• 21 Aug, 2019

• By, Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany For Deletion

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.

Draft:Olufemi Oluyede (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I created this page unknowingly that during the draft period before moving to the article space and discovered it was created by another editor which make it irrelevant again kindly assist to delete this article. Royalesignature (talk). 05:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tag this with WP:G7. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vector legacy (2010) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Purely disruptive and exhibitive of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. (Also makes browsers run slow loading it, good grief.) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The userpage is disruptive and indicates that the user has contempt for Wikipedia's policies and behavioral norms. Cullen328 (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nomination and Cullen328. That page is purely contemptuous. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and block the user if he tries to bring it back in some form. Bduke (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a bad joke. I don't think it is meant to show contempt, but that doesn't matter. It isn't true. The user hasn't made 8,280 edits, let alone engaged in 8,280 edit wars (in which there is no winner). If one views the user page, one can see the MFD banner, but one cannot click on the link to edit the MFD page (this MFD page), so that this MFD page has to be accessed from the MFD list. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've purged the cache for the page which, for me at least, got it from a red link to a blue one that works. Skynxnex (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Is there some guideline about deleting stupid pages that overwhelm browsers? If not, should there be one? We get occasional MFD nominations for pages that abuse or misuse browsers or do stupid things or make the browsers do stupid things. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Alphabet Lore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Definitely not notable. Speedy deletion was repeatedly avoided by very minor edits. It is time to delete this draft. Janhrach (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: Draft:Alphabet Lore (web series) also exists. Janhrach (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ignore: Per WP:NDRAFT. It is the purpose of draftspace to hold stuff like this. Bringing it to MfD is a net negative. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - By the way, nominating a draft for deletion also restarts the six-month calendar. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ge split by middle ring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The draft has experienced very little to no improvement in recent edits, and speedy deletion has been postponed by very minor edits. I strongly doubt this topic is notable per GNG. Janhrach (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Postponing WP:G13 is a deliberate feature of G13 and drafts. GNG concerns are irrelevant in drafting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per the other similar drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Script U (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The draft has experienced very little to no improvement in recent edits, and speedy deletion has been postponed by very minor edits. I strongly doubt this topic is notable per GNG. Janhrach (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Postponing WP:G13 is a deliberate feature of G13 and drafts. GNG concerns are irrelevant in drafting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The amount of community work by these MFD nominations for these Cyrillic letter drafts exceeds any work from leaving them alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Script A (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The draft has experienced very little to no improvement in recent edits, and speedy deletion has been postponed by very minor edits. I strongly doubt this topic is notable per GNG. Janhrach (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Postponing WP:G13 is a deliberate feature of G13 and drafts. GNG concerns are irrelevant in drafting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per User:SmokeyJoe. My own guess is that a second source probably exists, which will make it a notable stub, but that is up to its authors or any other editors who make minor or major tweaks to it. Please stop ragpicking for drafts on Cyrillic letters (or other seemingly useless drafts). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bashkir Ha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The draft has experienced very little to no improvement in recent edits, and there seems to be an effort to avoid speedy deletion for abandonment.

I also strongly doubt this topic is notable per GNG. Janhrach (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Effort to avoid appearance of abandonment is proof that it is not abandoned. GNG is irrelevant to draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - See Drafts are not reviewed for notability or sanity. User:Janhrach - Please stop ragpicking for drafts. If they really are abandoned, a bot will nominate them for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Awilh37/Android vs. Apple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

From my understanding, user essays are only allowed if they're directly about Wikipedia. You better fracking believe that a page called "Android vs. Apple" will almost never be directly about Wikipedia!

To put it more politely, this article isn't about the Android vs. Apple debate in a viewpoint that puts it into the perspective of Wikipedia (like, for example, WP:BFDI does) but rather reads like a kind of soapbox to share your opinions regarding the Android vs. Apple debate (which is what Reddit is for and not us) User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 00:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an example of what userpages are not for. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - We should be tolerant of weird user pages that are not actually disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. Weakly. Near the edge of balance between userspace being for Wikipedia purposes, and the harm in encouraging people to police others’ userspace. SOAPiness pushes it to delete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Oe with acute

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. WP:G5. asilvering (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Draft:Oe with acute Draft:Oe with acute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Does not seem to actually exist. Janhrach (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep - This is an unreferenced stub draft that should be declined if submitted for review, but has not been submitted for review. See Drafts are not deleted for notability or sanity. There are many variant symbols for Cyrillic letters with diacritics or modifiers, and this may be one of them. It can be kept in draft space if it is updated every six months, and the addition of references would be a desirable update. If it is left alone, it will be deleted in six months. Please do not review new drafts for notability or sanity. This is a case where the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (of sources). Comment - This page was originally created in article space, without references, where it was a candidate for proposed deletion, nomination for deletion, or draftification. After having been properly draftified, it can remain in draft space for six months, or longer if edited. The originator is reminded not to create unreferenced articles in article space, but they may be created or left in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:En with acute

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. G5. asilvering (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Draft:En with acute Draft:En with acute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Hoax? Janhrach (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep - This is an unreferenced stub draft that should be declined if submitted for review, but has not been submitted for review. See Drafts are not deleted for notability or sanity. There are many variant symbols for Cyrillic letters with diacritics or modifiers, and this may be one of them. It can be kept in draft space if it is updated every six months, and the addition of references would be a desirable update. If it is left alone, it will be deleted in six months. Please do not review new drafts for notability or sanity. This is a case where the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (of sources). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Comment - This page was originally created in article space, without references, where it was a candidate for proposed deletion, nomination for deletion, or draftification. After having been properly draftified, it can remain in draft space for six months, or longer if edited. The originator is reminded not to create unreferenced articles in article space, but they may be created or left in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tse with caron

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. G5. asilvering (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Draft:Tse with caron Draft:Tse with caron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Definitely not notable, possibly a hoax. Janhrach (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tse with diaeresis

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. G5. asilvering (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Draft:Tse with diaeresis Draft:Tse with diaeresis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Definitely not notable. Possibly a hoax. Janhrach (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep - This is an unreferenced stub draft that should be declined if submitted for review, but has not been submitted for review. See Drafts are not deleted for notability or sanity. There are many variant symbols for Cyrillic letters with diacritics or modifiers, and this may be one of them. It can be kept in draft space if it is updated every six months, and the addition of references would be a desirable update. If it is left alone, it will be deleted in six months. Please do not review new drafts for notability or sanity. This is a case where the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (of sources). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Comment - This page was originally created in article space, without references, where it was a candidate for proposed deletion, nomination for deletion, or draftification. After having been properly draftified, it can remain in draft space for six months, or longer if edited. The originator is reminded not to create unreferenced articles in article space, but they may be created or left in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Draft:Romane Dasse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Taking to WP:MfD as was declined WP:G11. This is your run-of-the-mill vanity page written by ChatGPT, or similar, in which every single sentence is pure promotion. Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA and we shouldn't be allowing promotional autobiographies in draft or user space. It's also an unsourced BLP. Fundamentally, I don't see how this draft is any different from the several hundreds that are given the G11 treatment daily. Spiderone 20:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing except WP:SPS. Blatant non-neutral self-promotion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Spam. In my opinion, a good-faith error by the admin who declined the G11, because spam may be speedily deleted from draft space as well as user space and article space. That's why it's a G code rather than an A code. Also, unsourced biographies of living persons are deleted here, and this is an unsourced BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused userbox. EdwardsBot hasn't edited for over ten years, and its operator has vanished. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unused template per nom.—Alalch E. 14:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Vatican City at the Olympic Games

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: delete. /Rational 23:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Draft:Vatican City at the Olympic Games Draft:Vatican City at the Olympic Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Obvious nonsense draft claiming, without sourcing, that Vatican City made its Olympic Games debut in 2028, posing an obvious conflict between an event that's still 3.5 years into the future with the use of the past tense. The creator has, further, tried to make the same assertion in mainspace articles, still obviously without sourcing, and even introducing a timing of December 2024 for its participation in what was still named and linked as the 2028 games. And since the Vatican verifiably didn't send a team of unusually athletic priests to the 2024 Olympics, we can't explain any of this away as just a typo, either. Obviously in the (unlikely, though I won't say never) event that the Vatican does start competing in the Olympics in 2028, then the time for an article about that will be when we can actually reliably source the fact -- but even if that were to happen, starting new articles is not difficult enough that we would need this to exist 3.5 years early. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:HOAX. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Delete as a hoax. The article on Vatican Athletics states that they are not at this time eligible to compete in the Olympics. If the IP has been engaging in other subtle vandalism, they can be reported at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete per WP:G3 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:8942:15CC:ACFF:7F04 (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:HOAX. KOLANO12 3 20:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete as hoax Spiderone 20:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 09:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC) ended today on 27 December 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

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]
• Split history to put the talk page revisions back in User talk:Vicipaedianus x. Moving the talk page of your past account to a subpage of your current account is totally inappropriate. Let's say I want to read the talk page of User:Vicipaedianus x, an editor for multiple years with 278 edits. How do I do that? Obfuscating the previous account's talk page is falsifying history.—Alalch E. 10:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alalch E.: Interesting misunderstanding, but I actually I moved the talk to my archive to be transparent about the ownership of both accounts, not to obfuscate anything. Moreover, if I didn't, people could have written onto the old talk page –without me ever noticing– and hence never got an answer. You can still read any thread posted there tho. How do you do that? User talk:Vicipaedianus x should redirect to User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0, after the page history is merged –as I personally requested multiple times. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 13:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Vicipaedianus x should be archived at that root name, and you can leave a message on your old account's talk page saying that it's your old account and that messages should be left on your current account's talk page. —Alalch E. 15:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see why the current setup is wrong? Why is is any different from User talk:Malleus Fatuorum having been page moved to User talk:Eric Corbett, or many other instances of users being renamed? If that's what we have to do to get a consensus I can accept it, but it seems like hostile hair-splitting to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Split history and send it back to User talk:Vicipaedianus x (same !vote as Alalch; different reasoning). The problem with history-merging to User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0 is that the history would then be intertwined confusingly with the history already there, which goes back to 2013 and the third account Marco Antonio Sorrentino. The most logical alternative would be to put the history back with the original talk page (under the redirect), which is where I at least would expect to find it. (The archive doesn't need to have the history under it.) It's not the only solution, but it checks all the boxes and makes this mess slightly less headache-inducing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All of the relevant edits to this page would fix nicely in the gap between 2012 and 2021 at User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0. If there were actual parallel histories I would agree with you, but I don't see them here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even though there are no parallel histories, and the result would not be confusing purely technically, it would still be less than the opposite of confusing for the practical purposes of looking at, reading, someone's talk tied to a particular account, and I am against joining talk histories from different accounts. —Alalch E. 11:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates