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

Shortcut 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.

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
today all (sorted) closing log
Templates and modules
today all closing holding
Files
today all closing
Categories
today all closing speedy
Redirects
today all closing log
Miscellany
today all closing
Speedy deletion
candidates
Proposed deletion
all (sorted) BLPs
Policy Process Guide Administrator guidelines
v t e

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

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no portals

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	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[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]

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[edit]

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	6	17	61	84
TfD	0	0	2	4	6
MfD	0	0	1	4	5
FfD	0	0	0	2	2
RfD	0	0	10	28	38
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.

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.

June 15, 2024

Draft:Barbara Rosemary Grant

Draft:Barbara Rosemary Grant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Subject is already covered under Peter and Rosemary Grant. As they worked together, it seems unlikely that there would be much to add to a separate article that couldn't be added to their joint article. Snowman304|talk 18:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. Curbon7 (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Peter and Rosemary Grant or Merge into Peter and Rosemary Grant. After two cursory reviews, it is not obvious to me whether the draft contains any information that is not in the existing article. If it does, that information should be merged into the article, and then the draft title should be redirected to the article. If there is no new information in this draft, the draft should be redirected to the article. Drafts are not deleted because an article exists. Nominating a draft for deletion because an article exists is a common good-faith error, so Speedy Redirection has been established to deal with these situations. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 14, 2024

User:Dull bull/sandbox

User:Dull bull/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is a non-obvious hoax. A naïve Google search finds no evidence that Gatorade was invented by Sean Simms. Our article shows that it was invented by Robert Cade and others. There is a Sean Simms who played American football and became an actor, and does not appear to have been associated with Gatorade. There is no evidence that any Sean Simms played for the New York Yankees. If this were not invented, it would be an unreferenced biography of a living person, which is not permitted but could be ignored in a sandbox. As it is, this is a non-obvious hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Piccadilly

Wikipedia:Piccadilly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA. WikiProjects are "advertised" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, and there's already places for discussing the topics listed, such as WP:TH, WP:HD, and WP:VP. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WPPicadilly is NOT a help desk. As i stated, its a place to advertise pages and wikiprojects. and you said advertised in quotation, thus it is not really that elligble to be deleted. WPPicadilly is only in its early stages too. Snipertron12 Talk 11:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would advertising pages be needed? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some pages dont get enough attention and sometimes are even overlooked by wikiprojects. Snipertron12 Talk 12:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know what. Im changing the premise of WPPicadilly. Snipertron12 Talk 12:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what Wikipedia:Articles for improvement is for? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the article when im at home because im on a school computer that gets filtered alot. Snipertron12 Talk 12:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. The diffrence from Articles for improvement and Picadilly is that AFI is focusing on ranked articles which are lengthy. Piccadilly aims on new pages/stubs/drafts. Snipertron12 Talk 16:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a notice to prevent confusion. Snipertron12 Talk 12:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Snipertron12 is trying to make Wikipedia:Piccadilly a Wikiproject. Ned1a Wanna talk? 14:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There are many ways to bring attention to articles needing different kinds of improvement. This seems entirely redundant. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Serves no valid purpose. Maproom (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Currently, it serves no "valid purpose" as it was created JUST today. Snipertron12 Talk 16:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. You know theres a Wikipedia:Articles for improvement right? Ned1a Wanna talk? 15:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, the diffrence from AFI is that it focuses on newer pages and not older ones. Snipertron12 Talk 16:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Creating Piccadilly to bring attention to the only article you contributed to (Kasane Teto) is self-serving. David notMD (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Im not aiming for self-serving, Im opening up other oppourtunities, however, i am yet to nominate them as there are no communnity members. Snipertron12 Talk 19:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As i said multiple times, Piccadilly wasnt made to promote the Teto article, it was made as a faster way to bring attention to new stub articles. Snipertron12 Talk 19:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Snipertron12 Seriously? We have destubathons for a reason. This is clearly self serving, you literally write the word “I” in places like “I made this because I didn’t get the help I wanted” Like Just ask the associated wikiproject to destub it. xq 23:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - underbaked project with no clear purpose as evidenced by the creator stating above You know what. Im changing the premise of WPPicadilly. -- Whpq (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this is the crux of it, if even the creator can't say what it's for - it's not for anything. -- D'n'B-t -- 20:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete , pointless project with vague justifications given for its existence. Ratnahastin (talk)
• Delete. Why does this exist? Idk. xq 23:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

x

Please read Wikipedia:Piccadilly#EXPLANATION. - Snipertron12 Talk 18:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So my understanding of WPPicadilly is that it's meant to bring attention to brand-new, especially small articles for the purpose of.... Jumpstarting their growth?

My understanding of Wikipedia is that articles are not meant to grow progressively in perpetuity, but only until all the information about their topic has been covered. So articles where there isn't much to say about the topic are classified as "stubs" because that is the maximum amount of information that is available, verifiable, notable, etc.

Also, if someone has taken it upon themselves to create an article (and "raise" it until it's a full article, so to speak), then why couldn't they just ask for advice on Teahouse or have it listed in other areas of Wikipedia for improvement? It seems like there's already systems in place for people to help jumpstart growth in their article. Teahouse gets plenty of exposure, so if people are generally unable or unwilling to help, it is likely due to a lack of knowledge or of interest, neither of which is solvable through the mechanisms of Wikipedia. The only real way to get around this is by reaching out to individuals you already know are interested, whether they're on wikipedia or not. If it's for general formatting, etc. then posing it as specific questions is more likely to get people interested in helping as opposed to asking for "general feedback/help". Specific questions generally win out over general questions in most situations.

So while this could be useful for a very small number of people just getting started on articles about very in-depth topics with a lot of information to cover, but which not many people are interested in (which likely doesn't happen very often I believe), and I think it's commendable to try and help out people in any context, it seems that WPPicadilly is ultimately useless.

WPPicadilly also seems like a user trying to take things into their own hands because they felt slighted. While an understandable feeling, actions taken for this reason are usually not productive.

To be quite honest, this entire situation just reminds me of this meme. Iloveschiaparelli (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 13, 2024

User:Wesalius/model

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

The predicted date for reaching 7 million articles will likely be inaccurate. Also, it will just keep changing every day, so we will never know exactly when Wikipedia will reach 7 million articles. So, such predictions are pointless and this user subpage (transcluded at User:Wbm1058) should be deleted. GTrang (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a user subpage speculating on when 7m articles is reached is related to Wikipedia and a valid use of user space. So what if the prediction is inaccurate. And what of its transclusion? If the user who transcluded it wants it there, what of it? -- Whpq (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Nothing wrong with having a little counter gadget in one's own userspace. I'd equate it to creating a little clock display for current time in two time zones which I see fairly regularly. It's in the user's userspace, not harming anything, has no code syntax errors, and to the best of my knowledge, is not causing hardly any server load, so no justifiable reason to remove it. Accuracy/sources are not required in userspace, so why care if it's inaccurate? Zinnober9 (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There were similar projections when we were approaching 6 million. No policy-based reason to delete, and maintaining interest in the seven million goal is a common sense reason to keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: In userspace, relevant-ish to the project. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Within the bounds of what we allow in userspace. Curbon7 (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 12, 2024

Draft:2020 Carolina Panthers Schedule With Time And Date

Draft:2020 Carolina Panthers Schedule With Time And Date (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

"Draft" is nothing but a table of unverifiable data with entries intended for the timing of the team's actions for "Taking Shower And Shave Their Face", "Put Deodorant On And Brushing Their Teeth", "Getting Dressed", "Leaving At The Stadium", "Eating Lunch", "Eating Snack"... "Taking Medicine, Pills, And Drugs". All trivial, and unverifiable intentions unfit for Wikipedia. 4 of 4 drafts. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - These pages are probably some sort of Stupid Copies, either from Wikipedia or from another web site. They are not exactly word salad, but are no more useful than word salad, which is deleted as G1 nonsense, and so they should also be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2020 Appalachian State Mountaineers Schedule With Time And Date

Draft:2020 Appalachian State Mountaineers Schedule With Time And Date (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

"Draft" is nothing but a table of unverifiable data with entries intended for the timing of the team's actions for "Taking Shower And Shave Their Face", "Put Deodorant On And Brushing Their Teeth", "Getting Dressed", "Leaving At The Stadium", "Eating Lunch", "Eating Snack"... "Taking Medicine, Pills, And Drugs". All trivial, and unverifiable intentions unfit for Wikipedia. 3 of 4 drafts. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - These pages are probably some sort of Stupid Copies, either from Wikipedia or from another web site. They are not exactly word salad, but are no more useful than word salad, which is deleted as G1 nonsense, and so they should also be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2020 All Teams Schedule With Time And Date

Draft:2020 All Teams Schedule With Time And Date (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

