- 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 24, 2022
- User:Chanrwy/The First Degree University Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Stale draft from inactive editor. Seems commercial and not necessarily noteworthy. Beland (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:ChanelDior/Camille Styles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Stale draft from inactive editor. Unclear notability. Beland (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:Chandu575/Gundlapadu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Stale draft from inactive editor. Unreferenced and in need of cleanup. Maybe better to just start over? Village is listed at List of villages in Guntur district. Beland (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:Chandlery21/ Badtameez Dil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Stale draft from inactive editor. Not sure this movie ever happened? It's not in the IMDB. Badtameez Dil was a redirect to Dharma Productions for a while, and now it's a redirect to a different movie for reasons I don't understand. Beland (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Talk:Montreal International Games Summit (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Orphaned talk page, no longer accurate. FAdesdae378 02:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Nomination does not makes sense? The article exists. Talk pages are required to not be orphans. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep 1 - I have seen so many bad Speedy Keep !votes by inclusionists, who just mean "I don't like this AFD because I don't like AFDs" that I was hesitant to say Speedy Keep. But no deletion rationale has been provided. The nominator has misunderstood something. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - I am completely mystified by the nomination. The talk page is clearly not orphaned, nor is there anything innacurate about it that I can see, and even if inaccurate, that is not a deletion reason, but rather a reason to edit an correct. -- Whpq (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Draft:East midtown partnership (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Very stale draft from inactive editor, declined at AFC. Beland (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - This is a strange case. On review, I see that the nominator, User:Beland, submitted it for review from user space of User:Charles159, who, as the nominator notes, has been inactive for five years. I moved it to draft space, and then declined it as inadequately sourced. Why did the nominator submit it for AFC review from the user space of an inactive user? That would be reasonable if the purpose was to revive the draft and try to improve it, but the submitter has nominated it for deletion as soon as it is declined. Not !voting at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - I see. Mouse error. The nominator was on a raghunt, and submitted it by accident rather than nominating it for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was cleaning up stale drafts in userspace, and I intentionally submitted it to AFC to get a second opinion on whether it's an article on a notable organization that's worth saving. If it isn't, then it might as well be deleted, but keeping in draft space for a while is also fine since it will either get improved or automatically deleted. -- Beland (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Leave it in draft space for six months on the unlikely possibility that someone will improve it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Leave for deletion by CSD#G13. It is a net negative to process things like this through MfD. MfD is for more important things. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
July 23, 2022
- User:CharlesBlake/Jared Sims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Very stale draft from inactive editor; declined at AFC. Beland (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Is a reasonable draft. Is verified. Subject is plausibly notable and a public person. G13 does not apply to userspace. This is not the sort of page that motivated the creation of G13. Consider ((Userpage blanked)), but I would leave it unblanked for anyone to work to improve it. Work to improve it does include merely submitting for review. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Draftify Robert McClenon (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:CharlesLark/Fletcher Liegerot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Very stale draft from inactive editor. Beland (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:CharleDragon/Penguin Ballet by Nigel Wesklake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Very stale draft from inactive editor. Beland (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Blank. No good reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with below. Meets WP:CSD#U5. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete--meets the criteria for U5 (not a webhost). As an article it has no potential, and most of the content seems to be some kind of rumination on or personal interpretation of swimming penguins. In addition, being purely OR, it has reliability issues, and WP:STALEDRAFT suggests we seek deletion for such pages--see item 2. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as per Drmies, who had given a reason for deletion, U5. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:Charest204/Sarnia Celebration of Lights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Very stale draft from inactive editor. Beland (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:Chaplainlma/James Rowe Adams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Very stale draft from inactive user. Unclear this person is notable? Beland (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, James Rowe Adams was previously deleted. -- Beland (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Under WP:G12. IF G12 applies to this page, apply it. If not, the G12 deletion is not relevant. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep (unless it is a copyright infringement). Subject is plausibly notable. MfD is not a forum for asking about notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do not draftify, because that sets up a backdoor deletion pathway that the author did not agree to. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Draftify in order to get minimal attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:Charliebasil/Nick Vertucci (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Very stale user draft, not usable. Beland (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Plausibly notable. Many ghits and news hits. Some stories. I added one, and now it is no longer an unsourced BLP. There are no time limits. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do not draftify, because that sets up a backdoor deletion route that the author did not agree to. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Draftify to where it will have slightly more visibility, and may run into a clock. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:IWikepidsacusk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- User:Kashment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- User:Cobrafang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- User talk:Kashment (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- User talk:Cobrafang (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Pointless user page for an account that hasn't edited in a while. Mori Calliope fan talk 07:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep Does not violate any user page guidelines. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, the nominator should have mentioned that it was created today by another user. Not sure of the correct procedure here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Pawnkingthree and Mori Calliope fan: Well seeing that one account is Indef blocked, looks like we have a sockpuppet case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:I am Being Here to Help You may just be an enthusiastic newbie trying to help without understanding our guidelines, which is not uncommon. The simplest thing, per the discussion on their talk page, may be to just G7 tag the pages they created. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oops, yeah I forgot to mention that a new user created these pages. This discussion is why I think creating pages like what I've nominated are not appropriate. For the case of a sockpuppet account, I don't think it's likely, because this user appears to be a good faith user that doesn't want to cause trouble. Mori Calliope fan talk 16:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I understand. :) I am Being Here to Help You (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - This should be mentioned at WP:SPI, WP:ANI or brought to the attention of a clerk for potential socking. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - How does "IWikepidsacusk is a Wikipedia user." run afoul of the user page guidelines? weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 16:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, obviously. These pages include a totally pointless, information-free, user page for a vandalism-only account blocked since 2020, and another equally pointless one for an efitor who hasn't edited for eight years. Why on earth would anyone want to keep them? Also, even in the case of active editors, they have the right to decide whether to have a user page, and if so what it should contain, so under normal circumstances it is not acceptable to create user pages for other editors. JBW (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Nothing inherently problematic in these pages. Refer to SPI, and do not delete unless requested or agreed by and SPI clerk or checkuser. MfD should not be used for shadow SPI clerking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Procedural close to break the train into two trains. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all as not created by the user in question. None of the other reasons for deletion provided are convincing, however, as the amount to nothing more than a rehash of CAT:TEMP, which we stopped doing around 2010. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thelma Harper (2nd nomination)/mass delete (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Sad, strange, little non-standard subpage of an AfD containing several redlinks to talk pages of long-deleted articles. Orphaned, so it wasn't linked to from anywhere, or used for anything, at any point. Its only purpose is to clog up scripts and bots that process AfDs, and needlessly throw errors. jp×g 06:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Did you ask it’s creator? SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- The script left a message on their talk page, although their userpage says they are semi-retired, although although they have been editing fairly regularly lately. I guess it's up to them. jp×g 18:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your nomination reads as needling. Was it meant to? SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Delete unless its creator provides an explanation. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
July 22, 2022
- Draft:Amogh V P (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- Draft:Amogh Vijayaraghavan Poonakar
- Draft:Amogh V P
Two copies of an unreferenced biography of a living person. The YouTube link is not really a reference but an external link.
Autobiographical, but that is not, in itself, the reason to delete the drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as promotion of a YouTube channel. It could have been tagged G11 as promotion with no salvable content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Draft:American Oddballs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Where do we go with this nonsense? I propose we delete this. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: Draft:Unusual America is identical to this draft minus the pejorative title. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 02:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh God, the editor just made another one?? Inventing "Draft" has many consequences. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete both drafts - Classifying whether someone or something is an "oddball" or "unusual" is not something that should ever be done in Wikipedia's voice and never with respect to living people or people that fall into a topic area under discretionary sanctions even if attributed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 02:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete both - Per Jéské - RichT|C|E-Mail 02:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per BLP policy. This user is also spamming on WP:AFCHD. QiuLiming1 (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- It is also on the border of G10 of WP:CSD. QiuLiming1 (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all incarnations of this list for being against many of the prohibitions given by WP:NOT, like "no essays", "no soapboxes", "not a directory", etc. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete WP:G10 Attack page. Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete both as they are not suitable subjects for an encyclopedia and particularly in respect to referencing. The later entries have been removed due to WP:BLP issues, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per G10. – The Grid (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
July 21, 2022
- Draft:Association for the Defense of Animals and Nature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Okay, so I find myself not wanting to do this, but we're in a dangerous spiral of not-actually-getting-anywhere. The article that this draft is based off was deleted a couple of weeks back, and I opted to keep the draft undeleted so that it could theoretically be worked on (the AFD was primarily for notability purposes). However, IPs have been tendentiously resubmitting the draft, though they do seem to be slowly improving it as well. On the other hand, reviewers have been (what I feel is a bit excessively) reverting many of the IP edits for socking, even reasonable improvements to the page. So, we have two options; either delete the draft outright as unsuitable and unlikely to be successfully improved due to IP editing, or we let the IP improve the draft (i.e. we don't continually revert them) and actually give their reviews a chance to be, well, reviewed. Primefac (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, for the sake of everyone's sanity, I have semi-protected the draft for the duration of this MfD. If anyone objects or thinks this is heavy-handed I am happy to reverse this decision. Primefac (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per the clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association for the Defense of Animals and Nature. By default, an AfD consensus, whether “delete” or “keep”, should be respected for six months. That means, barring extraordinary new information or new arguments, if deleted it should not be re-created, or AfC submitted for six months. Just like how if consensus was to keep, it should not be renominated for deletion for six months (see WP:RENOM. An extraordinary case to recreate after deletion should be the WP:THREE standard. Anything else is wasting others’ time.
- It’s ok to userfy off Draftify post AfD deletion, but if someone doesn’t understand the need to respect the AfD, then better to leave it deleted for six months, and to G4 any recreation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - a duplicate of this draft at Draft:Fondation Adan has been resubmitted by a sock account. Yeeno (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirected, thanks. Primefac (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - Should Draft:Fondation Adan be deleted? Patachonica (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's fine as a redirect. Primefac (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Even when this page is deleted? Patachonica (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:Patachonica - A redirect to a deleted page can be tagged for G8. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that was contested, which is part of why it ended up at WP:REFUND, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 01:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all including the draft space versions and redirects. It was disruptively (re) created. Any established editor is welcome to work on it. No objection to one being left as a sock catcher, but I think that's a waste of editors' time personally. Star Mississippi 16:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment to User:Primefac and anyone else - In my opinion, semiprotection should be used more often and more quickly on both the subject of any deletion debate and the deletion discussion itself. The seven days for a deletion discussion is time for an editor to get autoconfirmed. Semiprotection is very seldom heavyhanded. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete due to creation by sockpuppets and tendentious resubmission. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - Why do the sockpuppets use multiple IPs for disruption? Patachonica (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:Sander.v.Ginkel/Creating Wikipedia pages with Excel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Per WP:BEANS; supports unauthorized semi-automated mass creation of articles. BilledMammal (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: The images may be copyright violations. Also, they are screenshots of nonfree software, so they are nonfree. Fair use wasn't allowed in userspace the last time I checked. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 03:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agree, but have you discussed it with the user before proposing deletion here? --Bduke (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, but the user is indefinitely banned by community consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK. It has to go anyway!! --Bduke (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as work of banned user. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as really really terrible advice. The user who created this page was community banned due to their mass creation of BLP articles using templates, using the exact same method described here. Their articles were full of errors, were badly written and were generally on non-notable subjects because they were just dumping database entries into something that vaguely resembles an article with no real care or attention. Anyone who follows these instructions is most likely going to end up sanctioned or banned. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as promoting disruptive editing and mass-produced BLP violations. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
July 19, 2022
- Draft:AmirsalarArzanly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Possible autobiography Uricdivine (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Nominator's rationale is not a valid reason to delete an article from draft space. In fact, draft space is the only venue we have for editors with a conflict of interest to get an article written. I have tagged it as an AFC draft. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as draft. It's clearly not ready for article space but the nomination provides no valid reason for bypassing the usual process of waiting six months for improvement before deleting. At least taking it to MfD is better than the nominator's earlier totally-erroneous G10 speedy nomination (this is clearly not an attack page), but that's a low bar. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:Jimfbleak, your G11 deletion of this page was improper given that there are “keep” !votes here. Please undelete and allow this MfD to continue. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/US related unreferenced BLPs(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This page is no longer updated regularly as the bot who maintains it User:DASHBot was blocked and deactivated in 2013 after it started malfunctioning and none of the corresponding pages have been updated since then. TartarTorte 16:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Not sure for what purpose this was created, but WikiProject United States never had enough active members to deal with this. — Maile (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Mark Historical - The likely purpose of the list was for editors to determine whether the pages listed should have references added or should be tagged as BLPPROD. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Archive. No good reason to delete. No evidence provided that this request reflects consensus within the WikiProject. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- It was used, and is historical.
- Deleting the records of processes used to improve content makes it harder for future editors to understand how it was done in the past.
- WikiProject-based collaborative editing used to be a more common thing, but this doesn’t mean it won’t be important in the future. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. A bot produced list of unreferenced BLPs from a decade ago has no archival or historical value, and is of no use to current editors trying to perform maintenance. These are unlikely to of any future use, as unless the new bot runs the exact same code as the old one it will not produce the same set of pages. This has also largley been replaced by other processes in the intervening decade, notably Category:All unreferenced BLPs and various database reports, like Wikipedia:Database reports/Untagged and unreferenced biographies of living people. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- IPs editing mainspace, probably in violation of WP:SOCK because they are hiding their account, should not be welcome to participate here due to lack of accountability, whether due to their edits being from multiple IPs or accounts, or due to their IP being shared, as is this one. An IP lacking accountability, and hiding and evading questions like “what is your editing history” and “have you ever registered?”, are to be suspected of having a bias to undervaluing records.
- Categorisation and database reports are nice, but they have limitations, such as lack of records should someone decategorise to remove the attention drawn, or the barrier for newcomers to understanding who is doing what. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Draft:Pathaan (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This draft is one of multiple reincarnations of articles on a planned big-budget film. This version was created in October 2021 by a sockpuppet, but has been subsequently edited by both good-faith and bad-faith editors, and has been in article space once before being draftified. Other versions have also been in article space. The promoters of the film appear to be trying to confuse the jury with multiple copies of articles. This version was rejected on 7 January 2022, and has since been nominated for deletion, which was No Consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pathan (film), and has been almost constantly edited by IP addresses, so that its history is confused.
There is now another draft at Draft:Pathaan (2023 film). The (2023) version can be the version that is edited. We don't need two versions in draft space. (We don't need any versions in article space yet.) Robert McClenon (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep but merge/redirect Draft:Pathaan (2023 film) into this one. Significant portions of the latest draft have been copied from the old draft without attribution (Eg. Filming section was copied from this version with some minor changes). We don't want to lose the page history of the original contributors and give a pass to likely copyvio page. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Onmyway22 talk 10:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge the two drafts without deletion. We can redirect both draft links to the article when it is formally published. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep in draft until it passes WP:NFF. Redirect newer content forks to the oldest, and ask interested editors to merge from the history. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge the two drafts. Its not massively unfeasible to presume that a few months away, the article might be notable for the mainspace but it would certainly require a tidy up and better sourcing. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
July 18, 2022
- Draft:Diligent Blesslee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
This is recreation of recently deleted article as per G11 Deletion Log
, also identified author used multiple accounts editing this article. Deleted article created by 074arjun (Log), this draft created by David81KL . edits using both accounts this draft page related, could be a sockpuppet situation and again clearly shows creator of the article has against wikipedia policy per COI , G11 .
Another issues regarding this article; subject does not meet WP:NMUSIC / WP:COMPOSER because there are no works in multiple notable productions other than being a participant of a reality shows. The subject also lacks significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Apparently one of the contestant of Bigg Boss which is alone not sufficient for notability per WP:BIGBROTHER -Joxin 05:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Clearly shows recreation of article against wikipedia policy per COI , G11 . -Joxin 05:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Lack of notability is a reason to decline or reject a draft, not to delete it. Sockpuppetry is a reason to delete a draft, but the SPI is still open. Previous deletion is only a reason to delete a draft if G4 applies, but it does not. The promotional tone is not sufficient to warrant deletion, only to warrant declining if submitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Resolve SOCK concerns first. Do not use MfD to enforce SOCK allegations. At a glance, the draft looks ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Notability isn't an issue for MfD; recreating a G11 is fine so long as the recreated version isn't G11-eligible; sockpuppetry only comes into play if the editor is evading a block (which hasn't been shown here) and should be dealt with using SPI and WP:G5. As is usually the case, this draft isn't in bad enough shape to require MfD deletion; the usual processes (AfC declines and WP:G13) are adequate here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
July 15, 2022
- Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Brescia IP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Report unfinished after about a year. From link, vandalism appears to be obvious so LTA case is not needed and discouraged per WP:DENY
PHANTOMTECH [TALK] 20:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - In the absence of a guideline on deletion of LTA files, the general guideline of Deny Recognition should be interpreted to mean not to open LTA files unnecessarily, but that leaving abandoned files open is a better denial of recognition than deleting them. The MFD for a deleted LTA file will still exist, so you aren't really hiding or covering up anything. Maybe there should be a guideline to avoid creating unnecessary LTA files, but deleting them seems like the wrong answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon Though it isn't very easy to find, here is the criteria for deletion of LTA pages Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Detailed instructions#Criteria_for_removal which includes both inactive and improper reports. The same page also includes criteria for LTA cases which the nominated page fails, like
Only add vandals who need to be pointed out. The current page hasn't been accepted and is still pending per the infobox so in some sense it has never been "open".
PHANTOMTECH [TALK] 02:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- What a bullshit opinion. "Vandalism is obvious, so there's no need for an LTA page." Exactly where did you learn your logic from? The purpose of an LTA page is to highlight vandalism and consolidate information about it, and that's what this page does. WP:DENY has nothing w=whatsoever to do with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken On WP:LTA read the section "Don't use LTA unless needed"
PhantomTech[talk] 09:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's totally irrelevant, because their edits definitely fall into the categories for which LTA is recommended. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken Recommended where and by who? That section is part of what defines the categories for which LTA is recommended. The heading "Don't use LTA unless needed" is a direct instruction to not use LTA with the text below it explaining when that instruction applies.
PhantomTech[talk] 00:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- The LTA fulfills the requirements necessary. Your analysis is obviously incorrect. Please return to making edits you actually understand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken Again, are you able to provide any source or are you going to stick to personal attacks?
PhantomTech[talk] 08:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Debearing egu 77 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Vandalism is obvious, LTA case not need and discouraged per WP:DENY
PHANTOMTECH [TALK] 20:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Maybe this LTA file should not have been created, but going to the effort of deleting it is more recognition, in the absence of a guideline concerning deleting LTA files, and in the absence of a procedure for approving the opening of LTA files. Leave this alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are requirements for LTA files and, though not well documented, there are procedures for opening them as well.
PHANTOMTECH [TALK] 02:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:PhantomTech, what is your role at WP:LTA? I think that for clerking, you should minimally be qualified as an SPI clerk. Are you? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe There's unfortunately not a lot of attention paid to LTA so it's very lacking in processes, base on Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse – Pending approval I may be the only person to have attempted to process any new cases since 2017. I used to be active in LTA including dealing with pending LTA cases before taking a long wikibreak and have since returned. LTA has a list of "helpers" here Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Helpers, which is the only "role" I'm aware of that it has, but I'm not aware of any process for people being added or removed. I added myself to the list the first time I became active, was removed several years into my wikibreak for inactivity and added myself again now that I'm back.
- I am not an SPI clerk and have never applied to be one. I'm also not aware of any distinction within LTA between SPI clerks or anyone else, even the listed helpers. The most relevant information I'm aware of for removal of cases is at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Detailed_instructions#Criteria_for_removal which explicitly allows anyone, not just helpers, to remove entries. As far as accepting or archiving cases, the only criteria I'm aware of is in the template used for new cases as a comment that new cases should not be accepted by the filer and that comment was added to the template by me in 2015.
- I don't particularly like the current system and would like for there to be changes, but others have made attempts and have been unsuccessful so unless someone would like to make a proposal, I'm not sure what the alternative is right now. LTA is useless if someone is not both able and willing to maintain it.
PhantomTech[talk] 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- That “relevant information” you found is pretty sad, looking at its history.
- Do Any of the LTA cases serve any justified purpose? I have tried telling the SPI people that they should take ownership of WP:LTA, but they seem uninterested, as if WP:LTA is an abandoned thing of no net value. Why don’t we archive (blank) the whole thing? SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe The most useful purpose of WP:LTA as it currently exists is to save time and resources by providing enough information for someone to identify an editor as someone who should be blocked before they rise to the level where anyone would be blocked. All cases at WP:LTA should be LTA users but, with the current system, it is not beneficial for all LTA users to have a case at WP:LTA. For example, an LTA user who always vandalizes articles in a specific and obvious way can just be blocked immediately at ANI. An LTA user who frequently adds the same unsourced genre to music would be much more difficult to deal with unless everyone involved shared the same knowledge that this user was an LTA user. LTA cases prevent already completed processes, in the example case two ANI discussions, from needing to happen again without the downsides of using an undocumented or decentralized system.
- There have been multiple attempts (1, 2, 3, 4) to delete WP:LTA with many keep !votes explaining their view on why WP:LTA cases are beneficial, without a replacement I don't think another would go any different especially considering that I'm currently struggling to get both an almost blank report and a report of an obvious vandal deleted. There have also been attempts to reform LTA, but those have stalled.
PhantomTech[talk] 04:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I’m not sure why you link 1 as an attempt to delete. 2 and 3 are ironic, deletion nominations by users later checkuser-blocked. This is indeed the suspicion on every user wanting to selectively expunge an LTA record, the suspicion that they have an ulterior motive.
- My input: everyone, including you, fails to articulate why deletion is required, and not archiving? Can I challenge you to update #criteria for removal, with archiving, not deletion.
- Much of the argument against LTA is DENY, and bringing individual LTA cases for a formal discussion at MfD is the opposite of DENY. Consistent with DENY is a responsible person quietly blanking and and archiving.
- I also believe that LTA has overlap with SPI, and that the most serious LTA involves SPI. Please someone tell me if I’m wrong. On the rare occasion that anything at SPI or LTA requires deletion, it is extremely unlikely that MfD is appropriate, and I believe that a new CSD criterion should be created for it (and ending the misuse of G6 for these things). SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe Link 1 was meant to be Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse, I just got the links messed up.
- In my opinion deletion is needed, at a minimum, in situations where an LTA case is not and was never needed. There needs to be a way to delete unfinished reports, reports for obvious vandals, and reports for cases that are just one off vandals and not long term by any definition. I used to CSD cases like these that do not qualify because I felt it was more in line with DENY but my CSD on these was rejected.
- There is overlap with SPI, though not always. A better system might be one where SPI is not just responsible for WP:LTA but one where WP:LTA is merged into SPI, but that isn't the current system. Creating a new CSD criteria for these deletions would require defining who is allowed to use that criteria and how it can be used. For both WP:LTA and WP:SPI the obvious answer is clerks, but that requires creating clerks for WP:LTA, and that's an issue with a neglected area of Wikipedia since there may only be one applicant.
PhantomTech[talk] 06:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. The irony.
- I don’t agree with your opinion that deletion is needed. I think archiving is sufficient. I think archiving is better because archiving is a low stakes process, you can just do it, no need for administrative reviews. If anyone finds you are archiving poorly, the history can be read and the archiving reverted.
- I don’t think LTA clerks are desirable, I think the training to be an SPI clerk is required and sufficient to be deleting LTA subpages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe To clarify, do you think archiving is what should be done even for cases that blatantly do not require LTA cases, such as someone making a case for a one off vandal? You've indicated that SPI and by extension SPI clerks have no interest in WP:LTA. There is currently no distinction within LTA for SPI clerks, even if SPI clerks were given the ability to somehow delete WP:LTA cases, their lack of interest in the area would result in it continuing to be unmaintained.
PhantomTech[talk] 20:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that to justify deletion, there has to be a very reason why archiving is not good ok. Why is it not ok for people interested to track the history of someone creating the LTA case? Archiving can mark it as unjustified. If deletion is needed, the process is much heavier, as mistakes in deletion are very hard to discover.
- I think that an LTA clerk would need to first be an SPI clerk.
- I don’t know that SPI has no interest in LTA, just that they haven’t shown much interest. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe In my opinion, the reason for archiving not being enough in some cases would be WP:DENY, especially with no system currently in place that prevents people from continuing to update or otherwise treat a case marked as archived as an active one. Would you be interested in creating a proposal for the changes you feel should happen to WP:LTA regarding handling of unjustified cases and whatever else you'd like to include?
PhantomTech[talk] 05:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Creating an MfD discussion, attracting community formal input, and administrative close, is inconsistent with DENY.
- Just archive it.
- If anyone edits the archived page, then there’s a dispute worthy of MfD, nominate it then.
- My proposal is that unjustified cases should be archived by any competent editor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe Everything I'm aware of points to this being the current process, so could you propose that somewhere so that any changes are supported by consensus?
PhantomTech[talk] 21:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, but let’s let this MfD close first. WP:Ping me if I forget. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- On the merits of this page as it stands, Strong Delete as a completely and utterly useless LTA page. Debearing egu 77 made 4 vandalism edits on one day in 2019. There is no evidence they have ever returned - there is no English wikipedia sock puppet investigation associated with this person and there are no accounts tagged as suspected socks. Most of this page is speculation that this person is in some way related to an LTA on the Korean wikipedia, I don't see why we need to keep notes on LTA's who we have no firm evidence of actually editing here? I fail to see the value in an archive, per WP:HISTORICAL the point of marking a page as historical is if they actually have some kind of historical interest or future use - I don't see how the story of a 4 edit vandal who may or may not be someone from the Korean wiki and who never returned anyway could be worth keeping as an archive. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- IPs should not be editing projectspace, including here. You should WP:Register, if you have not, and if you have you are violating WP:SOCK by editing projectspace. This is important for accountability. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that all contributors to projectspace be registered. If you want your personal view on this matter to become policy, you should push for policy to change, not run around telling editors not to participate. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Have you ever registered? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- No. And now? Is this really what is happening here? Someone disagrees with your vote, you tell them not to contribute; you get called out on your bs, you imply a violation of WP:SOCK? Get a grip on yourself. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- You’re contributing here now from three different IPs. You know a lot more about the culture than normal IPs. You look like you are editing logged out. I’m telling you to Register and log in. The least you could do otherwise is sign some name to let us know it is the same you, from different IPs. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, I'm not editing from three IPs, you're talking to multiple people. The only comment I have made here (apart from this one) is the original vote. It should be obvious that 184.108.40.206 and 220.127.116.11 are a different editor - how many people refer to themselves as "someone", and they're on the opposite side of the planet. I have been editing here for years. I have never used an account, I have no current intention of making an account, and as the Canadian IP editor says your claims that an account is needed to participate in deletion discussions is entirely without any backing in policy. If you are going to make accusations of sock puppetry (which are also incorrect and without merit) then do so at WP:SPI and provide actual evidence of wrongdoing (which you won't find, given it doesn't exist). If you continue to cast baseless and evidence free assertions that I am engaging in sock puppetry and wrongdoing and continue to try to bully IP editors out of project space on the basis of non existent policy that you've pulled out of your arse then I will, in return, treat your comments as personal attacks and elevate appropriately. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- No it is not obvious that you are different people, though it was always a definite possibility.
- In order to discuss anything meaningfully, could each of you please sign with a nickname? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. The anon above pretty much covers my view of this page. It's not a helpful page and is out of scope. And in general if there's a crosswiki LTA, then we'll just use their page on another wiki. I appreciate Robert McClenon's (and SmokeyJoe's) 'weak keep' comments, but we're already here so it's no hassle to delete it. Archiving may indeed have been a better default option, but as I say, we're now here and have had a good chance to review it. I agree there needs to be some discussion about the case management process, and don't object in principle to other people helping out with that process. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
July 14, 2022
- Template talk:Mukims of Brunei-Muara (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Template that has been merged with almost no history in talk page. - nathanielcwm (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - This template redirect talk page has a WikiProject banner that was inserted by an editor who has since been banned but was in good standing at the time. This is essentially useless history. Why delete useless history? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Conversely: why keep useless history? - nathanielcwm (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Template:Mukims of Brunei. Eg just move it. Keep the history. Please do not seek to delete history on the mere basis of it being uninteresting to you. If it is uninteresting to you, you should pay it no attention. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Template talk:Diplomatic missions in Brunei Darussalam (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Talkpage for a moved template that has almost no history. - nathanielcwm (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - This is a talk page for a template redirect. Two WikiProject tags were added to it, which seems useless but harmless. User:Nathanielcwm What is the point to deleting this talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Move it to go with the moved template. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to the remaining template's talk page as no move happened; it was just redirected as a duplicate. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
July 10, 2022
- User:咽頭べさ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
WP:NOTWEBHOST or WP:PROMOTION. 沈澄心✉ 03:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep but either remove or split off the two articles written on the userpage. Otherwise the userpage comprises okay standard user page stuff (userboxes, Babel, Wikimedia project activities, so on). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The included text are plausible drafts, if not encyclopedic in tone. I contested U5 on this page because it did not seem to fail NOTWEBHOST. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy G12 the first one, that's a copypaste of https://monnews.org/mon-people/ Meh on the second article; it seems to be more of an opinion piece so it is hard to tell if that's a web host for advocacy. Not clear why it's needed, or if it's a translation of some other article. We have Human rights in Myanmar article in mainspace anyway. Note there's a copy of these two pieces in the user'a sandbox as well. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I feel this is a WP:BABY situation as the user has every right to keep everything else. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I removed the offending material that was copy/pasted to the userpage, things should be okay now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Move to a subpage and blank as a problematic Userpage that 咽頭べさ (talk · contribs) can fix later. Ask 咽頭べさ to not draft on their main Userpage, but on titled subpages, for a cleaner history per topic. The copyright violation is sufficiently dealt with by removing it, deletion from the history is not required. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)