Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

(Redirected from Wikipedia:MFD)
"WP:MFD" redirects here. For media for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion. For modules for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.


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.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

edit

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:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 6 disambiguation pages) and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
  • 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

edit

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}} if it is a userpage, or {{db-author}} or {{db-g7}} if it is a draft. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?
  • Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD
  • Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

edit

How to list pages for deletion

edit
Shortcut

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.

I.
Edit PageName:

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.
If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.
Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
  • Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
  • Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
  • Save the page
II.
Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

  • Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
  • Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
  • Save the page.
III.
Add a line to MfD.

Follow   this edit link   and at the top of the list add a line:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".
  • Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
    Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
  • If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add
{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.
  • If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
    For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

    {{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~

    to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as

    Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
  • If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

edit
XFD backlog
V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
CfD 0 0 1 10 11
TfD 0 0 3 0 3
MfD 0 0 5 0 5
FfD 0 0 14 5 19
RfD 0 0 53 11 64
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

edit

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Current discussions

edit
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.

December 10, 2024

edit

User:LesbianTiamat/miniessays

edit
User:LesbianTiamat/miniessays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Not quite a G10 case IMO, but a major part of the essay is incivility/personal attacks. The authour cannot resolve this because she is blocked and the PAs are too important to the overall essay to just remove them. QwertyForest (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm looking at the essay, and I agree it doesn't meet WP:G10. I'm also looking at the bullet points at WP:NPA#WHATIS, and trying to match them up to the essay content to see what qualifies, and it escapes me. What do you see? Mathglot (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, this reads uncivil/PA to me:
    • lame nerds
    • random ignorant persons with overinflated egos who happen to have fancy-sounding, meaningless, irrelevant titles or super-scary powers and influence
    • the Hero of Wikipedia medal on display in both their userpage and bedroom
    QwertyForest (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Afaict from what you've listed, no person or group is named, therefore there is no PA here, in my understanding of the policy. Seems like some prickly antiauthoritarianism, but I'd say that it falls under the considerable leeway given to users to determine what goes into their User space pages. 11:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's a statement of her approach to and philosophy about editing Wikipedia. And while I find that approach dismal and that philosophy abhorrent, I think the statement itself has merit as such.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I have her talk page watchlisted from prior discussion, and that is how I found my way here. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think what the page says represents a totally unconstructive attitude, and the fact that its creator has such views is most unfortunate. However, not only does she hold such unconstructive views, but those views have coloured her very unconstructive editing history and her whole approach to dealing with other editors, and I find it very helpful to have it documented, as it helps to clarify the meaning of her position in conflicts she has been involved in. JBW (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Poe

edit
Talk:Poe (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Wiktorpyk (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - no rationale given. ObserveOwl (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Luigi Mangione

edit
Draft:Luigi Mangione (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is a serious WP:BLPCRIME vio, even for a draft. POIs are innocent until proven guilty. EF5 01:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate delete per above. Departure– (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I suppose it isn't a good fit for CSD but I think it should be. For all we know we've started a draft about an innocent man that will be acquitted and doesn't want any exposure - not the best practice when we know damn well he isn't notable until proven guilty in a court of law, which he may not be. Departure– (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imo, this should be speedied, but since BLPCRIME doesn't have a specific tag, I brought it here instead. EF5 01:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 01:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the wording to make it suspected. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a severe violation of BLPCRIME, it reads as if "Luigi Mangione is a man who probably killed Brian Thompson", no matter how it's worded. EF5 01:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral wording doesn't fix the core problem. Per WP:SUSPECT:

For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.

This article is about someone who 48 hours ago was nobody and who in 48 hours may once again be nobody - a private citizen only put to public figuredom under the accusation of being a murderer. If he ends up being our guy, it should probably be merged into Killing of Brian Thompson anyway. Departure– (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've blanked the draft for now. Everything was a BLP violation, so I suppose now if someone else wants to A3 this go ahead. All sources establish notability by connecting him with a crime he hasn't even been convicted of. Departure– (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you've said is correct or relevant. —Alalch E. 09:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete, also noting that someone un-blanked the draft. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 8, 2024

edit

Draft:It's OK I'm OK

edit
Draft:It's OK I'm OK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Was already created by this same uploader as It's OK I'm OK rendering this draft useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by This0k (talk • contribs) 01:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Redirect to It's OK I'm OK. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder whether a bot should do all of these? SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone is saying to redirect this to It's OK I'm OK but I think it already is so I don't see why not just delete this draft that will never be used. This0k (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bot already tags unused drafts for deletion after six months. Why the nominator is in such a hurry to get rid of this one is a mystery and kind of weird. But sure, redirect to It's OK I'm OK.--NØ 14:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the draft is useless and there's no need for it. I also explained on your talk page that you could have been keeping it for back up if you know that page was deleted but It's OK I'm OK is notable enough to keep. Also saying that it's "kind of weird" when it's an unneeded draft is a moot point. I also want to add I didn't know drafts get deleted after six months. This0k (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Entries in draft space when there is an article are not entirely useless. If an editor enters the name of the draft or clicks on a link to the draft, they are redirected to the article rather than given an error. That is the use for the drafts. Also, drafts that redirect to article space are not deleted by the 6-month cleanup bot, because they have a use for redirection. The nominator is trying to be helpful but is mistaken. The desire to get rid of drafts is not weird, just uninformed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:SmokeyJoe's question is whether a bot can recognize drafts whose titles are the same as the titles of articles. I think that that question is whether a bot can look at the titles of newly created articles and see whether titles exist in draft space. The most common situation in which both a draft and an article exist is the acceptance of a draft by a reviewer, and in that case the accept script automatically creates a page move redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheodoresTomfooleries

edit
User:TheodoresTomfooleries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Claiming to be "the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler", describing oneself as "Aryan", and describing Marxism as "judeo-bolshevism" in a userpage template certainly falls under WP:POLEMIC. Di (they-them) (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Prussian-German ethnicity has been linked to Insanity - and certainly WP:POLEMIC The AP (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like to participate in votes regarding me, especially considering it's going to be a conflict of interest. I also don't like using the "it's just a joke" argument... but none of this is polemic. It is not meant to be 'rhetoric intended to support a specific position by forthright claims'. It is meant to make fun of these things. It is 'in jest'. I thought the sheer absurdity of such a userpage in which all of this is contrasted with the fact that I am a communist and thus do not believe in the absurdity of things like "judeo-bolshevism" would indicate this.
I am sorry if my userpage causes offense. It is to make fun of these people who call themselves "aryan hyperboreans" or whatever. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the humor isn't really obvious. Not to mention, pretending to be a caricature of a neo-Nazi to make fun of them is still polemic and not really related to building the encyclopedia. Di (they-them) (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i agree !!! 83.254.204.236 (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still hardly believe that this can still be considered polemic.
Good day. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) Leave the last funny wikipedia user page alone. Xenosystem (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag with {{humour}} I certainly didn't find it very funny, but at least I could tell it was intended to be such. If the user is willing to add the appropriate tags to clarify, then I'm fine with it. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 18:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC) You know what, just delete it. There are attempts at bad humour, but this one goes too far. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 21:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, like I too laughed at this when I saw it on a screenshot on Twitter, but then I realised wait, this is Wikipedia, let's keep it that way. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 10:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 6, 2024

edit

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology

edit
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

While a few years old, this April Fools' AFD is primarily about a BLP's religion, although I am unsure whether this page may be considered an attack page or not. Xeroctic (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, deleting an old joke AfD is just pointless (and perhaps a bit humorless). Also, I think that all AfD's are worth keeping as historic reference, even humorous ones. FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 4, 2024

