, and start over". I really appreciate it.
- To start over there are enough descriptive Neutral paragraphs to add.
- Where do I start to avoid same errors, do you recommend editor(s) I can work with before submission?
- Headbomb I really appreciate all your feedback and your valuable guidance, thank you indeed.
- Respectfully yours UniversityRecords (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Beall's List is defunct though there are forks of varying legitimacy, rendering the first line a complete misuse of source. I do not find the name in CABELLS' Predatory Reports either. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that the draft will become an article. Overall, I am of the opinion that the nomination is justified. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Defunct or not, it was still listed by Beall. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Colleagues, Fraud is when a "Research Institute" is operating under a printing press business license for profit. They would be facing criminal prosecution and prison in North America. So they crossed the borders to Greece to operate their fraud freely from criminal prosecution. Please re-consider. I am very happy even with the two lines left by Headbomb. Thank you indeed Mr. Headbomb. Wikipedia needs and must have more educated editors like you Mr. Headbomb. This humble request is from a Harvard Professor who has been deceived and exploited by these Fraudsters working for free for almost two decades. They are stealing blind thousands of Academics for two decades. Help me warn thousands of other Academics who fall into their trap, pay $ millions in Conferences fees and work for free under the fraud of "Research Institute" for the Fraudsters' Journals. Respectfully Professor Panagiotis Petratos PhD AMDP (Harvard University). UniversityRecords (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Defunct or not, it was still listed by Beall. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- It does not meet WP:ATTACK. It is well enough sourced and balanced. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Charlie Wilson1702
- User:Charlie Wilson1702 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Per this SPI, there should no longer be any sock tags implied to newer puppets whenever this LTA causes havoc. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree with the comments at the SPI, it is standard to tag the socks, to track disruption. GiantSnowman 16:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
June 16, 2022
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