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
[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: and the various Talk: namespaces
- Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
- Pages in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
- Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.
Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.
Before nominating a page for deletion
[edit]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
[edit]- 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
[edit]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
[edit]V | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 23 | 24 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 16 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 53 | 54 |
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.
July 27, 2024
[edit]This draft is being tendentiously resubmitted in order to try to create an article on a YouTuber who has been found to be non-notable in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Massey Welsh in December 2018. That title has been salted.
It was then recreated as JackSucksAtLife, an attempt to game the name, but was renominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JackSucksAtLife, and speedily deleted as G4 in October 2020. That title has also been salted.
A draft was then created again in May 2023 and submitted, and declined twice. I then Rejected the draft in November 2023, because the subject had already been found to be non-notable in two AFDs, and no real effort was being made to address the issue of notability. It was then resubmitted later in November 2023, with no attempt to discuss the rejection. I had said, in my rejection, that the draft should not be resubmitted without discussing the rejection (but we don't expect ultras to follow the instructions). It has then been declined two more times, and then Rejected again by User:CFA (thank you). The reviewers couldn't accept this draft even if we wanted to accept it, so continuing to submit it is useless. If the proponents actually have new sources that they want considered, and so are requesting that one of the titles be desalted, they should ask for community discussion at Deletion Review rather than just pointlessly resubmitting, which is wasting their time and that of the reviewers, who can't accept the draft even if wanted to accept it. So I am asking for community discussion to delete this draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. Resubmitting is not going to do anything except waste time. It was declined twice, rejected, declined two more times, then rejected again. If the creator(s) believe this would survive an AfD, they can take it to Deletion Review where other editors are able to weigh in. Then, the title can be de-salted and the article can be restored. I suppose this could also be userfied if any of the submitters want it. C F A 💬 20:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Seems to be a misuse of the "User:" space. I was original considering nominating this page for WP:U5, but I'm not sure. However, I'm really thinking the U5 is appropriate as the user has a username I would consider reporting to WP:UAA since the username structure makes it seem as though it's something official with Wikipedia, and the purpose of the page seems to be advertising WP:SEO. Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also, see related WP:RFD nomination: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 27#User:TalkSubject/Joe Biden. Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
July 25, 2024
[edit]Draft with no citations written by a blocked sock Bremps... 15:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - Creator blocked, no need to keep it now, –Davey2010Talk 17:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - A good-standing editor might add sources. Otherwise it will go away in six months. No need to clear draft space of the work of blocked users. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - The originator does not appear to be a blocked sockpuppet, but a blocked disrupter-warrior. That is a distinction without a difference. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
July 24, 2024
[edit]Unnecessary talk page for a redirect, used has been blocked before for their disruptive editing soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Valid talk page post. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete because no one's going to search Ninten, click on the redirect and then go to the talkpage, the talkpage post imho isn't valid or even useful. –Davey2010Talk 21:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is certainly valid for anyone to post on a redirect all page their perceived meaning of them term.
- It could be useful, the IP suggests a better target. Even if not useful, “not useful” is not a reason to delete talk page posts, this one doesn’t even come close to a case for blanking.
- We certainly don’t want mfd to become a forum for examining the usefulness of talk page posts. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- It certainly isn't valid, no one gives a monkeys what an IP's perceived meaning of the word is, If we allowed such posts Talk pages would be full of everyones percieved meanings of words,
- "Ninten was a misspelling of Nintendo" isn't a suggestion though, they're simply telling us what they think,
- "We certainly don’t want mfd to become a forum for examining the usefulness of talk page posts" Well MFD exists for a plethora of reasons one of them being general usefulness. –Davey2010Talk 17:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- IPs are welcome to post what they think about a mainspace title on its talk page.
- MfD is not for discussing general usefulness. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Useless but harmless. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Discussing a potential redirect retarget (which is what I'm assuming the IP is doing here) is a completely valid usage of a talk page, even if it was started by a now-blocked IP (who will be unblocked in 2 weeks). Curbon7 (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
"Draft" consisting solely of an infobox with no text beyond a repetition of the page title, which an editor just persistently keeps trying to file in mainspace categories, even after having been told that drafts can't be in mainspace categories -- and meanwhile, they're making absolutely no effort whatsoever to actually add any content to render this into anything resembling a proper article for the purposes of being able to even consider returning it to mainspace. It's simply becoming disruptive to have to keep removing this from categories day after day. Bearcat (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Question - Why is deletion, which is a content action, being requested in place of some sort of sanction against the user? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Most of what Bearian wrote seems to be better suited to user_talk, education, warnings and possibly blocking. Not deletion of a draft page.
- Keep per WP:NDRAFT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I clearly stated right in my nomination statement, user talk education/warning has already been attempted, and was ignored because the editor just put it right back into categories again afterward. So it's not my job to patiently keep reeducating them over and over again — if they ignore me the first time, what guarantee do I have that they won't just ignore me again the second and third and fifth and nine hundredth times? Bearcat (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- You should escalate. Educate, warn, block.
- Can you link “user talk education/warning has already been attempted”? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I clearly stated right in my nomination statement, user talk education/warning has already been attempted, and was ignored because the editor just put it right back into categories again afterward. So it's not my job to patiently keep reeducating them over and over again — if they ignore me the first time, what guarantee do I have that they won't just ignore me again the second and third and fifth and nine hundredth times? Bearcat (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Partially block the editor from the draft. The draft isn't the problem. The editor is the problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Another editor might add text and submit it for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
July 22, 2024
[edit]- Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/The West Wing task force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
As long as Joe is putting up WikiProjects for deletion, I thought I'd put up my very stale task force I created when I was in my West Wing fanaticism phase. I may come back to that phase, but neither I nor the project needs this task force :) Since there are a few other people who signed their name, I thought I should bring it here rather than nuking by G7. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, talk page never used, so it doesn't seem in need of archiving/redirecting. Appreciate the self-nom. CMD (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as uncontroversial maintenance. – Joe (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, as what looks like basically a G7 to me since it's only been edited by one person. Parenthetically I am a little confused as to how five names got onto the list of participants without them being in the edit history -- presumably this page was copied over from a subsection of some other page that had them all, or else some kind of formatting error(?) jp×g🗯️ 07:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Copied from a petition, if memory serves. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. jp×g🗯️ 10:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Copied from a petition, if memory serves. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - The talk page of a WikiProject or task force is a better measure of activity than the project page. The absence of a talk page, after two years, is reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Stale unfiled RfAs
[edit]- Group of stale unfiled RfAs – (View MfD)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DebashisM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Baseball Watcher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/D4135t~enwiki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoBlackhawksGo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harimua Thailand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Parys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Atomicthumbs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/olivetree39 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bobsmith319 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Naconkantari 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Countryboy603 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shonyx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JASDVI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mr.Mani Raj Paul 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LewisT34 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jmanlucas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndrewSE19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chikukiri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Each of these has either been languishing since before 2021 or is the creation of a sockblocked user, or both. I don't think these retain any historical or practical value, so I'm putting these up for deletion here. If someone wants to root through the 2022s or even the horribly malformed ones from 2024 that are pretty clearly abandoned, up to them :) I thought these would be a good start. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all, obviously per nom. It's a shame they're not CSDable; if they were drafts they'd be dead already. ——Serial Number 54129 20:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep all and, if necessary, speedy-close them as unfiled/malformed. There's plenty of random crap in RfA space; as late as last October, about 58 of the entries in Wikipedia:2005 requests for adminship had no tallies in the table. As I was going through them, it occurred to me that a lot of them were kind of stupid; nonetheless they're part of the historical record. Fot example, one of the people in that list you post is now a famous tweetfluencer under the same name, and one of them was as I recall a rather well-known figure of the old days. If the presence of old unfiled RfAs is messing up some statistics, I think that is a good argument to actually close them, but I think deleting them runs the risk of putting ragged holes in the history of project governance for no clear benefit. jp×g🗯️ 06:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @JPxG: historical pages are meant to serve as
records of past Wikipedia processes to give context to historical discussions and to inform future discussions on similar topics
. These don't do that. They were never filed, attracted no discussion, and are not retained in any table or log as a useful reference. How exactly are they part of thehistory of the project governance
? They're no more a part of it than article drafts are, and we delete those after six months. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)- Well, okay: in January 2006 Nakon was nominated for adminship by Sceptre, received one support and two opposes, and withdrew later the same day. In February 2006 Tv316 attempted to renominate him for adminship, with a paragraph-long nomination statement, and the same day Nakon declined it. In March 2006, Nakon's third nomination (from Master Jay) passed 98/13/10. The red text here is the part of the historical record that would be destroyed by deleting the page. I'm not saying this is the Dead Sea Scrolls or whatever, just that feels like it's obviously part of the history of Wikipedia and contextualizes the user and the RfA process itself, the exact same way as the first unsuccessful request does. jp×g🗯️ 07:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's fair, I'll withdraw that one. Do any others fit that pattern? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- User:Jmanlucas is still active and may be planning to file still (last edit a week or two ago)
- LewisT34, JASDVI and AndrewSE19 are NOTNOW SNOWs, Shonyx and OliveTree39 are socks.
- Mr.Mani Raj Paul is a very premature RfA (was made five months after the account -- by now, six years later, they are 14,000 edits deeper and may have a chance of passing -- who knows), similar situ with Countryboy603.
- If I'm going to be totally honest it feels like the socks are -- I mean, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eostrix was a sock RfA, it would obviously be silly to delete that. I think sock RfAs are probably useful for establishing a modus operandi for socks, or at least as useful as the other stuff we keep around. We don't delete the talk pages of vandals/socks, for example, even though those are 99% useless crap. jp×g🗯️ 08:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Parys and olivetree39 would be G5 eligible (Shonyx is the sockmaster, so not G5able; Eostrix wouldn't be G5able either). Any objection to me speedying those two?
- LewisT34, JASDVI, and AndrewSE19 would be NOTNOW/SNOW if they were ever filed, which they weren't.
- Mr.Mani Raj Paul, Countryboy603, and Jmanlucas would be welcome to request REFUNDs if they really wanted to work off of these versions, but they've given no indication that they still intend to run and would probably prefer to start fresh. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe's idea to userfy them seems pretty smart, so I would be fine with keeping the ones that are significant-in-some-vague-sense, and then userfying the ones that would otherwise be deleted. jp×g🗯️ 22:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's fair, I'll withdraw that one. Do any others fit that pattern? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, okay: in January 2006 Nakon was nominated for adminship by Sceptre, received one support and two opposes, and withdrew later the same day. In February 2006 Tv316 attempted to renominate him for adminship, with a paragraph-long nomination statement, and the same day Nakon declined it. In March 2006, Nakon's third nomination (from Master Jay) passed 98/13/10. The red text here is the part of the historical record that would be destroyed by deleting the page. I'm not saying this is the Dead Sea Scrolls or whatever, just that feels like it's obviously part of the history of Wikipedia and contextualizes the user and the RfA process itself, the exact same way as the first unsuccessful request does. jp×g🗯️ 07:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @JPxG: historical pages are meant to serve as
- Userfy and blank all, assuming those created by a blocked sockpuppet are already deleted per G5. There is no need or good reason to hide the history. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all as none are serving any sort of purpose. –Davey2010Talk 18:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep the ones from active users with high enough # of contribs to reasonably pass an RfA (Jmanlucas, etc.); let them proceed at their own pace. No opinion on the rest, but I wouldn't be particularly upset if the result is deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and ignore. No harm in keeping. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Kamala Harris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Joe Biden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Clinton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
These four wikiprojects on US presidential candidates were all created by Another Believer without following the recommended proposal process and none of them ever became active. He was advised that this was likely a waste of time after creating WikiProject Joe Biden four years ago but chose to ignore it. They are all redundant to WikiProject United States Presidents which is active and has existed for nearly twenty years. – Joe (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep all. Unnecessary nomination. The process for creating new WikiProjects is recommended, not required, and the older WikiProjects have talk page discussions and archives that should be kept. If you don't want to join WikiProject Kamala Harris, then don't, but I don't understand the crusade to delete multiple WikiProjects outright. Inactive projects can be merged and/or archived. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- The process is optional but the underlying logic—that you should find out whether anyone wants to work with you on new wikiproject before you spin up a whole set of project pages and categories that will need to be maintained indefinitely—has proven to be sound advice time and time again. I would have proposed merging them into WP US Presidents if they had ever been active, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Can you point to any significant talk page discussions that are worth archiving? – Joe (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't feel a need to comment further. Happy editing, ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- The process is optional but the underlying logic—that you should find out whether anyone wants to work with you on new wikiproject before you spin up a whole set of project pages and categories that will need to be maintained indefinitely—has proven to be sound advice time and time again. I would have proposed merging them into WP US Presidents if they had ever been active, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Can you point to any significant talk page discussions that are worth archiving? – Joe (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I am not involved in any of the Wikiprojects, I just saw them in the Women In Red talk page, and I do not plan to get involved as these topics stress me out; but I do not think that they are necessarily redundant to WikiProject United States Presidents as that page covers all USA presidents over nearly 240 years, whilst these 4 are extremely recent and hence will probably have more coverage and articles. Additionally, many of these will have others article unrelated to presidency (e.g. Donald Trump's various crimes). I also believe that discussing these on the relevant WikiProjects for all 5 of them would be a better idea than nominating for deletion. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- As a point of comparison the only other wikiprojects that cover the leaders of a specific country are WikiProject Sinhalese Monarchy (defunct for a decade) and WikiProject British Royalty (active). There are no wikiprojects devoted to one specific politician apart from these four and WikiProject Barack Obama (also inactive). Of course where you draw the line in determining wikiproject scopes is arbitrary, but the evidence that individual US presidents/presidential candidates are not viable topics of independent wikiprojects is that the oldest was created in 2009 and none have ever been active. – Joe (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I generally don't think we need individual projects with 100 or so articles to them. I said so last night when I saw AB make the KHive project. Delete Kamala as its brand new. But I'm inclined to keep the others because Wikipedia:WikiProject#Inactive projects says
These projects are retained for reference as they may be viable because they provide topic-specific considerations of the many site-wide policies and guidelines that still apply to a subset of articles.