"Draft" is nothing but a table of unverifiable data with entries intended for the timing of the team's actions for "Taking Shower And Shave Their Face", "Put Deodorant On And Brushing Their Teeth", "Getting Dressed", "Leaving At The Stadium", "Eating Lunch", "Eating Snack"... "Taking Medicine, Pills, And Drugs". All trivial, and unverifiable intentions unfit for Wikipedia. 2 of 4 drafts. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - These pages are probably some sort of Stupid Copies, either from Wikipedia or from another web site. They are not exactly word salad, but are no more useful than word salad, which is deleted as G1 nonsense, and so they should also be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2020 Charlotte 49ers Schedule With Time And Date

Draft:2020 Charlotte 49ers Schedule With Time And Date (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

"Draft" is nothing but a table of unverifiable data with entries intended for the timing of the team's actions for "Taking Shower And Shave Their Face", "Put Deodorant On And Brushing Their Teeth", "Getting Dressed", "Leaving At The Stadium", "Eating Lunch", "Eating Snack"... "Taking Medicine, Pills, And Drugs". All trivial, and unverifiable intentions unfit for Wikipedia. 1 of 4 drafts. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - These pages are probably some sort of Stupid Copies, either from Wikipedia or from another web site. They are not exactly word salad, but are no more useful than word salad, which is deleted as G1 nonsense, and so they should also be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 9, 2024

Draft:Colourblocks

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

Fails WP:GNG, has been draftified for like a couple years and there is no sign in improving the article to be put back in mainspace. 48JCL TALK 00:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. None of that is a reason for deletion. Standard AfC processes suffice. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SmokeyJoe. There's a lot of edits made to it over the years but that's pretty common in this subject area. Don't see any reason to delete the draft. Skynxnex (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The draft is being worked on continually. The only time limit for drafts is that drafts that are abandoned for six months are deleted. If the community had intended there to be other time limits for drafts, they would have specified. This draft is being edited, sometimes by unregistered editors, and sometimes by registered editors. There is no deadline for the improvement of drafts, as long as they are being edited. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Mainspaced via AfC. This decision can be contested in an AfD. WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies.—Alalch E. 15:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 8, 2024

Wikipedia:Don't dive thinking that the referee won't notice

Wikipedia:Don't dive thinking that the referee won't notice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I'm not sure this is something we need; I'm not even sure this is something I understand, and I don't see how this is really relevant to Wikipedia editing. The basic setup is already difficult: what does diving have to do with whether you tackled someone earlier on or not? Drmies (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy - This essay appears to use faking a foul in association football as some sort of metaphor for civil behaviour, but the essay is incomprehensible. The author an have it as a user subpage. -- Whpq (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy pending an explanation from the originator. As User:Whpq says, this is about association football, but, as Whpq says, is incomprehensible. It is about a player who fouled an opponent and got it away with it, and then fakes having been fouled by the same opponent to try to get them given a yellow card, when the offenses were not their fault. So the topic is a player who is repeatedly playing unfairly. It isn't clear what this has to do with Wikipedia, or with disruptive editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 6, 2024

User:Freavene

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

I think this is quite possibly attack-esque, although I don't feel it's bad enough for csd. Gaismagorm (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok the attack text was removed, so honestly withdrawn Gaismagorm (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin or oversight if possible, remove page history due to kind of being a personal attack 48JCL TALK 02:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel. seems like a personal attack. Per my understanding of WP:RD5, MfD has the authority to Revdel, so let's do it. I'm not opposed to oversight if a functionary thinks it's necessary but, to me, it seems a bit excessive. Nickps (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:9t5 User Page Contest

Wikipedia:9t5 User Page Contest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Because of WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, and because the page does not meet any of the criteria listed as appropriate under Wikipedia:Project namespace#Pages within project namespace. Possibly also because of WP:NOTHERE, as it seems to provide monetary incentives for users to do something else using Wikipedia's platform other than improve the encyclopedia. Maybe a request at some central forum to create something like this and demonstrate community support for it might overcome some of these objections, but I don't know that this is supportable coming from an individual initiative. If this were commonly replicated by other users, or even if this one initiative attracted wide participation it seems like it could hurt the goal of the encyclopedia. Mathglot (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a platform for random user-page-design contests. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Wikipedia already has a history of holding contests. My point was to encourage friendly competition, and give back to Wikipedia in the process. Just because web design isn’t the purpose of Wikipedia doesn’t mean that Wikipedians are barred from enjoying competitions that celebrate their skills. And again, like I said, it’s been something that has been done plenty in the past. 9t5 (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you point to some examples of successful contests that weren't directly related to editing (and hopefully improving) article content? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also note that "done plenty in the past" (i.e., WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) is not a defense against deletion. This is a volunteer project, and there are plenty of things out there that are contrary to guidelines for any number of reasons. For example, if you create an article with no citations, the presence of these 136,000 unreferenced articles is not an argument that will protect your unreferenced article from deletion, if it should be nominated. So, rather than rely on previous contests, please find a policy or guideline that supports your position and negates the ones listed above that argue in favor of deletion. Mathglot (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mathglot So case law and precedent is good enough to run the United States legal system on but .. not Wikipedia. Okay. Noted. Seems a bit like you’re implying that at the end of the day it comes down to the preference of higher ranking editors and not principle at all.

  @AndyTheGrump A fair request. I will post my response to that later tonight!

  Best, 9t5 (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please assume good faith. To answer your question, the preference of senior editors, administrators, or even the founder of Wikipedia has no special force on the outcome of deletion discussions. Nor, perhaps surprisingly, does having ten people on one side voting their preference, versus only two on the other stating an opposing view make any difference, because consensus is not a majority vote. The only thing that counts is the strength of your argument in interpreting the facts at hand in the light of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and the consensus resulting from such discussion. (See also, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.) So, yes, you are right in your statement that decisions at Wikipedia are not determined by precedent the way they are in U.S. case law, which is based on common law; instead, they are determined by written standards, which is closer to the civil law legal system used in France and much of Europe and the rest of the world. Mathglot (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mathglot I personally hold the belief that what I was trying to do was address the growing problem of the decline in new editors WP:LOSE2WIN.. by engaging the community in a way that would allow for perhaps some genuine relationships to grow/allow new editors to interact with their peers in a lighthearted way that isn’t so serious such as an AfD.. the issue is the inability to have any room for change on the platform by those up on the top. The rigid inability to grow with the times, has led to a rapid decline. Paired with the fact that deletionists overtook a platform that used to be MUCH more inclusive. Listen, you can wikilink almost anything anybody says to WP:.. whatever the hell you choose to shape your narrative.

  I was offering to donate $5 per contestant who participates simply to make it something that was something people could enjoy AND it would be doing some good for the Wikimedia Foundation. I must’ve been misguided though.. it’s not like they’re begging for donations or something crazy like that. Maybe I should redirect my energy towards finding things to delete simply because “well pointing to cases in the past where pages weren’t deleted under the same exact circumstance isn’t technically an argument against deletion because section 405 of the gotta kill all the fun section of the destroy Wikipedia from the inside out section states: if an editor smiles, it’s gotta be deleted” 9t5 (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @9t5, see WP:WAX. 48JCL TALK 02:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete in the absence of a detailed explanation as to what this contest is about and what its purpose is. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert McClenon The format is for editors to sign up, and then on August 2nd a theme gets announced (examples: Gothic Architecture, Greek Mythology, Marine Life). Then August 2nd-August 9th, editors who signed up are able to edit their user pages to have it creatively incorporate the theme. They can revert their user pages right back to what they were prior — submissions are of the specific revision of their final user page design. Those who submit a revision before the week closes will be considered valid entries. Then August 12th-August 19th (allowing a weekend for me to go through and make sure no guidelines were violated etc.) voting would be open to extended confirmed users (to prevent meatpuppetry). August 20th I was going to announce three winners with the most votes.

  I thought it would be fun to bring the community together. I am not very shocked, I guess that the attempt was met with a deletion nomination. 9t5 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Wikipedia:Danny's contest was held as a means to increase the amount of featured articles on the website because the issue on Wikipedia back then in 2006 was getting quality of the writing to improve. Today, the issue on Wikipedia is retaining new editors. Danny’s contest sought to implement donation as a means of a larger contribution to a cause while encouraging positive change on Wikipedia.. I simply am confused why this contest is seen as aiming to do anything different. The changes are to user pages and would not affect the mainspace at all, but if the issue is that people want only writing contests to exist… I will happily change the contest to a creative writing one. However, this website consists of more than just article writers. There are template editors who have entirely different skill sets that I am sure would be really into a coding contest like this. I rest my case. 9t5 (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation may have little or no value to the English Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia is the labor of love of its volunteers. The WMF owns the servers, but that is about the extent of the support that the English Wikipedia receives. Some of our volunteers are deeply skeptical of the WMF. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert McClenon Interesting. I didn’t know this. 9t5 (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy Does not work as a projectspace page, but I don't see why it could not be a page in 9t5's userspace. The requirements there are much less strict. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mathglot and AndyTheGrump.—Alalch E. 17:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: For my argument on the topic, see WP:CREATECOMMUNITY.

