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 | 114 | 0 | 137 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
RfD | 0 | 1 | 19 | 0 | 20 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
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.
July 4, 2022
Draft:Professional Video Monitors
- Draft:Professional Video Monitors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Rejected draft. Tagged for speedy deletion under G11, which I don't feel is appropriate (it is not "exclusively promotional" and in fact lists some drawbacks of the product), yet searching turns up mostly sales pages and product listings rather than reliable sources. Let's make a decision one way or the other--I can see both sides. ChromaNebula (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - It's a rejected draft. There is no need to bring rejected drafts to MFD, and rejected drafts should not be brought to MFD simply because they were rejected. The purpose of rejection is to stop useless resubmissions without making extra work for MFD. It isn't necessary to bring drafts to MFD simply because they needed rejecting. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
July 3, 2022
Draft:Brown Jovi
- Draft:Brown Jovi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This is a throw a way character to make a joke (Brown Jovi / Bon Jovi) that appears in about 10 seconds of a Ms. Marvel episode, and is in no way notable for an article, let alone a draft, about them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Snow delete never going to become an article, totally stupid. Dronebogus (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete – Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity, but since it's been nominated from deletion we might as well get rid of it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, but this clearly isn't going to become a mainspace article. Why let it languish between being as it currently is for six months, or other editors coming across it and trying to submit it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are many, many drafts like this one, some even more nonsensical than this (example 1, example 2). That's where G13 comes in, so editors don't need to send them to MfD every time. There's no harm in keeping these drafts since they're never going to become articles anyway, and even if editors try to submit them to AfC they will 99% be rejected. Just let them be automatically G13'd after six months. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- It’s here, we should just snow delete it, WP:NOTBURO Dronebogus (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are many, many drafts like this one, some even more nonsensical than this (example 1, example 2). That's where G13 comes in, so editors don't need to send them to MfD every time. There's no harm in keeping these drafts since they're never going to become articles anyway, and even if editors try to submit them to AfC they will 99% be rejected. Just let them be automatically G13'd after six months. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, but this clearly isn't going to become a mainspace article. Why let it languish between being as it currently is for six months, or other editors coming across it and trying to submit it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Stupidity is not a reason to delete a draft. Stop ragpicking. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Throwaway or not, it has sources only a week old. This is the purpose of draftspace. Don’t bring worthless harmless things to MfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Interstate 885 (NC)
- Talk:Interstate 885 (NC) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
These two talk pages are completely unnecessary for these two redirect pages. They are both byproducts of the page moving process when the exact name of a new article was being determined. OrdinaryJosh (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @OrdinaryJosh This is the wrong venue for this discussion. Redirects are discussed at WP:RFD regardless of namespace. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- My sincere apologies. Feel free to take down this request. OrdinaryJosh (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @OrdinaryJosh Sorry, there's a mistake on my part, the second page is a redirect that needs to be sent to RFD, the first is a talk page that should be discussed here, apologies. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- No problem. Understood. OrdinaryJosh (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @OrdinaryJosh Sorry, there's a mistake on my part, the second page is a redirect that needs to be sent to RFD, the first is a talk page that should be discussed here, apologies. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- My sincere apologies. Feel free to take down this request. OrdinaryJosh (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Procedural Close Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Either Keep or Speedy keep. Talk pages aren’t deleted for being unnecessary (doing so is unnecessary), or wrong forum. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
June 30, 2022
User:Mishadworken
- User:Mishadworken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Apparently abandoned draft (for several years now!), or possibly an attempt to recreate a deleted article in userspace. Potential BLP issues. --ais523 05:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as an unsourced BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: as an unsourced BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
- Keep per Diannaa's and Miniapolis's comments above. While its encyclopedic value seem sketchy, WP:G8 does list this file talk page as a type of page that qualifies for {{G8-exempt}}; so, there's not a strong policy based reason for deleting the page even via MfD, unless someone wants to try and argue WP:IAR should be applied in this particular case. Although I don't agree that nominating the page for deletion here at MfD qualifies as a kind of "hijacking" in any way, the consensus to keep pages such as this is a community one that appears to be well established. Of course, there's always WP:CCC, but that should be something discussed at WT:CSD, [:WT:DELETE]] or even WP:VPP. For reference, a previous attempt to do such a thing at WT:CSD#Proposal: expand F2 to cover certain file talk pages did not establish a new consensus for any such change. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a bit touched F8 IIRC. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep as per User:Diannaa and User:Miniapolis. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 3 July 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)
Delete unless User:Miniapolis can explain within five days why this is useful.Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting that Robert McClenon !voted "weak keep" several minutes later in an identical discussion. As an admin, I'm tasked with upholding policy until it's changed; the place for that discussion is WP:VPP. (FWIW, I think the WP:F8 criteria should be changed.) Miniapolis 00:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - This is what comes of reading one MFD at a time and !voting on them in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 3 July 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)
- Speedy Redirect to Lucknow Super Giants. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 3 July 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)
- Delete - This looks like web hosting of a resume. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 2 July 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)
- Delete - Unsourced BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 2 July 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)
- speedy delete this didn’t need to happen in the first place but since it’s extremely obvious this is not intended to be a useful contribution to the encyclopedia but rather a weird essay/soapbox that wouldn’t even be useful to its intended audience then why not just delete it while it’s here? Dronebogus (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- What Speedy delete criterion? To call “speedy delete” after “keep” !votes displays nonconcurrence with the spirit of WP:CSD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can probably be covered under the spirit of WP:A11, WP:U5 using WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO. This is not an attempt at making an encyclopedia article, anyone can blatantly see that, and there is no way it’s going to be salvaged. Dronebogus (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- What Speedy delete criterion? To call “speedy delete” after “keep” !votes displays nonconcurrence with the spirit of WP:CSD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:37, 2 July 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 22, 2022
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)
- Keep. I don't see any harm in keeping this for our records, I want to note that there is no WP:LTA file for this person yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Old business