And I advise using the recommended protocol for project formation in the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to WikiProject United States Presidents. The fact that Biden, Kamala Harris and Trump WikiProjects are all super active topics, while Clinton and Obama...less so, is a good sign that a shared WikiProject would be beneficial. If someone learns something by accident about Warren G. Harding or James Buchanan they will survive. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to WikiProject United States Presidents per Shushugah. There isn't enough activity around all US Presidents to prevent articles about these four from getting the attention they need from the wider WikiProject. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC) (UTC)
- Redirect to WP:USP (or WP:USPE) per @Shushugah and @Ahecht. 00101984hjw (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge as taskforces of WPUSPRES? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also Harris should be treated like any other US politician unless actually elected. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents states it covers Vice Presidents, so Harris already falls under its self-assigned scope. (So do spouses.) CMD (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I personally would favor this OR what I said below (make all of these into their own task forces). Historyday01 (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also Harris should be treated like any other US politician unless actually elected. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents. In addition to the activity considerations mentioned above, it seems beneficial to group conversations in an area not framed around a single individual. A visual indicator of writing in the broader encyclopaeidic context, and possibly also avoiding recentism. CMD (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I don't have a hard view at this point on whether to keep these or not, but I do think that if the result is "Delete" or "Redirect", it should be a soft redirect from their respective front pages, with each project marked "inactive" and perhaps all their project pages tagged with {{historical}}. I can't fathom why we would want to destroy this work or make it too hard to find, particularly in cases where the WikiProjects have been around for years. Also, perhaps their members/participants should be informed. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 02:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are no actual participants and no work to archive. They aren't former groups of editors that went active; just pages that AB creates every four years then abandons. That's why they are at MfD rather than the usual discussion about merging inactive projects. – Joe (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see a lot of listed participants in the Joe Biden WP, for example, and even though I'm not listed, I did cleanups of their listed articles recently. I don't see a hard reason to make them disappear. Mothballing is within reason, though. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 06:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Were you working from information at that Wikiproject page? If so, what were you working from? I've raised a note in another MfD about the potential use of tools such as Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Joe Biden articles by quality statistics. The Wikiproject doesn't seem to have done much editor-wise, no post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Joe Biden has received a reply since 2020, so if some other aspect of the Wikiproject was separately useful that's a helpful anecdote. CMD (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I built my AWB run list from Category:WikiProject Joe Biden articles. I found this through Category:WikiProject Joe Biden shown at the bottom of that project's front page. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 07:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! That's coming from the Wikiproject template I believe, same as the quality statistics. Best, CMD (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I built my AWB run list from Category:WikiProject Joe Biden articles. I found this through Category:WikiProject Joe Biden shown at the bottom of that project's front page. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 07:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Were you working from information at that Wikiproject page? If so, what were you working from? I've raised a note in another MfD about the potential use of tools such as Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Joe Biden articles by quality statistics. The Wikiproject doesn't seem to have done much editor-wise, no post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Joe Biden has received a reply since 2020, so if some other aspect of the Wikiproject was separately useful that's a helpful anecdote. CMD (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also, per WP:AGF and common sense, these WikiProjects seem to have a serious purpose. Just because the creator maybe didn't stick around doesn't mean others didn't take them seriously. I'd go by the rule of thumb of whether the projects received significant action or not. If they did, mothball them with a soft redirect. If very little or nothing, then delete/redirect. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 06:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Totally agree, I'd just put these in the "little or nothing" category. Putting your name on a list takes five seconds. I don't consider that a sign of life. – Joe (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see a lot of listed participants in the Joe Biden WP, for example, and even though I'm not listed, I did cleanups of their listed articles recently. I don't see a hard reason to make them disappear. Mothballing is within reason, though. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 06:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are no actual participants and no work to archive. They aren't former groups of editors that went active; just pages that AB creates every four years then abandons. That's why they are at MfD rather than the usual discussion about merging inactive projects. – Joe (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Something: it seems unnecessary to have these as separate WikiProjects in their own right (since nobody really participates in them as such) but it does seem useful to have these categories for the sort of bizarre twilight-zone thing we actually use WikiProjects for, which is tracking edits to groups of related pages, making lists with User:HotArticlesBot, sorting stuff like {{expert}} templates, et cetera. At the very least, for actively campaigning candidates or sitting presidents I think it does; I don't know how much it makes sense to have a super-narrow categorization like this for Hillary or Obama or W. But if you look at, for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Donald_Trump#Article_alerts you can actually see a pretty decent slice of articles broadly related to Trump and his administration (I'm not sure why Wikipedia:WikiProject_Joe_Biden doesn't have the same thing, but you get the idea). jp×g🗯️ 11:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. What about making "Wikipedia:WikiProject Kamala Harris", "Wikipedia:WikiProject Joe Biden", "Wikipedia:WikiProject Donald Trump" and "Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Clinton" into task forces or something like that? Historyday01 (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- The issue there is that since these are dead wikiprojects they'll just end up being dead taskforces. I understand that residual tools like Wikipedia:WikiProject Donald Trump#Article alerts can be useful but the point of wikiprojects and task forces is to assemble a group of editors, not categories. And of course without the editors to maintain the categories, those will also slowly decay. What I think we should be exploring instead is whether tools like article alerts can be adapted to work with mainspace category trees, which are maintained. – Joe (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, more or less. The whole WikiProject framework seems kind of bizarre and arseways for about 99% of them -- we have a few (milhist, vidya, storms) that actually involve active coordination between editors, and then about nine million like Theme songs, Animals in media, Limnology and Oceanography, Islands, etc where it's not really clear what it means to be a member or participate in them, and they just kind of exist for the sake of being an ad-hoc categorization system. For a while I have dreamed of doing something about this but I don't really know what it would be. jp×g🗯️ 09:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- @JPxG: If you're not already, watchlist WT:COUNCIL for ongoing discussions along similar lines :) – Joe (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, more or less. The whole WikiProject framework seems kind of bizarre and arseways for about 99% of them -- we have a few (milhist, vidya, storms) that actually involve active coordination between editors, and then about nine million like Theme songs, Animals in media, Limnology and Oceanography, Islands, etc where it's not really clear what it means to be a member or participate in them, and they just kind of exist for the sake of being an ad-hoc categorization system. For a while I have dreamed of doing something about this but I don't really know what it would be. jp×g🗯️ 09:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- The issue there is that since these are dead wikiprojects they'll just end up being dead taskforces. I understand that residual tools like Wikipedia:WikiProject Donald Trump#Article alerts can be useful but the point of wikiprojects and task forces is to assemble a group of editors, not categories. And of course without the editors to maintain the categories, those will also slowly decay. What I think we should be exploring instead is whether tools like article alerts can be adapted to work with mainspace category trees, which are maintained. – Joe (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @JPxG, we don't need these pages to achieve that goal. For any use that would have relied on Category:WikiProject Joe Biden articles, we can use Category:Joe Biden instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. What about making "Wikipedia:WikiProject Kamala Harris", "Wikipedia:WikiProject Joe Biden", "Wikipedia:WikiProject Donald Trump" and "Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Clinton" into task forces or something like that? Historyday01 (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think that redirecting all of these to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents would be the best outcome, and while I did appreciate his creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19 in 2020, I ask User:Another Believer to avoid creating WikiProject pages in the future unless and until he has an actual social group in place. A WP:WikiProject is a group of editors – not a collection of pages, a subject area, or a categorization scheme. The pages, templates, and categories should not be created unless and until there is a real group of editors ready to use them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect and Merge to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents. A check of the viewing of their talk pages shows that, except for Trump, they have an average of zero (that is, less than 0.5) pageviews daily, and Trump (a polarizing figure) has 1 pageview daily. Mostly they are just sitting there. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
July 21, 2024
[edit]- Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia?/Rewrite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This page is a sandbox abandoned since 2007. It isn't useful anymore, so propose to delete it. See Wikipedia talk:Who writes Wikipedia?#Proposed rewrite. —andrybak (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia? – no reason to make it inaccessible to non-administrators, which is all that deletion achieves. Graham87 (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't object to just keeping it as well, per below. Graham87 (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, archive by redirecting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Would prefer keeping as is but would support redirecting as a second option, imho the page is harmless and pretty much tucked away, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drbogdan |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by filer. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC) This user was recently CBANned for abuse of editing privileges, in particular promotional editing. Three of the user subpages created by this user have been removed via MfD already, and the content one of those pages (Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Drbogdan/NytComments-Search) still exists on the userpage as the main content and this userpage has served as a locus of the WP:PROMO content, namely directing offsite users routinely to the userpage which contains a lot of promotional material (see the ANI). Note that a lot of the promotional material is collapsed but when expanded is about half the page. Like many users involved in that ANI, I hope that the user can return productively, but in the meantime this page is still way too cut-and-dry WP:PROMO and recreates material already removed for violating policies. If left up it still serves a promotional purpose. I don’t intend this to be WP:GRAVEDANCING, I just really don’t believe that leaving up the page that people are being directed to which represents some of the major WP:PROMO that resulted in a CBAN up is serving Wikipedia in any way, and if the user in question is to return they’d likely need to rewrite a majority of this in any case. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
|
- User:BMarGlines/Template:Channel Four Television Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Speedy delete: It's a fake Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's just a sandbox BMarGlines (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
July 20, 2024
[edit]![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
This is a violation of numerous site policies.
1) Editors should not use Wikipedia for content that they insist other editors are not allowed to read or discuss. 2) The title is deliberately misleading; the page is not a talk-page archive, but an extremely long and rambling article about the "Donald Trump pee tape" and other rumors involving Russia. 3) Some of the accusations and insinuations against Mr. Trump are BLP violations; the clear intention of the article is to engage in personal attacks against Mr. Trump. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Editors are allowed to use their private userspace for article development. The URL is deliberately neutral to avoid it being noticed and publicized by bad actors. I am not interested in promoting this content. Your opinions of the insinuations and accusations made by RS, Congressional investigations, and the intelligence community should not be used as the reason for deleting content that is being developed for an article. It is not ready for publication yet, so don't judge it as if it had already been publicized. That's an attitude that works against article development and our RS and Verifiability PAG. I am working on, revising, rearranging, and continually paring down, this article-to-be. This may not be its final format.
- Keep your political views out of this. This is harassment. You should read it and the sources before acting, and then wait until publication. You will learn a lot.
- Whether the rumor is true or not, RS and official investigations have written a lot about the rumor, and the topic is obviously quite notable, so an MfD or AfD would be improper. Harassment of editors while they are developing articles based on RS is a serious breach of conduct norms here and can have wide and damaging ramifications that prevent the development of potentially controversial articles. That is the effect here, and it's a really nasty move. The chilling effect is enormous. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- The hypocrisy of a person who puts "This is my sandbox. No cats allowed. Just stay away. If you want to discuss this, DON'T use any talk pages. Email me." at the top of a page accusing others of a "chilling effect" and "harassment" for looking at it is immense. I will not reply to any of the other accusations against me. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- I did that because I don't want my work to be misused to push a POV or draw attention to it. That would be a forbidden misuse of userspace. You are the one drawing attention to it. Articles, not drafts, are what should get attention.
- Stop and think about the chilling effect this has. No editor will ever be safe when creating legitimate content, no matter how notable and well-sourced. This kind of harassment should not be allowed, and we need a guideline to prevent it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- The hypocrisy of a person who puts "This is my sandbox. No cats allowed. Just stay away. If you want to discuss this, DON'T use any talk pages. Email me." at the top of a page accusing others of a "chilling effect" and "harassment" for looking at it is immense. I will not reply to any of the other accusations against me. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Delete for the following reasons:
- This is an entirely negative page about a living person who is the subject of a biography of a living person. It is not an attack page that is subject to speedy deletion because it is sourced, but it violates neutral point of view.
- If the user wants to develop article material without interference by other editors, they can do so on their own computer.
- If the user wants to display content to the general public but does not want them to edit it and does not want them to discuss it on a talk page, then the user is seeking to use Wikipedia as a web host.
- Since we already have an article on Donald J. Trump, the user appears to be developing a subordinate article. Discussion of whether to spin out or split an article should be on the talk page of the parent article, Talk:Donald J. Trump, not by creating a draft child article subject to article ownership.
- The originator says that we need a guideline to prevent:
This kind of harassment
. I would be interested in seeing and reviewing the draft guideline. - This isn't exactly a sandbox and isn't exactly a draft, but it is problematic as either. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Changing this to a Weak Delete for now seeing that other experienced editors disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
DeleteNeutral.Apart from the problems of the content itself (BLP violations etc.), the user needs to be reminded of WP:OWN. Placing limits on how a user page (or any page) can be discussed is not any one user's prerogative. I also ask my fellow MfD participants to review User:Valjean/Archive 31 and User:Valjean/Archive 30 which have very similar histories to the nominated page except they are blanked. They may also be eligible for deletion. Nickps (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)I take back the part about BLP violations per the latitude users should be afforded in their own userspace.However, I still stand by my comment that placing limits on a talk page like it was done here should not be tolerated. Nickps (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)- @Nickps: thanks for your change of heart. I can understand your reaction to my rather terse and short note on the page. It was written at a time when I was under ferocious attack and harassment for working on some draft articles in my userspace, and I was very touchy. It forced me to delete years of work and research.
- I have now revised that note and explain my reasons more fully. Please read it. It's also the first time I have publicly mentioned my autism, AFAIK. I'm not always good at communication, am not always diplomatic, and often make mistakes. I'm sorry about that. I appreciate helpful advice. I am not an anti-social person, just a bit awkward at times. Life is one continuous series of hourly misunderstandings, and that makes it a pain in the ass, yet I keep trying. I just wish there were some protections afforded to editors when working in their private userspace. In a publishing house, what has happened here would not be allowed. See my note for more on that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: please clarify a few things for me:
- You say it "isn't exactly a sandbox". Please point me to the PAG that requires a page that is clearly labeled as "removed from search engines' indexes" and a "This is my sandbox." (plus "This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable.") to have a URL or title that also says "sandbox". What have I done wrong?
- You say it "isn't exactly a draft". It is clearly labeled a "draft": "For guidance on developing this draft, see Wikipedia: So you made a userspace draft." Please point me to the PAG that requires it to be labeled a "draft" in some other manner. The URL and title can be WXYZ or !@#$%^, AFAIK. I don't know of any rule about this.
- Please point me to the PAG that forbids the creation of an article when it, right from the beginning, is obviously too large to be included in a main article. There are such things as articles that mention Trump where he is not the main topic of the article, even though it touches on him. The title describes the topic accurately and has high common name recognition value. What PAG have I violated?
- You write "If the user wants to display content to the general public" I do not want to do that, hence the odd URL. I deliberately try NOT to draw attention to it. It is not an essay, and I do not mention it anywhere else, link to it, or share it anywhere else. I am not interested in misusing my userspace. I am doing what editors are allowed to do here, which is to use their userspace to host drafts they are developing as articles or other products useful to the project. What have I done wrong? What PAG have I violated?
- BLP applies to "unsourced" negative content, not to properly sourced negative content that is part of documenting a topic like this one. You don't seem to have read the page or know what it's about. You probably think that what is written about it at Steele dossier covers the topic, but that barely scratches the surface, as this rumor started in 2013, and Trump has known about it since then, long before the dossier was imagined.
Please answer my questions. The content is based on myriad RS, many of the highest quality and reliability, as this has national security implications and is the subject of FBI and Congressional investigations, testimony, and several lawsuits by Trump, which he has lost.
You should read these DYK? items. Myriad RS are behind each one:
Did you know?
- ... that Trump has known about the rumor since he left Moscow in 2013?
- ... that the rumor did not start with the Steele dossier? The dossier only repeats the original rumor.
- ... that Trump has repeatedly lied about this? He even dared do it to the Director of the FBI.
- ... that Trump's lies were so blatant and egregious that they got the Director of the FBI to change from a pee tape skeptic to a maybe peeliever?
- ... that many other notable people have strong suspicions that the rumor is true?
- ... that Trump's own actions cause them to think this way?
- ... that before anyone pinpointed the possible time of the alleged incident, Trump lied very specifically about exactly that time?
- ... that his actions are considered evidence of his consciousness of guilt?
- ... that Trump and others have acted as if the tapes were real and actually exist?
- ... that Michael Cohen has testified about this to Congress in 2019 and revealed many of these facts?
- ... that Cohen and a group of allies have worked for many years to track down the tapes and stop this rumor? He was willing to pay a lot of money for the tapes. He testified about this.
- ... that myriad RS, Congressional investigations, and other very reliable sources have written about this and analyzed it?
- ... that the fact that the actual tape has not been published means the rumor, true or not, remains unproven?
- ... that the real issues here are kompromat and national security issues, not Trump's alleged sexual proclivities?
And one more:
- ... that editors should be allowed, without harassment, to do what is allowed here, which is to use their userspace to create articles, including potentially controversial ones?
I do not use words lightly in my draft article, and, whenever necessary, I have used words like "alleged", which is what we do with unproven claims and allegations. The rumor has not been misrepresented as proven fact. It's an extremely notable and serious rumor that did not start with the Steele dossier, and Trump has repeatedly lied about it. That increases the notability, as RS have documented these lies. The topic easily passes the GNG notability guideline. If someone has a problem with some of the content, I have written, right at the top of the page, for them to "email me". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This is no different than a draft version of an article, that is being worked on in user space. We delete pages in draft space if they are abandoned for more than a particular amount of time, but this is in user space, not draft space. As such, it doesn't matter much what the user decided to call the page (as in "archive") – but if this hasn't been done already, I would strongly urge putting the "NOINDEX" notation on the page. Maybe there are issues with WP:NPOV (there probably are), but those can be dealt with if it ever gets moved to mainspace. I get it, that some editors just don't like the negative tone, but the person that it's about is a public figure and there are sources that, even if not reliable, are at least verifiable, so the argument that it's a BLP violation is weak. If anyone wants to make Wikipedia great again, this is the wrong place to pursue it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- NOINDEX has been there from the beginning, and it's VISIBLE! I do not want to promote or advertise this page. I just want to create an article, quietly, in my userspace. I have always created articles this way. Newbies are not allowed to do this, but experienced editors are.
- Anyone can email me if they have issues they want to discuss. It's that simple. The reason I don't want to use the talk page is that it draws more attention to the page. I don't want it to become the focus of controversy. That will no doubt happen after it goes public, as that happens to most articles about controversial topics. That's okay.
- It's interesting that the standard template for a draft assumes it is "incomplete and/or unreliable": "This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable. For guidance on developing this draft, see Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft." Read that template at the top of the draft page. I am not doing anything unusual here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's good about NOINDEX. I hadn't checked. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Based on discussions at my talk page, I am confident that Valjean intends to fix the NPOV problems with the draft page before attempting to move it into mainspace. That being the case, there is no policy-based reason that I can see, to delete it from userspace. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Leaning keep. “BLP violations” are not substantiated. Although there’s a lot there, it’s within reasonable leeway for 33,000 mainspace contributions over 21 years. The content is reliably sourced. It does read a polemical, not suitable for Wikipedia mainspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Bingo! @SmokeyJoe: you're right: "It does read a polemical, not suitable for Wikipedia mainspace."...yet! It needs work, and that's what I'm doing. I am getting close to starting to seek input from others. Your advice will be appreciated. Feel free to email me. This is my standard method of writing articles, just like many other experienced editors do. There is nothing unusual happening here, except for this MfD. I don't recall this happening before in this type of situation, where all the rules for article creation are being followed. A draft article should not be judged harshly. It is not perfect, and, as the draft template actually says, a draft is assumed to be "incomplete and/or unreliable". If this were released now, criticism would be warranted, but it's still in my user draft space where it belongs. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment to User:Valjean - It wasn't necessary both to ping me here at this MFD and to post to my talk page. I had already seen your ping here before you posted to my talk page. It is true that I didn't answer, because sometimes I think and/or write before answering. I probably will answer, but will not necessarily answer within 24 hours. I am not required to answer, although I probably will. Bludgeoning an AFD, MFD, or DRV is usually not the most effective approach. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Nominating a draft for MFD or an article for AFD is not Harassment. Was there some other harassment also? If so, please report it at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Do we need a paragraph in the Harassment policy about What Is Not Harassment? There are too many claims of Harassment, some valid, some not valid. There are too many claims of Vandalism, and we have a section on What Is Not Vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nomination another’s usersubpages can be harassment. As a rule, I always consider whether there is a harassment motivation. Does the nominator have a POV disagreement with the user that related to the user’s usersubpage? It happens. It could be the case here. The nominator, User:Walsh90210, makes broad allegations without easy presentation of the evidence, and I am still wondering how they came to visit this page, and what is their history in relation to both the topic and the user Valjean. I have suspicions about Walsh90210, they are a new account, they don’t act new, they seem combative, they don’t have a userpage but they bluelinked it with a week of their first edit, they claim to know the clear intention of another user. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- See my talk page:User talk:Doug Weller#MfD etc. where User:Star Mississippi raised the question. Walsh90210 replied saying "This is not my first account (note Special:Diff/1225534254). I abandoned my previous account (which was never sanctioned) because I did not want to associate with older comments I had made about Israel-Palestine after the events of late 2023. I don't intend to say any more other than in private communications with ARBCOM. Walsh90210 (talk) 7:32 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)" I agree with the rest of the points made by SmokeyJoe, I think there's likely to be a history behind this nomination. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- THanks @Doug Weller. I'm not going to weigh in on the content of this draft, but I do have concerns about the nomination and a procedural close could be in order. As I said on Doug's Talk, it should probably go to ArbComm if there's a privacy matter. Not policy and speaking as editor not admin, but I really think CT/fairly new Clean Start editors don't go well together. Star Mississippi 13:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I had a quick look and I think ArbCom should have a longer look. User:HJ Mitchell, User:ToBeFree, can you grab your special glasses? Drmies (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks – I currently can't investigate this, but I have forwarded the request to arbcom-en. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I had a quick look and I think ArbCom should have a longer look. User:HJ Mitchell, User:ToBeFree, can you grab your special glasses? Drmies (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- THanks @Doug Weller. I'm not going to weigh in on the content of this draft, but I do have concerns about the nomination and a procedural close could be in order. As I said on Doug's Talk, it should probably go to ArbComm if there's a privacy matter. Not policy and speaking as editor not admin, but I really think CT/fairly new Clean Start editors don't go well together. Star Mississippi 13:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- See my talk page:User talk:Doug Weller#MfD etc. where User:Star Mississippi raised the question. Walsh90210 replied saying "This is not my first account (note Special:Diff/1225534254). I abandoned my previous account (which was never sanctioned) because I did not want to associate with older comments I had made about Israel-Palestine after the events of late 2023. I don't intend to say any more other than in private communications with ARBCOM. Walsh90210 (talk) 7:32 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)" I agree with the rest of the points made by SmokeyJoe, I think there's likely to be a history behind this nomination. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nomination another’s usersubpages can be harassment. As a rule, I always consider whether there is a harassment motivation. Does the nominator have a POV disagreement with the user that related to the user’s usersubpage? It happens. It could be the case here. The nominator, User:Walsh90210, makes broad allegations without easy presentation of the evidence, and I am still wondering how they came to visit this page, and what is their history in relation to both the topic and the user Valjean. I have suspicions about Walsh90210, they are a new account, they don’t act new, they seem combative, they don’t have a userpage but they bluelinked it with a week of their first edit, they claim to know the clear intention of another user. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Relevant guidelines for this MfD
Different "namespaces" here at Wikipedia are governed by different rules, and that includes the rules for MfDs. Valjean's work here is governed by personal "userspace drafts", not Wikipedia:Drafts (which governs drafts in "draftspace"). Unlike a "personal userspace draft",
- "Articles in the Wikipedia:Draft namespace can be edited and moved into the main encyclopedia by anyone. So you can create the draft in your personal userspace, move it to the draft namespace to be edited by anyone, and later move it to the main encyclopedia."(Source: Help:Userspace draft)
This implies that a user has nearly full control of a draft in their "private userspace", both creation and publication, but not their work in draftspace. (That "nearly" implies that control is not absolute, as with all things at Wikipedia. There are exceptions to every rule.) If I'm wrong, please enlighten us. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your userspace is like your desk in your workplace. You should keep it in good order, and in keeping with the workplace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, there are workplace rules, and I will of course try to abide by them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I believe the reasoning for Valjean's entreaty that people email him rather than ask him about the article onwiki is that some months ago a very large number of his drafts were nominated for deletion at the same time and he was given a good deal of hell over it. Not that a user is allowed to demand nobody go to their talk page and ask them about stuff. For that matter, I don't think this is actually binding on anybody -- you're not REQUIRED to email him (indeed you're permitted to discuss or MfD them, as we are doing here). I would lean towards wanting to delete this, because it seems like a long and avowedly negative go-off about a BLP subject, although on the other hand it does at least seem like an earnest attempt to write an article. On the third hand, it is currently an article I would be strongly inclined to vote to delete on BLP grounds if it were at AfD. I think there are probably other options as well (a local own-computer copy, a copy in revision history/HTML note/etc). jp×g🗯️ 23:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- You are correct about my reasoning for preferring email, but I have now changed the communication instructions to:
- "If you want to discuss this, I'd prefer that you email me, but if that won't work for you, then please use my user talk page and not the talk page here. (I don't get pinged here, and the talk page here is for archiving my user talk page.)"