  9t5 (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to User:9t5/Userpage Contest per arguments above. I see absolutely no reason to just straight up delete it. 48JCL TALK 02:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 3, 2024

User:Rawen Ab/Userboxes/Google Maps Local Guide

User:Rawen Ab/Userboxes/Google Maps Local Guide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is not a userbox, and it is not serving any purpose in userspace. I will remove it from its listing at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Internet/Websites. Are there grounds for uncontroversial deletion? TNstingray (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unfortunately CSD G1 doesn't apply here. It could be tagged as U5, but there is clearly disagreement upon admins. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 23:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  U5 doesn’t apply. U5 doesn’t apply if the user has made constructive contributions to the project. I doubt very much that any admin disagrees. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, agree with the above. Bduke (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What's the purpose of deleting it? The editor has been active this year and could decide to format it as a userbox as it seems to meet Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future (usually on subpages) and/or Experimentation (usually on subpages) from WP:UPYES, for example. Skynxnex (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I assume this is meant to be something along the lines of "This user is a Google Maps Local Guide" but was not completed for whatever reason. Concur with removing it off the listing as it is incomplete, but is otherwise a non-obtrusive work-in-progress. Curbon7 (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not a problem.—Alalch E. 09:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Useless cruft. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 6, 2024

Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The BLP is already in the main NS at Amina Hassan. This draft lacks citations and contains WP:OR. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History merge. User:Saqib mistates the history. The draft was already there first. Awesimf (talk · contribs) gets the new article credit, and should not have their contribution history deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about which page was created first, it's about which one aligns with WP:V. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Failing WP:V is not a deletion reason, especially not now that you have found sources. You should have improved the draft, not create a content fork. Which page was created first is important. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only found out about this draft yesterday. If I'd known earlier, I would've definitely worked on improving it. Further, there's WP:OR and WP:PROMO content in there which it's a clear violation of WP:BLP. Anyway, I don't have strong feelings about it. The closing admin can do whatever they want with it. I'm not concerned about getting credit for merely creating a BLP. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see a justification to revdelete anything if it was already in the history. So I support a history merge to fix the accidental fork, even if it is a small thing. Redirecting the draft to the article is a middle solution. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History merge the first 5 revisions, from 17 March 2024. Delete the later revisions. There is then no overlapping history problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This nomination is vexatious. Drafts are not deleted simply because an article exists. The usual way of dealing with a draft when there is also an article is to Speedy Redirect the draft to the article, not to delete the draft and its history. This appears to be an effort to deprive a previous contributor of credit and so obtain credit to which the nominator is not entitled. The good faith assumption has to be that the nominator is unaware of the usual practice when a draft and an article both exist, in which case the nominator should not be nominating drafts for deletion. In this case, as SmokeyJoe explains, a history merge is in order rather than a Speedy Redirect. The nominator should not be nominating drafts for deletion if they don't know about Speedy Redirection. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect draft to article. Thanks to Awesimf for writing the draft, and to Saqib for writing a referenced stub. Perhaps they and/or others could see which of the currently unreferenced additional bits in the draft could be referenced and added to the article? Beyond that, I see no particular reason to delete this draft and its history, nor do I see any particular reason to not assume good faith regarding anyone's motivations here. Martinp (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Bad faith is not required to correct something to how it should have been. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Matrinp. There are WP:Parallel histories here so this can't be histmerged. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Only the first fiver revisions are important to history merge, and these create no parallel history. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Martinp and Pppery /... and Extraordinary Writ; switching back to my original recommendation: after a more careful look it is now clear to me that the histories are unrelated and I agree the question of who gets the credit is not important/ (parallel histories). Selectively histmerge as SmokeyJoe says. Delete the later revisions.—Alalch E. 23:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Selectively History Merge: As per others in this discussion. There's no overlap with the first 5 revisions. TarnishedPath^talk 02:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @TarnishedPath since you commented mostly "as per others" which references also my comment at the time when I also recommended histmerging I am just notifying you that I changed my !vote back to redirect, because while histmerging would have been fine in the scenario of someone creating a draft then someone else copying that to mainspace and continuing to work on it, instead of moving, which would be a "copy-and-paste mainspacing", in which scenario providing continuity to establish the real history of contributions would be beneficial, that scenario is not the current scenario, due to the article having been created independently from the draft. I would have !voted like this originally (and in fact I did), but I erroneously changed my !vote because I did not properly interpret the pages' histories. —Alalch E. 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I see no problem with a redirect as the page history will be preserved. TarnishedPath^talk 00:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. History merges at best make the history harder to decipher and at worst give a misleading impression of what happened. In this case there's no legal attribution issue, and giving someone "credit" is not a good enough reason to resort to a histmerge, in my opinion. (Requests like this are regularly declined at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates