Wikipedia:Miscellany For Deletion
Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). |
Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information. |
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
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 5 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
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 | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 8 | 44 | 52 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 10 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 41 | 42 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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.
September 19, 2024
- Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day/Header (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This is a horrible "template" that makes the simple process of adding or following discussions on a talk page, extremely hard. It's also a duplicate of the Wikipedia:Tip of the day for no reason at all. Compare the current version of Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day to this version. While projects can style their project pages how they want (within reason), the talk pages should be as simple as needed. Gonnym (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
September 18, 2024
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern African Music & Sound (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
All prior XfDs for this page: |
Unclear what has changed since Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern African Music & Sound. The few new editors that just signed up to Wikipedia is hardly a sign this project will survive. At best that needs to be a task force (if even that). Gonnym (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep due to no deletion rational proffered by the nomination. This should be a talk page discussion. The claim, This project has now attracted about 20 editors, and we've made a significant contribution to wikipedia. Please see the campaign here: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/campaigns/southern_african_music__sound/programs, should be discussed on the talk page, not at MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Dead project with less than 1 or 2 daily views. Articles part of this WikiProject are already part by WikiProjects Pakistan and Afghanistan. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Among the "active editors", only 3 have edited in the last month. Most have been away for years. Cambalachero (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Mark as inactive Wikiproject seems to be par for the course. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - This WikiProject was established in 2006, and so is much older than the recently established WikiProjects that never launched successfully. It is a very inactive project. The project page had 310 pageviews in the year 2023, or an average of slightly less than 1 daily pageview. Most of the work of a WikiProject is on its project talk page. The project talk page had 42 pageviews in the year 2023, which is less than one per week. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)-
September 17, 2024
This was submitted to AfC draft review queue - user space page filled with obscene/graphic content (warning to discussion participants) ostensibly to prove a point about WP being uncensored, but seems like a clear violation of WP:UP#NOT to me. I don't see a real reason for this page other than trolling AfC reviewers and wasting time that could be spent on more important tasks. ~Liance 20:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Page seems to want to intentionally shock the readers, and that's not what userpages are for. Doing so to make a point only makes it worse. (Note: the user has not edited since last April). Cambalachero (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - See Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Very close to qualifying for Speedy Delete as Vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Revival section is a hoax. Page creator has created a bunch of drafts that were complete hoaxes. Likely this one is completely unreliable. William Graham 00:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- “In November 2024, it was announced that Miramax had picked up Sheepish earlier in the year, and would be releasing on its theatrically service in 2026. DNEG Animation.”
- Is this a hoax, or a mistake, or a prediction? Fix it.
- If the user has a history of hoaxing, take it to WP:AN and propose that they be blocked for disruption. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- User:SmokeyJoe - It isn't one user account, but IP addresses scattered all over IPv4 and IPv6 space. It isn't obvious who or where to block. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Revival section states that development was restarted in November 2025. This is probably a hoax, and is also true of other drafts created by this IP editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
September 16, 2024
Revival section is a hoax. Likely the rest of the draft is tainted by other hoaxes. William Graham 23:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is about an unsourced assertion of an announcement?
- Theres an editor behavioural allegation underpinning this. Take it to WP:AN. Or stop trying to curate draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Question - Why does the nominator say that the revival section is a hoax? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
This movie was announced in July 2024, but everything else in the draft is a hoax. William Graham 23:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Question - Does the nominator have specific evidence of incorrect information in this draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as Cambalachero Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Appears to be a hoax. William Graham 23:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Hoax and BLP violation. The name of the founder links to an article about a real person who has nothing to do with the studio. This is the work of a group of IP addresses that have created other hoaxes. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment An IP editor turned this page into a Redirect to a new draft article where they copied all of the content from this article into the new article, effectively erasing notification of this deletion discussion. Liz 01:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Entire lead is a hoax. William Graham 23:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - BLP violations, using the names of real people without verification, and we do get strict with BLPsde;ete. Likely hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 02:22 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – We need @SineBot: over here. Hurricane Clyde 🌀 16:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Since I’m over here already; might as well !vote. I’ll say weak delete per @Robert McClenon. Hurricane Clyde 🌀 16:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Hoax William Graham 23:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Biographies of living persons violations: Full of names of real people with no verification of their involvement. Hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Hoax. William Graham 23:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
KeepDelete - Biographies of living persons violations. Probable hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Draft talk:Untitled Don Hall project (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Created by IPs responsible for many hoax drafts. William Graham 23:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. (Note: I assume that you nominated the empty draft's talk page rather than the draft itself by error) Cambalachero (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - The Don Hall and Blue Sky Animation pages confirm that there is an untitled Don Hall project. As previous editor notes, nominator appears to have tagged draft talk page rather than draft page. Can an admin rename this MFD or otherwise clean it up? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Hoax William Graham 23:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - There is no evidence that this is a hoax, and there is evidence that it is probably correct that this is a film that has been in development limbo for twelve years. The nominator should stop making idle claims that drafts are hoaxes,especially when there is some evidence of truth. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Hoax William Graham 23:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Apparent hoax. The draft states that the studio began operation in March 2025
, and has other dates that are in the future presented as though they were in the past. The Heymann criterion should be, if the studio exists or existed in the past, for the author to correct the dates, and provide reliable sources. Makes unverified statements about the careers and plans of living persons, which are biographies of living persons violations. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC) - The renown Canadian studio (as everyone else knows it) has been in business since 1971. Shouldn't we convert this into a redirect for the upstream Nelvana article? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Apparent hoax. William Graham 23:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I will check the plausibility of this draft within the next four days. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - I find no evidence that Kelly Asbury had a son Kevin Asbury. So this appears to be a hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Couldn't find any evidence of a "Kevin Asbury" playing a role in either of these films. Agree that this is probably a hoax. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Most of the information on this page is incorrect. Edited by IPs that have created hoaxes. William Graham 23:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - This is an unverified biography of a living person. It is probably a hoax, but in any case, draft biographies of living persons are an exception to the rule that drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Sources exist confirming Mark Koetsier did co-direct Paws of Fury (then known as Blazing Samurai) during production. It doesn't look like he had any role in Hitpig!, and, in fact, this source on Hitpig! only mentions him separately as the director of Blazing Samurai.The incorrect parts can be removed and the correct parts can be sourced without having to delete the draft. Not sure if he is or isn't notable (he appears to have directed several films, so he might be), but that alone shouldn't be an issue for MfD. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- After looking a bit more into it, the other work that he directed was the 2022 short film In The Between which itself doesn't appear to be notable, so no RS on this side. Koetsier is probably non-notable, but, again, the draft can be kept in my opinion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Hoax. William Graham 23:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Probable hoax which refers to November 2024 in the past tense, and is also the work of a pool of IP addresses (likely one human) who have submitted other hoaxes. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Draft:List of animated television series of 2029 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Fiction. William Graham 23:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The list's topic is suitable for Wikipedia. There are no examples to fill it right now, but there's no harm to keep it in draft space until such examples appear and the list can grow to a decent size (and rest assured that examples will eventually appear) Cambalachero (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Likely Hoax. The one reference returns a 404 error. References are not required in drafts (except of BLPs), but broken references give reason to question the good faith of IPs whose good faith has been lacking. When a good-faith editor wants to create a good-faith entry in the list, they can request undeletion of this draft as a skeleton. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete until 2028 – I was only being nosy looking through stuff; not necessarily intending to comment on anything; but I’ve got to comment on this.
- I might not necessarily have a whole lot of experience on policies; but to create a draft of animated television series slated to be released five years from now is ridiculous if you ask me. There are probably animated television series that’ll end up being released in 2029 that haven’t even begun production; probably series that haven’t even been conceived yet.
- Now that said; when we get to about October, November of 2028; I would fully support someone drafting this. But until then Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Hurricane Clyde 🌀 03:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Draft:List of animated television series of 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
All of this information is a hoax. William Graham 23:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: It is all unreferenced, yes, but it is an unsubmitted draft, let them fix things. And no, it is not all a hoax: at least the Asterix & Obelix film already has a subpage in the Netflix site. Cambalachero (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Appears to be a hoax. William Graham 23:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Drafts are not deleted for notability concerns. Drafts are only deleted as hoaxes if there is evidence that the draft is a hoax, not because of lack of verifiability. The one completed movie and the redirect in mainspace are evidence that this is not a hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Question - Isn't implying that a draft is a hoax a form of casting aspersions against the good faith of the originator? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Appears to be a hoax. William Graham 23:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Drafts are not deleted for notability concerns. Drafts are only deleted as hoaxes if there is evidence that the draft is a hoax, not just a lack of verifiability. This draft in particular states that it is not ready to be submitted for review, but can be updated when the film is closer to release, and then submitted when the film is released. This draft is a stub, and stubs in draft space are useful to grow slowly until they are ready for submission. Robert McClenon (talk)
Appears to be a hoax. William Graham 23:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Unsubmitted drafts are not checked for notability, accuracy or sanity. There's plenty of time for the author to fix the mistakes, or for it to be deleted if it goes 6 months without activity. We only get strict once the draft is submitted for approval, and/or when it is accepted/moved into mainspace. Cambalachero (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Drafts are not deleted for notability concerns. Drafts are only deleted as hoaxes if there is evidence that the draft is a hoax, not just a lack of verifiability. This draft in particular states that it is not ready to be submitted for review, but can be updated when the film is closer to release, and then submitted when the film is released. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
September 15, 2024
Promotional WP:RFORK of Sledmere House. Paradoctor (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: User named "Brown consulting group" (spaces added for clarity), and his only edits were to make this advertising on his sandbox. Clearly the work of a SPA. User is already blocked. Cambalachero (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as per Paradoctor and Cambalachero. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)-
September 14, 2024
clearly not notable; users Quantasticpn (talk · contribs) and Johnvasta (talk · contribs) have only worked on this article, making me wonder if it's a COI? Snowman304|talk 15:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Drafts are not deleted based on notability. And it's not unusual for just one editor to be working on a draft. How would other editors know it even exists? Liz 17:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I could have been clearer. I found it funny that these two users have worked on only this article. The same applies to Quantastic (talk · contribs). For all three, their global contributions are only related to Bharti.
- The bulk of Bharti's works where I could find a publisher are self-published. Call me cynical, but it feels like WP:NOTRESUME or some flavor of WP:COI might apply. Snowman304|talk 22:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and Tag for possible COI - Liz is right. Drafts are not deleted for lack of notability. This draft is at the point where it should reasonably be Rejected if tendentiously resubmitted. Lack of notability is not a reason to delete drafts. COI is not a reason to delete drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
September 13, 2024
- Draft:Peep and the Big Wide World Which Fish (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
WP:HOAX-like draft which takes a technically real thing and misrepresents it as something it isn't. "Which Fish" does exist as a simple Flash pattern matching game on the Peep and the Big Wide World website, but this presents it as if it were its own full-on spinoff television series, which it isn't.
Even the real Flash game is deeply unlikely to have any real standalone notability as a topic for its own separate article, so there's no real value in retaining this just because it could technically be rewritten. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Drafts are not deleted for lack of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Lack of notability isn't the issue. The fact that this completely misrepresents the subject as something it isn't, and is thus describing a thing that doesn't even exist at all in the form described, is the problem. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Didn't find a reliable source either. Fail WP:GNG Zach (talk to me) 10:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete YouTube is not reliable source 2001:44C8:44D9:3CB5:F9DB:C0B8:D08D:E787 (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
KeepKeep - The lack of reliable sources is a reason to decline drafts. It is not a reason to delete them. The draft has already been declined, and should be kept for improvement. It appears to be too soon, and being too soon is a reason for declining drafts and telling the submitter to resubmit later after whatever. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon this page is contain of unsourced. There no reason to opposing the deletion. Zach (talk to me) 07:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- User:Zachapertio - First, drafts are not required to be sourced. If drafts with no reliable sources are submitted for review, they are declined. Second, I did not give you permission to strike my !vote, and you do not have permission to change any part of my post. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- If there was no reason to oppose a deletion that would mean it was eligible for a speedy delete rather than a MfD deletion discussion. Don't remove other peoples !votes. Also it raises the question if you are the other anon delete vote as well, as that is a very dubious first edit? KylieTastic (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon this page is contain of unsourced. There no reason to opposing the deletion. Zach (talk to me) 07:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, I previously declined it, and it still does not appear to be notable, but that is not a reason to delete via MfD. If released in the next few months it may get enough coverage to show notability. The purpose of draft is to work on such subjects without deletion. If it had been tediously resubmitted wit no change then fine, but it has not so it is valid to leave it as work-in-progress that will either be improved or deleted as WP:G13 in a few months. KylieTastic (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Draft:Snap chat is good for kids under the age of 13 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- Obviously not encyclopedic, notwebhost violation Bestagon ⬡ 01:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Agree. Bduke (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Per others. LakesideMiners 17:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia Spiderone 16:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - We are tolerant of stuff in draft space, but this is an opinion piece (not a Wikipedia essay) who is not a regular contributor to the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
September 12, 2024
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kirby & Friends |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC) Fake show, no references, poorly written ((Whatcha gotta say? :) -ThaFDA)) (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
|
Old business
Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 01:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC) ended today on 20 September 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. |
September 8, 2024
WP:RFORK of Vaddera. Paradoctor (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - This is not a redundant fork of Vaddera. It is partly an expansion of Vaddera, and partly all sorts of other things, and is in a sandbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:RFORK, 2017 draft that apparently never went anywhere, and was obsoleted by someone's else draft in 2023. Paradoctor (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep unless the nominator provides a link to the other draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Earliest edit I could find. Please note that that sandbox was move to article space six weeks earlier, and again five days later.[1].
- Weak Delete this is older than the article that was created is (2017 vs 2023), and this editor has been inactive over 7 years and non-responsive to their talk page. All appearances of being abandoned. TiggerJay (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
September 6, 2024
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Popular pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Useless only has 1 page and apparently only has ever had 1 page as per page history Isla🏳️⚧ 23:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- It used to have most of the pages in the projectspace back in 2021. Hasn't been touched by anyone since 2021, and since then the bot malfunctioned and trimmed it down to exactly 1 page and I doubt there's any interest within the project to bring it back. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Mark historical' and revert to last functional version, no good reason to delete it entirely as it didn't cause harm. This is not a case of a malfunctioning bot; it's a case of garbage in, garbage out as, until my actions at Talk:Winter Storm Helena (which I undeleted, redirected, then re-deleted), it was indeed the only page listed under WikiProject Severe weather in the assessments special page search results. I've removed it from the bot's config page. I barely knew anything about how the popular pages lists were generated or page assessments special pages before this discussion so I've learnt several things about them by skim-reading the documentation and realising that the severe weather popular pages list began to malfunction around the time the templates were merged/deleted. Graham87 (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
September 5, 2024
Recently created information page by BarntToust to compile the various publishers of sources used on this site. I do not think a separate page is needed for this and the contents can easily covered by what is already established at WP:Reliable sources and the articles themselves. Full disclosure, the editor who created this has started repeatedly adding publisher params to cite temps on the article Superman (2025 film) and has insisted at my talk page about adding them to other related articles after I informed them it was not needed, and this page appears to be an extension of that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to me like you wholly misunderstand to basis of publisher parameter on citations. They are higher-detail citations and are used per inline for extra detail on articles. Articles such as The Last of Us and The Last of Us (TV series), and substituents have been promoted extensively for Good Article status, so I have no idea why you are so against it.
- Draftify this thing until it is developed. It looks like a good idea for a promising directory for new editors like me who might want a place to look for this information without having to sprawl out looking for them in each article. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep and Tag as to required improvements. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Userify as ATD, which I assume is essentially what YodaYogaYogurt154 has in mind (articles are draftified, project pages are userified). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
August 30, 2024
- Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
I marked this as historical [2] eight years ago, as it was not being used, but that was removed nearly a year later when someone decided to start editing it again. I simply do not think this page is appropriate. A self-selected hall-of-fame, with no clear criteria for inclusion, no apparent rules of any kind, no new entries in over three years, and a talk page that has not been used for discussion of the scope and purpose of the page in fourteen years.
Additionally, there are a number of entries in this list of supposedly great people who turned out to be truly awful people, one of whom still actively trolls Wikipedia on a regular basis, and several others who were socking and vote stacking. In fact, it was two of these offenders that created the hall of fame in the first place. These people do not need a memorial to their deceit or dishonesty hosted on Wikipedia.
There's just too many problems here for WP to continue hosting this. Just Step Sideways 20:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Case not nearly made. Even assuming that all that is really asked for is blank and archive, keeping the history available, the case is not not nearly made. It is not nearly good enough to delete Wikipedia history on the basis that some are alleged to be awful. It may be difficult to write an acceptable essay about how, objectively, some editors, were awful, but to justify the deletion of this history demands it.
- There is no attempt to substantiate ongoing harm. There is no attempt to argue that all involved, especially the modern editors, are awful, let alone an objective net negative contribution to Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
It may be difficult to write an acceptable essay about how, objectively, some editors, were awful, but to justify the deletion of this history demands it.
I'm not sure I understand. I have to write an essay explaining why two banned trolls, one of whom is still actively harassing people over grudges from like 10-15 years ago, are not good people? I mean, that isn't even my only point but to be required to write an essay to justify one deletion discussion is an entirely new concept to me. Just Step Sideways 18:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)- The ARS team had an admirable motivation, in my opinion, obtained from a distance. Rescuing notable topics sent to AfD is a good thing. So what happened? If you want to selectively delete the history of a a prominent feature of Wikipedia history, I expect there to be a high level summary, at least. I read your nomination as a proposal to retrospectively shut down the ARS, and before agreeing to deletion, I want to see the history documented. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I read your nomination as a proposal to retrospectively shut down the ARS
Well, that's odd because the ARS is still active and I have not in any way proposed shutting the whole thing down. I just don't think we ought to host this one specific page, which has no criteria for inclusion and is therefore just a randomly selected list of AFD discussions that random people have decided to highlight.
- The ARS team had an admirable motivation, in my opinion, obtained from a distance. Rescuing notable topics sent to AfD is a good thing. So what happened? If you want to selectively delete the history of a a prominent feature of Wikipedia history, I expect there to be a high level summary, at least. I read your nomination as a proposal to retrospectively shut down the ARS, and before agreeing to deletion, I want to see the history documented. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
and here's that executive summary you asked for
|
---|
|
Just Step Sideways 19:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. This page is also the more recent work of JGHowes (talk · contribs) and Beccaynr (talk · contribs). SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but, why? What process decides what debates are hall of Fame material? As far as I can tell it is entirely at the whim of literally anyone and there is no process.
- And by "more recent" we are talking about three years ago. Just Step Sideways 20:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I can live with blank and maybe redirect to WP:ARS. The page was not created by socks or trolls, people should use chronologically precise language when speaking of past users who contributed substantially. I found these people admirable in some ways. They got frustrated and behaved badly, and admittedly I was not targeted or involved with responding to bad behaviours, and I don’t want to lionise them, but neither do I want to see once well meaning and often constructive Wikipedians disappeared. I think it is interesting to see how they saw themselves, together. Also, not everyone named or in the history is now in bad standing. There are important things to be learned from history. Keep the history available behind the blanked page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. This page is also the more recent work of JGHowes (talk · contribs) and Beccaynr (talk · contribs). SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - I, for one, hardly see the listing of an editor here as glorifying them, but only as indicating the the ARS glorifies them. If the ARS continues to exist, it can continue to have its heroes, and other editors can ignore the list. If someone wants to delete the ARS itself, I am willing to take part in yet another vote to delete it as not serving any purpose in the 2020s. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - There's no value at all in maintaining this page created by socks and/or trolls that lionizes many of the same, particularly when it lists no guidelines or methods of selection, and is not actively edited or curated. Wikipedia is not social media. Page is highly problematic as it appears to perpetuate a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with comments like "Proved that an article that doesn't have a NPOV stance doesn't mean it isn't valuable", like a list of victories over "enemies". Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Blank and maybe redirect to WP:ARS. This seems a reasonable compromise between those considering it historical and those considering it inappropriate. If I can offer a broader suggestion, perhaps we should BLAR all ARS pages and then WP:ESPERANZA it. As part of the "newer generation" of editors (c. 2022), I've only ever heard of ARS spoken in the tone of a horror story. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I strongly prefer deleting it outright for the reasons I've already detailed, but I could live with this. Just Step Sideways 22:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to WP:ARS per the discussion between Just Step Sideways and SmokeyJoe.—Alalch E. 19:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Consensus was reached at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein (2nd nomination) to move this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein, but was moved back by its creator in 2022 after zero substantive changes were made to the portal. If this was 2022, I would revert this unilateral move against the MFD consensus. But this is almost two years later and WP:SILENCE is consensus, so I am back at MFD seeking consensus for deletion from portalspace for the same reasons – primarily because This subject is arguably not broad enough to exist as a standard portal
. No objection to projectspace-fying, if the WikiProject wishes to keep it around. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Move to project space per previous discussion. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Move to project space as before DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - There is no need for this so-called portal and no need to delete this so-called portal. This portal is a large menu. There is none of the usual portal code behind the façade. What is behind the façade is a listing of more than 120 article titles, at which I stopped counting them and did not have a convenient tool to automate the counting. This menu is almost completely unused. In the year 2023, it had an average of 1 daily pageview, while the lead article had an average of 959 daily pageviews. But the user who went to the portal got to look over a list of articles and view the ones that they wanted. I am generally skeptical of portals. This looks like a portal, but it is a menu, and menus are useful for navigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)