- I hope that's better. When I move this to a different userspace page, I'll update that message. I'd really like to understand your BLP concerns ("inclined to vote to delete on BLP grounds if it were at AfD"), but let's not do that here. Your advice would be appreciated. Per WP:PRESERVE, the goal should be to make this something that would pass an AfD, as it's a very notable topic. How to do that? My email and talk page are open for you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This is a work in progress and it will need a lot of additional work in order to be ready for main space, if it ever is. I see no convincing policy based reason to delete it. Cullen328 (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - This appears to just be a web host that has no chance of being an article. It also looks like a continuation of when a bunch of your bad drafts were nominated for deletion and you tried to hide them in archive histories of other pages. PackMecEng (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'll drop you a message on your talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as this is one massive BLPVIO—and BLP is one of, if not the, most important policy we have—and preferably a block from this page for Valjean for the WP:BLUDGEONing. ——Serial Number 54129 09:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've explained above why it's not a BLP violation (albeit a violation of NPOV), and no one has refuted what I said. Editors continuing to cite BLP are simply doing so ipse dixit. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Uh, you mention that sources even if not reliable, is ok with you, which BLP says is...not compliant. Arkon (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Consider WP:WEAKSILENCE. Just because no one is responding that doesn't mean you're right. In fact, WP:BLP says
Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly [...] to Wikipedia's three core content policies: [NPOV, V, NOR]
- yet you admit it has NPOV issues. NPOV issues = BLP violation, it's that simple.
As I've said above I'm willing to let it slide in userspace because of no visibility butpretending there's no BLP violation makes no sense. Nickps (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)- First, Nickps, I do appreciate that you changed your earlier comment to neutral. And yes, there is a reasonable argument to be made that NPOV problems, in themselves, are a potential BLP violation. That's a better response than just saying how important the BLP policy is, which is ipse dixit. Now, to both of you, let's please note what I actually said: "the person that it's about is a public figure and there are sources that, even if not reliable, are at least verifiable, so the argument that it's a BLP violation is weak." I said that the BLP arguments are weak, not that there is zero BLP issue, and I was wrong to lose that nuance in my later comment, so that's on me. But I didn't say that I think it's OK to cite sources that would fail WP:RS, so please do not insult me by making it sound like I did. What I said, and I still say, is that if there is verifiable source material about a very public figure, basing content on that is not inherently a BLP violation. We go where the source material tells us to go, rather than ignoring sources out of a mistaken sense of false balance. We have lots of mainspace pages about living persons who have done bad things, but if it's well-sourced that what we say is true, that's not a BLP violation. This is a draft, in progress in userspace, and Valjean is making a sincere effort to fix the things that are wrong with it. Nobody is arguing that it's ready for mainspace. I'm acknowledging that there may be content that will have to be removed because of unreliable sources, and I've made it very clear that I think that there have to be a lot of revisions to balance the NPOV. But I continue to believe that arguments that this must be deleted now, out of BLP concerns, are weak arguments. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I quoted you, in bold. There is no insult. Arkon (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- And then you said that it "is ok with" me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- You voted keep. Arkon (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see it's not worth arguing with you, since I already explained that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah I have to say your argument makes no sense. BLP is a subset of NPOV, if there are NPOV issues on a BLP article then there is a BLP issue. BLP extends to every page on Wikipedia, talk pages, and user pages. PackMecEng (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ipse dixit. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, that's self evident per WP:BLPTALK. BLP applies to user pages too not because an editor here says so, but because the policy itself says so and if someone thinks the BLP violations are bad enough, they have every right to !vote delete because of that. Nickps (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- In general ipse dixit is not the own you seem to think it is. If the plain text of a policy says something, like
The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages.
(from WP:BLPTALK) then asserting it is a valid argument. Nickps (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)- The issue here isn't whether BLP applies in a given namespace. If one editor baldly asserts a BLP problem, and another asserts that there isn't one, it's not as though asserting a BLP problem is an "own". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ipse dixit. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah I have to say your argument makes no sense. BLP is a subset of NPOV, if there are NPOV issues on a BLP article then there is a BLP issue. BLP extends to every page on Wikipedia, talk pages, and user pages. PackMecEng (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see it's not worth arguing with you, since I already explained that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- You voted keep. Arkon (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- And then you said that it "is ok with" me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I quoted you, in bold. There is no insult. Arkon (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- First, Nickps, I do appreciate that you changed your earlier comment to neutral. And yes, there is a reasonable argument to be made that NPOV problems, in themselves, are a potential BLP violation. That's a better response than just saying how important the BLP policy is, which is ipse dixit. Now, to both of you, let's please note what I actually said: "the person that it's about is a public figure and there are sources that, even if not reliable, are at least verifiable, so the argument that it's a BLP violation is weak." I said that the BLP arguments are weak, not that there is zero BLP issue, and I was wrong to lose that nuance in my later comment, so that's on me. But I didn't say that I think it's OK to cite sources that would fail WP:RS, so please do not insult me by making it sound like I did. What I said, and I still say, is that if there is verifiable source material about a very public figure, basing content on that is not inherently a BLP violation. We go where the source material tells us to go, rather than ignoring sources out of a mistaken sense of false balance. We have lots of mainspace pages about living persons who have done bad things, but if it's well-sourced that what we say is true, that's not a BLP violation. This is a draft, in progress in userspace, and Valjean is making a sincere effort to fix the things that are wrong with it. Nobody is arguing that it's ready for mainspace. I'm acknowledging that there may be content that will have to be removed because of unreliable sources, and I've made it very clear that I think that there have to be a lot of revisions to balance the NPOV. But I continue to believe that arguments that this must be deleted now, out of BLP concerns, are weak arguments. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've explained above why it's not a BLP violation (albeit a violation of NPOV), and no one has refuted what I said. Editors continuing to cite BLP are simply doing so ipse dixit. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete nothing is stopping Valjean from keeping any of this stuff online in another setting, or offline in a document. But on Wikipedia it absolutely shouldn't be here. It's free web hosting of a "draft" that fundamentally is incompatible with mainspace standards, and Valjean is never going to be able to make it so (their wiki-wide conduct needs far more of a look-at, this MfD and his conduct being a chief example why.) Trying to use talk page archives as an end-run around our draft rules (and further scrutiny) is definitely in violation of the spirit of our content policies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please participate on the talk page: Please provide evidence of BLP violations -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
July 19, 2024
[edit]Per WP:FAKEARTICLE, fake article for Drummore Primary School JaggedHamster (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I would be open to draftification, but this subject appears to be A7 worthy if it were in article space so it has effectively no chance of promotion to article. VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Move: to User:Robert_Birkett/Drummore Primary School, Stranraer, Scotland and Ignore. Not a FAKEARTICLE, but not a main userpage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - The school as it stands fails WP:NSCHOOL so moving this userpage although helpful is just setting the creator up to fail, Results on Google News all fail LOCALCOV with the BBC News source just being a one-bit mention, I appreciate this all may not be within the remit of MFD but I don't see the point in moving this when the school fails NSCHOOL and GNG anyway. Delete. –Davey2010Talk 00:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- NSCHOOL and GNG are not required in userspace.
- The content may be suitable for merging somewhere. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- True they're not but given the article will never see the light of day in articlespace I simply don't see a benefit to keeping, The article only says "it's a primary school in scotland, that it caters for 4 and 13 years of age and that the school operates under the Stranraer local authority." - None of that is worth merging anywhere imho,
- If we really have too then I would support moving to draft as a second option, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2024 CrowdStrike outages |
---|
The result of the discussion was: speedy keep. Nom withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC) This should be moved to draftspace [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 08:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
|
July 18, 2024
[edit]Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject SZA (2nd nomination) | ||
---|---|---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject (focusing on a single musical artist) whose creator has since been indefinitely blocked and only has three other participants. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a SZA task force of WikiProject Music might be an alternative, but again this needs more than a few interested editors to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Jerusalem |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC) This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject (focusing on a single city) with only one participant. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a Jerusalem task force of WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration might be an alternative, but again this needs more than one interested editor to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
|
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Major League Cricket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject with only two participants. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a task force of WikiProject Cricket might be an alternative, but again this needs more than a few interested editors to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete another WikiProject that should have never been created. Catfurball (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Created out of process, for a subject that is a subset of the subject of an existing project, and so possibly a task force. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - It appear that misconceived WikiProjects do not have the enthusiasts that misconceived portals do. Maybe that is because no one thinks that WikiProjects have mystical qualities. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Wikiprojects don't have that mystical appeal because they are not "nice" like portals. Portals are "kinda nice". Wikiproject pages are generally ugly.—Alalch E. 21:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, while Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket is relatively active, it has not itself developed many task forces, suggesting a lack of viability to separate Wikprojects. CMD (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete yet another attempt to spin off a WikiProject for a random franchise cricket tournament. In my view, we should be merging all the existing cricket spinoff WikiProjects (IPL, WPL, PSL, LPL etc) into WP:CRIC task forces, not creating more. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Joseph2302: That sounds like a good idea. If you want to propose it, there's a straightforward process for merging wikiprojects. – Joe (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Dardistan |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC) This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject with only one participant. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a Dardistan task force of WikiProject South Asia might be an alternative, but again this needs more than one interested editor to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
|
Appears to be an abandoned draft article (on a topic we already cover) rather than a WikiProject. – Joe (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - As the nominator says, not a WikiProject If an abandoned draft article, a duplicate. Any unique information in it can be merged into the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 21:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Userfy to User:Conservbio24cu/Red_Wolf. Seems to be an initial good faith effort of a new editor, the off-chance they come back seems likely to be higher if their initial work is still there for them. CMD (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I thought about that too but the creator made almost all their edits in one spree in April and hasn't been back since. Not opposed, though. – Joe (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it's an off-chance not a good chance. Is a userpage worth a 1% chance of editor retention? Maybe. CMD (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I thought about that too but the creator made almost all their edits in one spree in April and hasn't been back since. Not opposed, though. – Joe (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Ledisi |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC) This is a recently-created, highly niche WikiProject (focusing on a single artist) with only one participant. It didn't follow the recommended process for creating a wikiproject by proposing it and gathering a group of interested editors before creation. Unfortunately we know from experience that such narrowly-focused wikiprojects are almost never successful and just end up cluttering projectspace and diluting attention from other, broader and more viable, collaborations in the subject area. Creating a Ledisi task force of WikiProject Music might be an alternative, but again this needs more than one interested editor to be meaningful. – Joe (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
|
July 17, 2024
[edit]Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:2024 Atlantic hurricane season/ACE calcs |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
This is in clear violation of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Archive_43#RFC:_ACE_Calcs; this is nothing but an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of info if it's not going to be used in the article. Also WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
|
July 16, 2024
[edit]Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheRealJackMarshall |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 12:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC) WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheRealJackMarshall/sandbox |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 11:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC) WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
|
July 15, 2024
[edit]Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2029 in American television |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 11:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Yes, this is a draft, and while things don't have to be perfect, a 5 year crystal ball is pushing it. Q T C 23:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC) See Also:
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Billy Murray (singer) |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC) No useful content Frietjes (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ambasing |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC) While Ambasing is a real place, this page is mostly vandalism. The demographics section appears to be real, but is taken entirely from another page (I can't post a link to it because of the spam blacklist), word-for-word. Tymewalk (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
|
July 14, 2024
[edit]Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nations Unbound Great Cyber War |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Moldovan userbox templates |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 23:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Moldovan userbox templates[edit]
Delete userboxes. ISO 639 code for Moldovan, mo, has been deprecated. (https://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_changes.php) --Lucjim (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
|
July 12, 2024
[edit]The content of this page was merged here in 2007 after an AfD was closed with disposition to merge the content into Khaled Mashal (mentioned on the talk page here). Unless it was later removed (I haven't checked super thoroughly), that doesn't seem to have ever actually happened. But especially looking at this 17 years later, I'm not sure there's anything worth merging in here. The arguments for this were basically already made in the AfD. And if no one's actually ever going to merge this content, this page has no reason to exist. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 19:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 19:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - This isn't exactly G4, but it is essentially a draft for consideration after the merge. As a draft, it is an expired draft. To the extent that it is something else, it is not something else that needs to be kept. (Events have changed so much for the worse in the region.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The nom misstates the facts. A move to a talk subpage is not a merge. The AfD was closed as “merge” which is not a “delete” and cannot be used here to delete. If consensus has changed from “merge”, then archive, eg by redirection to the article. Also note that there are no time limits, if anything the AfD close was wrong. I note the closer is eight years inactive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
July 9, 2024
[edit]Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Msalauddind89/sandbox |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC) Unattributed copy of Ahmed Sofa. Created over three years ago with no attempt to work on the content. ✗plicit 11:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973 |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 02:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Appears to be a semi-complete and search-engine indexed version of a page that was recently deleted through MfD, which can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973-TEXT, from a user who has been CBANed for promotional content. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
|
Old business
[edit]Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 00:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC) ended today on 28 July 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. |
July 8, 2024
[edit]Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/Juve Merda |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 02:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC) This was nominated at the wrong venue (TFD). This is a procedural nomination on my part and I express no opinion on the merits. The original nominating statement is: Offensive against Juventus Football Club, "merda" in Italian is a vulgar word equivalent to "shit"Qwerty 9706 (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
|
July 7, 2024
[edit]Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Colonial Empires/Userbox/CEBASICBOX |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. bibliomaniac15 20:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Colonialism was redirected and is no longer a project or task force. Gonnym (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
|