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 | 6 | 146 | 79 | 231 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 13 |
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 18, 2022
Draft:Madison McKell
- Draft:Madison McKell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Unsourced BLP. In every namespace, unsourced BLPs should be deleted if a reliable source can’t be added within seven days. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Creator is blocked for ban evasion, so may qualify for WP:G5 too. cc blocking admin Favonian, refund admin Muboshgu, and original refund declining admin Jay. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I probably should have used personal judgment to not refund this draft even though it was deleted as G13. Maybe it meets WP:G2? MfD works just fine. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete – Even aside from the IP's dubious dossier and WP:NOTFB, this is an unsourced page about a 14-year-old and we should not publish it. Favonian (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Diligent Blesslee
- Draft:Diligent Blesslee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This is recreation of recently deleted article as per G11 Deletion Log , also identified author used multiple accounts editing this article. Deleted article created by 074arjun (Log), this draft created by David81KL . edits using both accounts this draft page related, could be a sockpuppet situation and again clearly shows creator of the article has against wikipedia policy per COI , G11 .
Another issues regarding this article; subject does not meet WP:NMUSIC / WP:COMPOSER because there are no works in multiple notable productions other than being a participant of a reality shows. The subject also lacks significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Apparently one of the contestant of Bigg Boss which is alone not sufficient for notability per WP:BIGBROTHER -Joxin 05:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Clearly shows recreation of article against wikipedia policy per COI , G11 . -Joxin 05:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
July 17, 2022
Portal:Jonesboro, Arkansas
- Portal:Jonesboro, Arkansas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Does not meet criteria at Wikipedia:Portal, which states that portals are intended for "specific broad subjects". This is a list of links related in some way to Jonesboro, Arkansas. These links should be incorporated into the article, not listed without explanation in a portal. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete or move to article space This is too narrow a subject to make for a good portal, and would be better off in article space (although it's in the wrong style to be an article, it's also in the wrong style to be a portal). It isn't really suitable for article space at present, but has potential to be so in the future, so I wouldn't object to anyone trying to move the content there with appropriate rearrangement/reformatting; I think my preference would be to just delete it, but allow a WP:REFUND for anyone trying to make use of the content here to improve the encylopedia in other ways. --ais523 05:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Jonesboro, Arkansas: Do not move to mainspace, instead improve Jonesboro, Arkansas, and if a list WP:spinout is needed, let it happen by the normal spinout process. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Jonesboro, Arkansas, per SmokeyJoe's rationale. North America1000 06:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - seems to have been deleted as G5 in the meantime. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 16:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
July 15, 2022
Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Brescia IP
- Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Brescia IP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Report unfinished after about a year. From link, vandalism appears to be obvious so LTA case is not needed and discouraged per WP:DENY PHANTOMTECH [TALK]
20:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - In the absence of a guideline on deletion of LTA files, the general guideline of Deny Recognition should be interpreted to mean not to open LTA files unnecessarily, but that leaving abandoned files open is a better denial of recognition than deleting them. The MFD for a deleted LTA file will still exist, so you aren't really hiding or covering up anything. Maybe there should be a guideline to avoid creating unnecessary LTA files, but deleting them seems like the wrong answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon Though it isn't very easy to find, here is the criteria for deletion of LTA pages Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Detailed instructions#Criteria_for_removal which includes both inactive and improper reports. The same page also includes criteria for LTA cases which the nominated page fails, like
Only add vandals who need to be pointed out
. The current page hasn't been accepted and is still pending per the infobox so in some sense it has never been "open".PHANTOMTECH [TALK]
02:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon Though it isn't very easy to find, here is the criteria for deletion of LTA pages Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Detailed instructions#Criteria_for_removal which includes both inactive and improper reports. The same page also includes criteria for LTA cases which the nominated page fails, like
- What a bullshit opinion. "Vandalism is obvious, so there's no need for an LTA page." Exactly where did you learn your logic from? The purpose of an LTA page is to highlight vandalism and consolidate information about it, and that's what this page does. WP:DENY has nothing w=whatsoever to do with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken On WP:LTA read the section "Don't use LTA unless needed"
PhantomTech[talk]
09:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken On WP:LTA read the section "Don't use LTA unless needed"
Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Debearing egu 77
- Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Debearing egu 77 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Vandalism is obvious, LTA case not need and discouraged per WP:DENY PHANTOMTECH [TALK]
20:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Maybe this LTA file should not have been created, but going to the effort of deleting it is more recognition, in the absence of a guideline concerning deleting LTA files, and in the absence of a procedure for approving the opening of LTA files. Leave this alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are requirements for LTA files and, though not well documented, there are procedures for opening them as well.
PHANTOMTECH [TALK]
02:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are requirements for LTA files and, though not well documented, there are procedures for opening them as well.
- User:PhantomTech, what is your role at WP:LTA? I think that for clerking, you should minimally be qualified as an SPI clerk. Are you? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe There's unfortunately not a lot of attention paid to LTA so it's very lacking in processes, base on Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse – Pending approval I may be the only person to have attempted to process any new cases since 2017. I used to be active in LTA including dealing with pending LTA cases before taking a long wikibreak and have since returned. LTA has a list of "helpers" here Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Helpers, which is the only "role" I'm aware of that it has, but I'm not aware of any process for people being added or removed. I added myself to the list the first time I became active, was removed several years into my wikibreak for inactivity and added myself again now that I'm back.
- I am not an SPI clerk and have never applied to be one. I'm also not aware of any distinction within LTA between SPI clerks or anyone else, even the listed helpers. The most relevant information I'm aware of for removal of cases is at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Detailed_instructions#Criteria_for_removal which explicitly allows anyone, not just helpers, to remove entries. As far as accepting or archiving cases, the only criteria I'm aware of is in the template used for new cases as a comment that new cases should not be accepted by the filer and that comment was added to the template by me in 2015.
- I don't particularly like the current system and would like for there to be changes, but others have made attempts and have been unsuccessful so unless someone would like to make a proposal, I'm not sure what the alternative is right now. LTA is useless if someone is not both able and willing to maintain it.
PhantomTech[talk]
21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)- That “relevant information” you found is pretty sad, looking at its history.
- Do Any of the LTA cases serve any justified purpose? I have tried telling the SPI people that they should take ownership of WP:LTA, but they seem uninterested, as if WP:LTA is an abandoned thing of no net value. Why don’t we archive (blank) the whole thing? SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe The most useful purpose of WP:LTA as it currently exists is to save time and resources by providing enough information for someone to identify an editor as someone who should be blocked before they rise to the level where anyone would be blocked. All cases at WP:LTA should be LTA users but, with the current system, it is not beneficial for all LTA users to have a case at WP:LTA. For example, an LTA user who always vandalizes articles in a specific and obvious way can just be blocked immediately at ANI. An LTA user who frequently adds the same unsourced genre to music would be much more difficult to deal with unless everyone involved shared the same knowledge that this user was an LTA user. LTA cases prevent already completed processes, in the example case two ANI discussions, from needing to happen again without the downsides of using an undocumented or decentralized system.
- There have been multiple attempts (1, 2, 3, 4) to delete WP:LTA with many keep !votes explaining their view on why WP:LTA cases are beneficial, without a replacement I don't think another would go any different especially considering that I'm currently struggling to get both an almost blank report and a report of an obvious vandal deleted. There have also been attempts to reform LTA, but those have stalled.
PhantomTech[talk]
04:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)- I’m not sure why you link 1 as an attempt to delete. 2 and 3 are ironic, deletion nominations by users later checkuser-blocked. This is indeed the suspicion on every user wanting to selectively expunge an LTA record, the suspicion that they have an ulterior motive.
- My input: everyone, including you, fails to articulate why deletion is required, and not archiving? Can I challenge you to update #criteria for removal, with archiving, not deletion.
- Much of the argument against LTA is DENY, and bringing individual LTA cases for a formal discussion at MfD is the opposite of DENY. Consistent with DENY is a responsible person quietly blanking and and archiving.
- I also believe that LTA has overlap with SPI, and that the most serious LTA involves SPI. Please someone tell me if I’m wrong. On the rare occasion that anything at SPI or LTA requires deletion, it is extremely unlikely that MfD is appropriate, and I believe that a new CSD criterion should be created for it (and ending the misuse of G6 for these things). SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe Link 1 was meant to be Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse, I just got the links messed up.
- In my opinion deletion is needed, at a minimum, in situations where an LTA case is not and was never needed. There needs to be a way to delete unfinished reports, reports for obvious vandals, and reports for cases that are just one off vandals and not long term by any definition. I used to CSD cases like these that do not qualify because I felt it was more in line with DENY but my CSD on these was rejected.
- There is overlap with SPI, though not always. A better system might be one where SPI is not just responsible for WP:LTA but one where WP:LTA is merged into SPI, but that isn't the current system. Creating a new CSD criteria for these deletions would require defining who is allowed to use that criteria and how it can be used. For both WP:LTA and WP:SPI the obvious answer is clerks, but that requires creating clerks for WP:LTA, and that's an issue with a neglected area of Wikipedia since there may only be one applicant.
PhantomTech[talk]
06:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. The irony.
- I don’t agree with your opinion that deletion is needed. I think archiving is sufficient. I think archiving is better because archiving is a low stakes process, you can just do it, no need for administrative reviews. If anyone finds you are archiving poorly, the history can be read and the archiving reverted.
- I don’t think LTA clerks are desirable, I think the training to be an SPI clerk is required and sufficient to be deleting LTA subpages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/John Favalora
- Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/John Favalora (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Old historical mediation from 2007, not needed for any purpose that I know of. Andrevan@ 12:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Let sleeping dogs lie.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Just because the mediation case is not ongoing doesn't mean it should be deleted. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, but this request makes me ask questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'll respond to the question at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/John Favalora/page1. Andrevan@ 02:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/John Favalora/page1
- Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/John Favalora/page1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Old historical mediation from 2007, not needed for any purpose that I know of. Andrevan@ 12:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - That isn't a valid reason to delete something. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as historical. We don't delete old historical XfDs, arbcom cases, dismissed ANI reports, sockpuppet investigations, etc. Just because the case is not ongoing doesn't mean it must be deleted. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as per the previous editors, but is there a reason why the mediator wants to delete this case file? I am just cynical enough to wonder whether the nominator has a reason that we shouldn't support (as opposed to no reason). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: it was a mediation involving, as I recall, Sexual abuse scandal in the Archdiocese of Miami. I know nothing about the topic, it was a difficult mediation and I didn't really get anywhere with it. I have no connection to the case or the participants. As to why I nominated these for deletion, as I recall, back in the day, we did sometimes delete privileged mediations, but it's been quite some time and the MEDCOM is long since defunct. As to why pragmatically, I thought, perhaps naively, that John Favalora or his family (I don't know anything at all about them other than what I learned from the mediation) might not want this thing kicking around about him forever. I also kind of don't care to be associated with it, to be honest, but if you want to WP:SNOW close these as keep, I guess them's the breaks. Andrevan@ 02:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, now that at least makes sense, deleting it essentially to WP:OVERSIGHT. But I don't believe MFD is the correct venue for that; you'd either want to speak to ArbCom or the Oversight team. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Am aware of oversight, but I thought simply deleting it would be easier, since it really shouldn't be too controversial. But that's fair. It's also on me for not really explaining it well. From my understanding, OS won't OS it unless there's a specific reason under the OS policy. Andrevan@ 19:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, now that at least makes sense, deleting it essentially to WP:OVERSIGHT. But I don't believe MFD is the correct venue for that; you'd either want to speak to ArbCom or the Oversight team. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: it was a mediation involving, as I recall, Sexual abuse scandal in the Archdiocese of Miami. I know nothing about the topic, it was a difficult mediation and I didn't really get anywhere with it. I have no connection to the case or the participants. As to why I nominated these for deletion, as I recall, back in the day, we did sometimes delete privileged mediations, but it's been quite some time and the MEDCOM is long since defunct. As to why pragmatically, I thought, perhaps naively, that John Favalora or his family (I don't know anything at all about them other than what I learned from the mediation) might not want this thing kicking around about him forever. I also kind of don't care to be associated with it, to be honest, but if you want to WP:SNOW close these as keep, I guess them's the breaks. Andrevan@ 02:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- How about I just blank the pages and snow close these. If anyone really wants it they can find it in the history. Sounds ok or no to the blanking idea? Andrevan@ 21:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
July 14, 2022
Template talk:Mukims of Brunei-Muara
- Template talk:Mukims of Brunei-Muara (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Template that has been merged with almost no history in talk page. - nathanielcwm (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - This template redirect talk page has a WikiProject banner that was inserted by an editor who has since been banned but was in good standing at the time. This is essentially useless history. Why delete useless history? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Conversely: why keep useless history? - nathanielcwm (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Template talk:Mukims of Belait
- Template talk:Mukims of Belait (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Template that has been merged with almost no history in talk page. - nathanielcwm (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
*Keep - Template appears to exist. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - This is the template talk page for a template redirect resulting from a merge. It has a useless WikiProject banner. What is the harm from keeping this useless page? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Keriam
- Talk:Keriam (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Talk page for a moved article with almost no history. - nathanielcwm (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - This is the talk page for a redirect resulting from a page move. It seems to be harmless. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Template talk:Diplomatic missions in Brunei Darussalam
- Template talk:Diplomatic missions in Brunei Darussalam (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Talkpage for a moved template that has almost no history. - nathanielcwm (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - This is a talk page for a template redirect. Two WikiProject tags were added to it, which seems useless but harmless. User:Nathanielcwm What is the point to deleting this talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Apostolic Prefecture of Brunei |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Deleted (G8) by User:Anthony Bradbury (non-admin closure). (non-admin closure) ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 02:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Talk:Apostolic Prefecture of Brunei
Talk page for a page that has been moved with almost no history. - nathanielcwm (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
|
July 13, 2022
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:John254/Homosexuality and medical science (2nd nomination)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:John254/Homosexuality and medical science (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Nominator accidentally duplicated their nomination. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Cangdong Village Project
- Wikipedia:Cangdong Village Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
I assume this is a misplaced copy of the long-deleted Draft:Cangdong Village Project - unless this one has more sources? -- John of Reading (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- This looks like an exact copy of Draft:Cangdong Village Project. It should be either moved to the draft or deleted. It has no place in the Wikipedia namespace. JIP | Talk 19:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - If there was a draft, it had a different name. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
July 12, 2022
Draft:Bi-Bop
- Draft:Bi-Bop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This is a direct translation from this blog post, translated verbatim from French to English. I verified this myself by machine-translating the original blog post with Google Translate, and it produced an almost identical, word-for-word copy of this draft. Even not counting the obvious copyright violation, the text in this draft is clearly not written in encyclopedic style. JIP | Talk 18:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would G12 (copyvio) or G2 (test page) it then. Original author indicated in comments it was a test page. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
User:EarthPerson/List of Progress spaceflights
- User:EarthPerson/List of Progress spaceflights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Fork abandoned by user who hasn't edited since 2007. Beland (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
User:John254/Homosexuality and medical science
- User:John254/Homosexuality and medical science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
POV fork abandoned by blocked user. Beland (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Procedural Close - Duplicated nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
User:John254/Homosexuality and medical science
- User:John254/Homosexuality and medical science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
POV fork abandoned by blocked user. Beland (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - As per nominator, long-abandoned by banned user. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - This nomination seems to have been transcluded in the list of nominations twice due to some sort of glitch. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
July 10, 2022
User:咽頭べさ
WP:NOTWEBHOST or WP:PROMOTION. 沈澄心✉ 03:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep but either remove or split off the two articles written on the userpage. Otherwise the userpage comprises okay standard user page stuff (userboxes, Babel, Wikimedia project activities, so on). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The included text are plausible drafts, if not encyclopedic in tone. I contested U5 on this page because it did not seem to fail NOTWEBHOST. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy G12 the first one, that's a copypaste of https://monnews.org/mon-people/ Meh on the second article; it seems to be more of an opinion piece so it is hard to tell if that's a web host for advocacy. Not clear why it's needed, or if it's a translation of some other article. We have Human rights in Myanmar article in mainspace anyway. Note there's a copy of these two pieces in the user'a sandbox as well. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I feel this is a WP:BABY situation as the user has every right to keep everything else. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I removed the offending material that was copy/pasted to the userpage, things should be okay now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
July 7, 2022
Wikipedia:WikiProject Faroe Islands/Article alerts/Archive
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Faroe Islands/Article alerts/Archive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
CSD G8. However, after the page was deleted, the bot may automatically recreated the page, forcing me to submit it to MFD. Q₂₈ (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Faroe Islands/Article alerts is also underway. And, like that nomination, it's problematic because it doesn't consider what to do with WP Faroe Island pages in bulk. Deleting archives is... of questionable benefit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep for now, as MFD seems like a well-intentioned but misguided way to deal with bot reports. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. It's reasonable to have a bot report page for this WikiProject. Rather than deleting the page, it might be better to have the bot retarget its reports, but I don't see a compelling reason to delete the content of the page. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
July 6, 2022
Wikipedia:WikiProject Faroe Islands/Article alerts
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Faroe Islands/Article alerts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
I don't know if CSD G8 is applicable here. Q₂₈ (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Deleting this without updating WP:AALERTS/SUBLIST will just lead to it being recreated. So update that first if the Alerts are no longer needed.
- Also since Wikipedia:WikiProject Faroe Islands was deleted, it's likely all subpages should be deleted, not just this one. However, I note that {{WikiProject Faroe Islands}} is still around, and so all things that are based on it will still work. Including these Alerts. So I'm not sure deletion is needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep for now as per Headbomb as Wrong Venue. This report is being produced based on the task list used by a bot. Do not bring requests involving pages produced by bots to MFD without first discussing with the bot maintainer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Question - Do we need a list of issues not to bring to MFD, such as stupid drafts*, and pages produced by bots? (*With certain exceptions such as BLP violations and fantasy web sites) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: You could be less WP:BITEy here, both with this comment and the one above. The only thing this requires, bot-wise, is a trivial update to a subscription page that anyone can do. The question of having the alerts or not would normally be discussion on the Project's talk page, but that project has been deleted. MFD is a perfectly fine venue to have a discussion on whether or not these alerts are still needed, but this should likely be done in the context of the other subpages of WikiProject Faroe Islands. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:Headbomb - I respectfully submit that Bite does not apply. That is a guideline not to bite the newcomers. Most editor who submit nominations to MFD are not newcomers, and an editor who has found a useless bot-generated report is likely to have at least a few months experience. This is not the first editor who came to MFD to request deletion of a useless bot-generated report. I didn't say that the nominator should not have brought the useless report here. I asked whether we should advise editors that MFD is not the way to discuss useless bot-generated reports. Now, you are saying that maybe MFD is the venue to discuss useless bot-generated reports. Maybe it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- WP:AGF in general then. And you literally wrote "Do not bring requests involving pages produced by bots to MFD without first discussing with the bot maintainer." And as one of the bot's operator, there is no need to discuss this with us first. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can't the page be salted to stop the bot from recreating the page? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose that's an option, but that's really not needed. You can just update WP:AALERTS/SUBLIST. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Salting a title to prevent a bot from recreating it is a very indirect way to stop recreation, and may have disadvantages. In particular, it may cause the bot to stop. If the bot is only creating the unwanted pages, no harm is done, but there would have been other ways to do that. However, if the bot has other tasks also, it might interrupt them also, and so would not be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose that's an option, but that's really not needed. You can just update WP:AALERTS/SUBLIST. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can't the page be salted to stop the bot from recreating the page? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- WP:AGF in general then. And you literally wrote "Do not bring requests involving pages produced by bots to MFD without first discussing with the bot maintainer." And as one of the bot's operator, there is no need to discuss this with us first. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:Headbomb - I respectfully submit that Bite does not apply. That is a guideline not to bite the newcomers. Most editor who submit nominations to MFD are not newcomers, and an editor who has found a useless bot-generated report is likely to have at least a few months experience. This is not the first editor who came to MFD to request deletion of a useless bot-generated report. I didn't say that the nominator should not have brought the useless report here. I asked whether we should advise editors that MFD is not the way to discuss useless bot-generated reports. Now, you are saying that maybe MFD is the venue to discuss useless bot-generated reports. Maybe it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: You could be less WP:BITEy here, both with this comment and the one above. The only thing this requires, bot-wise, is a trivial update to a subscription page that anyone can do. The question of having the alerts or not would normally be discussion on the Project's talk page, but that project has been deleted. MFD is a perfectly fine venue to have a discussion on whether or not these alerts are still needed, but this should likely be done in the context of the other subpages of WikiProject Faroe Islands. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Faroe Islands/Article alerts/Archive is also underway. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Old business