edit

User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT

edit
User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The page now located at User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT was formerly a talk page for my previous account Vicipaedianus x, so –when I created this account back in 2021– I moved it into my user space an turned it into an archive. Later, on 19 June 2023, I copy-pasted all of its content to my archive located at User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0, so I requested to merge the page history as well (specifically edits between February 2014 and February 2021, when it was a talk page) and the deletion of the former, but my request got declined, so I got stuck with a blanked subpage, and I started using it as a sandbox. I now remembered that –on 14 December 2023– I got told it was "not eligible for WP:U1 because at one time it was a user talk page, it may still be deleted by being listed at WP:MFD", so please, merge its history as a talk page into User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0, if needed, and delete this useless duplicate turned sandbox. Thanks. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - If this is not eligible for U1 because of its history, it is enough like a U1 that it should be deleted at the originator's request. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh.
    Per WP:DELTALK, the edits between September 2013 and November 2020 must not be deleted no matter how many layers of obfuscation you try to use to hide that fact.
    The request to history merge the talk page edits so the later edits can be deleted is valid and in my opinion should have been granted, but four other admins (including my past self) have improperly stonewalled it. Now that we're at a discussion venue rather than an individual-admin-request venue I guess we can override them and grant that request, so I support doing so.
    Est. 2021's insistence in getting things done this way has grown beyond reason. They've made nine distinct requests for admin actions relating to this one sandbox, all of which were declined. My gut wants to say "Keep" out of spite. But I'm better than that.
  • Overall, weakly support history merge and delete, but if that's not done, strongly oppose deleting without history merging - that would set a hideous precedent that people can get their way by complaining enough. Although I guess WP:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions#User talk pages exists, so the blatant double standard being demonstrated here will continue to exist either way. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Having reviewed the history in detail once, there is a strange odor to the history, and we don't want to just incinerate it to get rid of any possible dead animals. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/veek2

edit
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/veek2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unformatted, probably LLM RfA from an ineligible candidate. To veek2, you might find WP:RFAADVICE helpful; most candidates have made thousands of edits over months of consistent, active editing. WP:NOTNOW has some good advice :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - Why should we delete this? Why not leave it standing as an indication that the editor had the silly idea of applying for admin status? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a kindness to veek2. LLM slop does not need to be kept in the history of a {{courtesy blanked}} page; nothing worthwhile would be in the history. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We don't commonly delete old RfAs unless they are malformed indeed. I can't remember us deleting at XfD unless there was something truly worth hiding from view (or it was merely a test page). Here we have a good faith self-nom statement by veek2. I'm all for kindness to newbies, but if a new contributor says he's Napoleon (for example), I'm inclined to allow the community to see that and make their own judgement (as opposed to Wikipedia preemptively appearing obtuse). I'm really not understanding the threat. While I almost always prefer blanking to deletion, in this case, I'd prefer this to be viewed. Attribution is a thing. So are consequences. BusterD (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Irrelevant noise. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 3, 2024

edit

Draft:Untitled LEGO film

edit
Draft:Untitled LEGO film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Draft about something we don't know yet, no title, no info, no image, not relevant at the moment. We should wait for more information before creating a draft, the creator is not against deletion. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Per WP:NDRAFT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not enough to precisely respect Wikipedia's rules without reflection. Do you know how to identify exactly what we are talking about? Because I don't. We just know that it is a Lego film that could be anything and whose release is not yet certain, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The creation is rushed, we will end up with duplicates or give additional work to the draft reviewers. As I said to the creator of the article, I am not against the creation of a draft on a future Lego film but currently there is nothing, even the title of the article does not allow a clear identification, imagine that we start creating this kind of drafts/articles every day without a minimum identification being possible, we would not get out of it. The creator himself is not against deletion while waiting for additional information. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good evening SparklingBlueMoon, I would like to direct your attention to some points mentioned in Wikipedia:NDRAFT. Now, if this was created in mainspace, I do agree it would be deleted quickly, if not under CSD:A1 or A3 then a snow vote at AfD. That being said, draftspace is self cleaning, and unless there is a pressing, unambiguous reason to delete (copyvio, attack page, hoax, etc.), it is better to let the six month deadline pass rather than go through MfD. Not only can this create bad blood between new and experience editors, the bureaucracy this creates often extends the draft past its natural lifespan. Also, if the author agrees to CSD, they should blank and tag the page under G7 or explicitly ask another editor to do so. Thank you for your time VolatileAnomaly (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The principle of Do No Harm should be considered. What is the harm done by keeping this stub draft in draft space? There is no harm. The draft is not seen by readers, who do not view draft space. As the nominator is discovering, an editor who reads draft space should expect to find "stuff" of varying quality, including no quality. What is the harm done by deleting this stub draft? The harm may be minimal, but it would result in more nominations. There would be more work for the volunteers at MFD. Since there are no guidelines providing for the deletion of drafts (and we would be dismissing or ignoring a guideline that says that drafts are not deleted for notability), there would either be appeals to DRV because the guideline was incorrectly applied, or there might be a debate over guidelines for when drafts should be deleted. The simplest answer is the existing guideline that drafts are not deleted for notability or sanity. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The originator of a draft may request speedy deletion of the draft as G7 if no other editor has added any substantial content. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since we're here - this is irrelevant useless cruft. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a draft! What kind of heartless monster deletes a draft!? (Joking, I don't think you're a heartless monster, but I do think drafts that aren't actively harmful have no reason to be deleted.) FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All drafts will be deleted after six months of no activity. What there is no reason here for, is the processing of this draft through an MfD discussion. It’s like going through a scrap paper bin looking for things to throw out now instead of when the bin gets emptied. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

edit


November 30, 2024

edit

Wikipedia:Snuggle/Notice

edit
Wikipedia:Snuggle/Notice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This projectspace template is now not only useless and misleading. It consists entirely of a button that was intended to send a user to the Snuggle API. But Snuggle has been defunct since at least late April 2021. Clicking this button leads users to Wmflabs' 404 error page. Delete as dependent on a defunct tool.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Youhavenewmessagesfromusers

edit
MediaWiki:Youhavenewmessagesfromusers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Superseded by MediaWiki:new-messages-from-many-users. See also [1] Awesome Aasim 03:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Youhavenewmessages

edit
MediaWiki:Youhavenewmessages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Superseded by MediaWiki:New-messages. Awesome Aasim 03:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also [2]. Awesome Aasim 03:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 27, 2024

edit

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not/Outtakes

edit
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not/Outtakes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

What even is this? It is certainly not a humorous essay, looks more like a steaming pile of hot garbage. It was kept when nominated fourteen years ago, and as far as I can tell has gotten progressively more stupid and pointless since that time. Perhaps the project has matured a bit since then and we can agree to just not have... whatever this is supposed to be. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly fine humourous essay and a piece of Wikipedia history. Ca talk to me! 15:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless but maybe also lock page. Or make extended-confirmed required. Harmless as a fragment to old Wikipedia humor but let's let people make their own new humor pages for 2024, not do unfunny renovations of old humor pages like apparently happened here. SnowFire (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I like this article, and it is a piece of Wikipedia history. I read it when I was first getting involved in the project some 7-ish years ago. However, it has become much different than the version I read then, and much of the newer material could stand to be deleted. There is some value in the earlier stuff, like the commentary on appending Wiki- to everything, does have genuine humorous value and serves as a pointed commentary. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 18:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    mildly amused that nearly everyone in favor of keeping this is also removing large portions of it....
    It's almost like it's a pile of junk with no real purpose... Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 05:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose was socialization/expression, which there was more tolerance for years ago. It's worth keeping traces of that olde tyme Wikipedia culture via a page with 500 contributors, and worth pruning offensive stuff that does actually violate policy (most of which was apparently just recently added by one person). Being stupid doesn't change that value. I'd be fine with locking the page now, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a joke page. It's not hurting anyone. The Master of Hedgehogs (converse) (hedgehogs) 01:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Calling a page a "steaming pile of hot garbage" is not a valid deletion reason. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)this ip was blocked for CU-confirmed block evasion. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Wikipedia can't be all serious. There needs to be some places to channel the goofiness. Maybe someone that would have otherwise vandalized saw this and decided to add another section. I know it's unlikely, but maybe! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not simply a humor page, but obviously an integral part of the main policy is itself the main policy. Closer should be aware that the offensive stuff was added by a single blocked editor and was swiftly revdel'd, the article looked fine in October 2024 [3]. Kenneth Kho (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete why does this page even exist? its not funny in the slightest and it shouldn't even be part of the main policy. 37.210.71.142 (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See Wikipedia:Humor. Drdr150 (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CodingYT (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia:Silly Things/Outtakes of What Wikipedia is not. 67.209.128.126 (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 25, 2024

edit

Draft:UGL Rail 5020 class

edit
Draft:UGL Rail 5020 class (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of QR National 5020 class. This shouldn't be here, even as a draft. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

edit

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=1262230482"