Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). Purge this page

WP:MFD

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.

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: 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

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

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

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

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

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

I.

Edit PageName:

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

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

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.

If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.

Please include in the edit summary the phrase
Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
Save the page

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

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

Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
Insert this text:

{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.

Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Save the page.

III.

Add a line to MfD.

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

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".

Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add

{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.

If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~
to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as
Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	1	7	8
TfD	0	1	1
MfD	0	3	3
FfD	0	4	4
RfD	0	43	43
AfD	0	0	0

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

Archived discussions

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

Current discussions

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

July 29, 2024

Draft:Robert Bowles Mortimer, Jr.

Seems to be entirely conflict-of-interest writing by a relative, relying entirely on primary sources, and has little indication of notability beyond appearing at other artist's shows and being on American Idol GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Bennyhenny876/sandbox

Abandoned user draft. Unfortunately, G13 doesn't apply to user talk pages so we'll have to do it through MfD. Nickps (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the creator/owner of the userspace is globally locked. Nickps (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: We treat abandoned userspace AfC drafts as if they were in draftspace, so it should be speedied as WP:G13. Curbon7 (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not true. Please don’t advocate for abuse of CSD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, Sorry I have no idea where that notion came from, as obviously WP:STALEDRAFT provides clear guidance in this case. Mea culpa. Curbon7 (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Libra Bank

Hoax. Tagged as a G3 speedy but was declined (I will concede that it probably isn't that obvious). The creator of this draft (also see IPs 184.22.62.37 and 2405:9800:b570:49ad::/64, and cross-wiki contributions of the account and both IPs) has been trying to insert links to a fake version of this real bank's website into Wikipedia (for an example see https://librabank.app, the real one is https://librabank.ro). It should be pretty clear by looking at the fake version of the site that it is not legitimate (I can expand further if it is not obvious). I can find no indication anywhere that the bank's supposed "expansion into international markets" ever actually happened and is anything other than a pretext for inserting the fake links. If you look in the page history you will also find that the draft was initially created with a bunch of fake references (not that the current references are relevant, see for example the 1982 publishing date on ref 1, 1972 publishing date on ref 2, or focus on 1983–89 in ref 3, when the bank was apparently founded in 1996). Tollens (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it with fire per nom, the references definitely seem fake. Established banks do not hire out a website for a year [1][2] and rush to add it across multiple Wikimedia sites. Fishers do. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 28, 2024

Draft:American Communist Party

Normally I consider deleting drafts that do not have obvious copyright, BLP, or other time-sensitive issues to be unnecessary if not vindictive. However, at this point this page has just served as a source to copy text from for the creator to continually recreate the page with their sockpuppet accounts, without attempting to resolve the issues raised at the AfD. Yaksar (let's chat) 16:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a draft version of an article that was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Communist Party, which appears to have been a snowball closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Deletion is a suboptimal way to deal with the disruption by sockpuppets. The article at this title was deleted after discussion, which appears to have been a snowball close. The deletion appears to have been for lack of notability by a newly created organization, and so too soon, so that keeping a draft is reasonable. The draft is the work of sockpuppets, but the draft was created before the puppeteer was blocked, so that G5 does not apply. So the draft is simply a draft by a blocked editor, and drafts by blocked editors are often kept for possible updates by good-faith editors. The sockpuppets have also tried to game the title of the article, but the renamed versions of the article were properly deleted as G4. If any more sockpuppets pop up, which is likely, they can be blocked, and anything that they create can be deleted as G4, G5, or both. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SALT the alternate titles in article space, because their creation was improper. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to this draft likely acting as a source for its author to recreate deleted pages, the content of the draft itself is completely unusable for a mainspace article due to its political bias, total lack of reliable sourcing, etc. If any legitimate user were to edit this draft should it not be deleted if its subject ever gains adequate notability, it would instantly be the case that they would have to alter and remove so much of its promotional, poorly-sourced content that they might as well simply start over (WP:STARTOVER). SociusMono1976 (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. “ was founded on the 21st July, 2024” is a pretty obvious reason for it to be in draftspace, contained in draftspace, where the best hope is the appearance of new quality sources to replace the many, excessive, unsuitable poor sources. As a source to copy text, it is better to keep that evidence. Draft deletion is a poor way to deal with editors doing things badly. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Neuto Network

Cluster of interreleated likely WP:HOAX articles about television stations in Kenya (sometimes, but not always, persistently misspelled as "Kenia"), all completely unsupported by any proper verification of their existence in any sources of either the reliable or primary varieties.
The "main" website in Draft:Neuto Network does appear to exist, but leads to the website of a resort hotel chain in Southeast Asia, not a television network in Kenya, and virtually all other offsite links in any of these articles (whether used as references or external links) either 404 out or don't appear to contain any content about Kenyan television (e.g. pedriatics journal articles), and searching Google for any of these names also fails across the board to locate any verification of their existence whatsoever. Related pages at some of the same names were also created at simple: (right in mainspace as it doesn't have the same "anon IPs cannot create pages in mainspace" restriction that we do here), but have already been deleted as hoaxes. Bearcat (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'm also adding another related page to this nomination that was created after this discussion was initiated. Also worthy of note, not that this is a deletion rationale in and of itself but it is indicative of the user's mindset, is that the pages are repeatedly getting readded to a mixture of bluelinked and redlinked categories no matter how many times they're removed on WP:DRAFTNOCAT grounds. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. This is a walled garden that is a non-obvious hoax. The supposed web sites, several of which 404 out, and the main one of which is the authentic web site of an unrelated business, are further evidence that this is a hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Walled gardens such as this are occasionally created, and are sufficiently uncommon that we do not need any special procedure for dealing with them, because they can be deleted after discussion, as we are doing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Possible AI-using editors

This reads a little bit like a hit-list or wall of shame. If there are individuals using AI in a way which contradicts Wikipedia policy, that's one thing and can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. After all, that's (partly) what the WikiProject is here for. But simply listing people here for suspecting of using AI reeks a little of guilt by association, and unhelpful in building an encyclopaedia. GnocchiFan (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, it seemed weird to me too. If there's a problem, it should go to an appropriate noticeboard, I would think. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete; this was created really early in the wikiproject's development when we were still barely keeping up with a big spike in AI-generated slop on here and is no longer necessary or maintained actively. the user warning templates now sort into invisible categories. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 03:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Surplus to requirements, as explained by Sawyer. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This list consists of aspersions that other editors are acting in bad faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, tentatively, for now. Even though this is not a Userpage, the best applying standard is found at WP:UPNOT, in a section where the text does not match the bold row text or shortcut,

Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed.

Is it a wall of shame, implying permanent, or is it a rolling list being addressed? Being identified or accused of using mass AI generated material for contributions is negative, but I think it is justified as there is a “very good reason”. Unattributed AI contributions is an attribution failure, and a red flag for quality failure as AI content is currently to be suspected of reading OK but being capable of being grossly flawed. Are named users approached on their usertalk page and invited to respond? Yes. That’s good enough for a transitory listing.

— SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sawyer777, is the use of AI to generate content a passed fad? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no, it's still an issue, there's just more awareness of it now and we've got more efficient ways to deal with it on Wikipedia than back in november-december. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m guessing, this was useful while trying to deal with the initial problem of AI contributions, and that use has passed, and that it should be archived, or deleted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not constructive or required for the project. Editors using AI in ways that contradict policies or are disruptive can be warned and blocked, there's no need to have a list of "possible suspects" hidden somewhere. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and blank the list: IIRC this was intended as a centralized area for members to check the edits and revert/warn/whatever. This did not happen, and it turned into a wall of shame. However, I think this page is in the historical interest and should be kept tagged historical (as it already is) and the list should be courtesy blanked but available in the history. Diverging Diamond (is Queen of Hearts's alt; talk) 19:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the historical interest in keeping this? It seems like it has been superceded, as you say. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 27, 2024

Draft:JackSucksAtLife

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose: I have done a small amount of work on this article but have never submitted it for review as I am aware the sources are weak & I believe that the subject barely passes GNG. I do think that it is unfair, however, to completely nominate this draft article for deletion when there are reliable sources like GQ Magazine, Bloomberg UK, Gry-Online, Hindustan Times and Gamestar all present in the article. Now many, at that point, would argue that none of the articles have his name in the title for example, but that is hardly fair and almost irrelevant to mention when articles like WillNE and Gibi ASMR exist. I believe there is a large amount of negative bias against this article and it has always kinda dipped into I don't like it territory. Comparing it to other pages, it should most likely exist, especially now that he has over 4.5 million subscribers on his main YouTube channel and has largely expanded in the past 5 years since all the commotion with this article took place. However, due to the past difficulties with this article I understand it may require a little more than these other articles to get it published. Overall I don't think this draft should be published just yet, but deletion is just plain unnecessary. George (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:TalkSubject

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)[reply]

Looking at the original revision of the page, they appear to declare themselves as an alternate account of User:Vanished user 1428570, which is now retired and vanished. Both accounts have stopped editing for more than three years, so there isn't any immediate disruption at least. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the "Vanished user 1428570" had a questionable user name before they retired as well. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 25, 2024

Draft:Battle of Ghor

Draft with no citations written by a blocked sock Bremps... 15:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Creator blocked, no need to keep it now, –Davey2010^Talk 17:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

July 24, 2024

Talk:Ninten

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)[reply]

Keep: Valid talk page post. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. –Davey2010^Talk 21:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. –Davey2010^Talk 17:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Weak Keep - Useless but harmless. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Draft:Battle of Height 383

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Weak Keep - Another editor might add text and submit it for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 20:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ended today on 30 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 22, 2024

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/The West Wing task force

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Delete as uncontroversial maintenance. – Joe (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Copied from a petition, if memory serves. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. jp×g 🗯️ 10:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Stale unfiled RfAs

Group of stale unfiled RfAs – (View MfD)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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 the history 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's fair, I'll withdraw that one. Do any others fit that pattern? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Delete all as none are serving any sort of purpose. –Davey2010^Talk 18:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep and ignore. No harm in keeping. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Kamala Harris

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't feel a need to comment further. Happy editing, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Redirect to WP:USP (or WP:USPE) per @Shushugah and @Ahecht. 00101984hjw (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as taskforces of WPUSPRES? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Harris should be treated like any other US politician unless actually elected. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 06:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 07:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's coming from the Wikiproject template I believe, same as the quality statistics. Best, CMD (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 06:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@JPxG: If you're not already, watchlist WT:COUNCIL for ongoing discussions along similar lines :) – Joe (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents. The whole point of WikiProjects is having a centralized place to coordinate, and splitting them up defeats this purpose. I'd also be interested if anyone thinks it's worth having a more general discussion about getting smaller WikiProjects merged with their "parent" projects so they can be more useful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates