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.

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

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.

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))

((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.
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	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	5	7	12
TfD	0	8	3	11
MfD	1	0	2	3
FfD	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	22	22
AfD	0	0	2	2

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

Archived discussions[edit]

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

Current discussions[edit]

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

April 17, 2024

User:Elbertajrq

This user page is an unreferenced autobiography of a living person . The fact that the subject is politically notable is not a reason to keep an unreferenced BLP. McClenon mobile (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 10:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Financial Assistant

WP:COPIES of Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability Flounder fillet (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This copy of an article is old, and the article has been updated, illustrating that a content fork introduces discrepancies over time, which is why content forks are not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yo Yo Sourav Kundu

Appears to be crudely copypasted from mainspace, likely from the deleted article Hirdesh Singh. BLP in userspace, multiple unsourced paragraphs, would require repair to restore inline citations where they were present in the original. Flounder fillet (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This user page is an unsourced biography of a living person. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Albanianhistory111

WP:COPIES of Montenegro Flounder fillet (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a malformed copy of an article, and so has the disadvantages of a proper copy, but has other disadvantages also. It has no apparent utility . Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:LeniRico

On its face, this user page is an unreferenced autobiography of a living person. Because it is unreferenced, there is no way to be sure that it is or is not true, but on two readings, it seems to be the originator's fantasy. If it is not true, then it is a hoax. If it is true, it is still an unreferenced biography of a living person. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - blatant U5 as personal webpage and/or writing not relevant to Wikipedia. Flounder fillet (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above. Bduke (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leakerman42

WP:COPIES of Selena Gomez Flounder fillet (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A copy of an article, and so a content fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:ERIC SAMUEL KUHOGA

This user page is a resume by a user who has made no other use of Wikipedia than to post this resume, and so can be deleted as U5. It is also an unreferenced biography of a living person. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete U5 is a criterion for speedy deletion. A speedy deletable page is obviously also deletable. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with above. Bduke (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrea Firmin

This user page is an unreferenced biography of a living person. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as U5/G11 explicit use of a user page as a personal webpage and self-promotion. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with above. Bduke (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anonymous ddoser

WP:COPIES of bankruptcy Flounder fillet (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 00:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a U5 content fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Letstrybetaaccount

WP:COPIES of Linux. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a copy of an article into user space, with no apparent reason for the copy, and so is a content fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:YahyaMardanshahe

WP:COPIES of Death of Mahsa Amini Flounder fillet (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a fully referenced copy of an article in user space by a user who has done nothing else, and so is a content fork that will not be updated. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 16, 2024

User:Naidu Empires

WP:COPIES of a page on Tamil wikipedia Flounder fillet (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as U5. There has not been any request for translation, but that is not the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Freelearner123

WP:COPIES. Crude copy-pastes of English language and Respiratory system mixed with each other. Flounder fillet (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Because this is what the nominator says it is, it is semantically meaningless. It qualifies as U5 by an editor who came to Wikipedia, left this coprolite, and departed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments.—Alalch E. 10:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:THE COOLEST PERSON EVER20324

WP:COPIES of list of the tallest people Flounder fillet (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A copy of an article, and so a content fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.—Alalch E. 23:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Guaporez

Appears to be WP:COPIES of Salsa (dance) Flounder fillet (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably copied for a school assignment. Copies of articles in user space are content forks, which diverge from the articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.—Alalch E. 23:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aim is important

Appears to be partial WP:COPIES of an old version of historical fiction. (paragraph about Pharaoh is still present in current revision of that page) Flounder fillet (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A fragmentary copy of an article still is not a permitted use of user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.—Alalch E. 23:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chip tuning

WP:FAKEARTICLE, possibly WP:COPIES of an ancient version of chip tuning. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably a copy submitted as a homework assignment. A content fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.—Alalch E. 23:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:SmartSpace

Over a decade old one-edit wonder Ctrl+a ctrl+c copy of Abraham Lincoln. WP:COPIES Flounder fillet (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an unsourced copy of a biography of a dead person. It was likely created as homework for a school assignment, but that does not matter one way or the other. It is a content fork because it is not being updated when the article is being edited. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.—Alalch E. 23:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gilbert roman

WP:COPIES. Copy of Pape Latyr N'Diaye. Flounder fillet (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - On the one hand, this is a sourced copy of a biography of a living person. On the other hand, like any unnecessary copy of an article, it is a content fork subject to obsolescence, which is another reason why copies of articles are not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.—Alalch E. 23:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikiqedia Encyclopedia

Old partial copy of mainspace article. WP:COPIES Flounder fillet (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Another improper copy, and the work of another blocked one-edit wonder. (Some of the one-edit wonders are not blocked.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.—Alalch E. 23:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:KellyAudio

WP:FAKEARTICLE Flounder fillet (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nominator says, this is a fake article. The creating account is globally locked, maybe as a promotional account. This page was the work of another one-edit wonder. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:COPIES applies; see Gene Lavanchy.—Alalch E. 23:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete U5/G11. Copied content from mainspace BLP as basis for an autobiography. Uhai (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davis1997

Appears to be an old copy of a mainspace article. WP:COPIES Flounder fillet (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom, this is an old copy of an article. This copy was made by an editor who made one edit, creating this copy, and then departed. The user may have used it for a school paper, but that is not important. Some of the other nominations by the nominator are similar illustrations. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - User:Flounder fillet - Do you have a query that finds these copies by an editor who made one copy and then disappeared? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "potential U5s" database report (well, actually a modified version of it, because it's broken right now) detects these along with U5s (and a wide range of other strange user behaviour, I'd say about half of the English-language user pages in it's output are deletion-worthy) because it looks for long userpages of users with no mainspace edits. Flounder fillet (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also everything I nominated today is from ordering Cryptic's query by least edits, except "Harry Potter with Tin Tin", which I found because it is one of the longest userpages found by this query in all of Wikipedia. Flounder fillet (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Keep 'em coming.—Alalch E. 23:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harry Potter with Tin Tin

WP:COPIES. Old copy of Virat Kohli. Flounder fillet (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In addition to being a useless copy of an article, this is an unsourced biography of a living person. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The editor made one edit, or one surviving edit, to create this copy, and then departed. The nominator is finding them. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.—Alalch E. 23:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 15, 2024

Wikipedia:Translation/Urban Network

Incomplete translation from Japanese, abandoned since 2008. Other subpages of Wikipedia:Translation such as Wikipedia:Translation/Tanja Ostojić seem to be requests for translation. TSventon (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a CSD criterion for this? There certainly should be. Otherwise, delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:Pigsonthewing - How frequent are these abandoned subpages? CSD criteria should be Objective, Uncontestable, Frequent, and Nonredundant. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This seems to be abandoned in project space. It also seems to be in English, so it doesn't appear to be a request for translation. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first half of the page is in English, the second in Japanese. TSventon (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep : just update the translation and rename the page Bouzinac (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bouzinac, you may be the person most interested in keeping the page. Updating the whole translation would be a major task, particularly as the page (like the 2008 ja article) has no sources. Producing a stub like would be easier and keep the history. TSventon (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lt Gen Rajeev Chaudhry, Vsm (Veteran)

A WP:FAKEARTICLE that was deleted as U5 and recreated by user with no explanation Flounder fillet (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COI/SPA, WP:NOTRESUME, zero references. Uhai (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is both a fake article and an unsourced biography of a living person. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 14, 2024

Draft:Devanga Dharma

Article already exists in verbatim at Devanga, minus a few words author wants removed (see all five copies of edit requests made 13 April 2024 on Talk: Devanga). Requests were declined due to lack of a WP:RS. Zinnober9 (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please remove some content like shudra from devanga page please see reference in devanga dharma page Harishsk2022 (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

remove this line it is not true we are not lower caste "They are of Shudra status in the Hindu caste system." Harishsk2022 (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the draft as a recent copy of the old article. It should never have been made, and it’s existence is an ongoing attribution hazard, and it serves no purpose. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a copyright violaton. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[EC] Delete this content fork. Oh yes, it's a copyright violation too. -- Hoary (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but do not speedily delete, because G12 doesn't apply since WP:RIA can be employed; of course, in spite of that, the page should be deleted.—Alalch E. 12:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - copy of existing article and blatant attempt to game the system and get around the page protection of the original. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as attribution violation and unnecessary copy. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 13, 2024

Draft:The Monument Mythos

Person who created subject requests deletion of the draft. DeIIveloper (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For context see Draft talk:The Monument Mythos#Please, delete this draft for my mental sanity and User talk:Pppery#Monument Mythos Speedy Deletion. No opinion on whether this should be deleted or not. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The draft is okay.—Alalch E. 12:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He said to delete it. I don't know what you're on about. DeIIveloper (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy grounds on which to delete. It's a fine draft with potential for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and if not quite as a standalone article, it could be merged into the already-existing content on this topic at Analog horror#The Monument Mythos; and not only should, it will be merged, because I will do it (unless the draft is moved to article space, which I haven't decided on yet). See also the discusion on my talk page: User talk:Alalch E.#The Monument Mythos article. —Alalch E. 18:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DeIIveloper: Please don't blank the page like you did here: Special:Diff/1218824521 —Alalch E. 02:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User:Alalch E. has adopted it. There is no reason to delete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't very mature. He's in a really bad mental spot and I think its for the better to help him recover. There is no reason to adopt an article about a subject that the creator of said subject would like to be removed. Technically, it is his and he has the right to do whatever he wants with it, and he wants it gone from this site. End of discussion. Nada. Nope. Nothing more. DeIIveloper (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By publishing on Wikipedia, you agree to the Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and GFDL.

Sorry. If you want to make a personal appeal, make it to User:Alalch E..

Perhaps he can find some help in User:Tamzin/Guidance for editors with mental illnesses. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex didn't agree to this. He did nothing to the article. We did, but he didn't and now he wants it gone. DeIIveloper (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear whether this topic is notable or not. It may or may not be. In either case, I recommend removing all BLP information. The person is not notable, and although not private, there are BLP concerns that can be respected without detriment to coverage of the topic. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes the content better but I did it. —Alalch E. 23:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems like a draft with promise, even if currently I'm a bit dubious about its notability (much of the sources seem to be top 10 lists and trend pieces). If nothing else it can be merged into Analog horror#The Monument Mythos. I'll also note for DeIIveloper that this article doesn't belong to the creator of the work and, while in the case of a BLP of a relatively unknown person who requests deletion, we may acquiesce, per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE), this is not a biography and has very little bio information in it, so doesn't really qualify. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

funny joke haha DeIIveloper (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a draft, notability doesn't need to be established for a page to exist in this namespace. The content here is useful, even if it ends up being merged into another article. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 23:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Alalch E. and others. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Hold me like a Grudge} 13:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. the guy who made the series wants the draft deleted for his sake. the lack of compassion above is astounding. ltb d l (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compassion doesn't build an encyclopedia. The topic was treated in a sensitive and due way, and the user who claims to be the person connected to the subject matter was talked to patiently and respectfully, and things were explained to him. —Alalch E. 12:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 12, 2024

Draft:Doucet, Quebec

This place does not appear to exist. I couldn't find it in the Canadian Geographical Names Database ([1]). There are a number of places or features called Lac-Doucet, but the only one that is a place (and not a geographical feature) is located at 46° 28′ 4″ N, 72° 38′ 23″ W, which is near Trois-Rivieres, neither north nor west. But notwithstanding not being able to find it on a map, I did find a source for the claimed coldest temperature record ([2]) which we've repeated (unsourced) in other articles, which seems like it warrants further investigation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did find a Doucet, Quebec in the Canadian government's weather database, and it does record a temperature of -54.4 C on February 5, 1923. ([3]) There is no data for this place after the mid-1930s, and the coordinates given are the middle of a forest. Maybe there was a logging camp or something near here 100 years ago? I haven't been able to find any more information, AI has made Google absolutely useless for this kind of thing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore. MfD is not a help service for AfC. See WP:NDRAFT. Reasons to nominate a draft include any line item at WP:NOT, or tendentious resubmission. Or an unsourced BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "village" claim was concerning but that can be fixed editorially.—Alalch E. 14:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. Not a hoax in the WP:G3 sense. Curbon7 (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a draft, and it's a real meteorologigcal record. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Existence operating systems

"Draft template" created by an anonymous IP, with no obvious explanation of what it would be used for. The text of it is "If i better operating system is needed, please add, copy and paste your template source page", but it's rather unclear what operating systems and template code have to do with each other, so it's not clear what purpose pasting your template source page anywhere would serve, and the template fails to explain where your template source page is to be pasted.
If this kind of thing were necessary at all, it would need to be created by established Wikipedians who knew what they were doing. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Page containing almost only incomprehensible text, close to WP:G1. Saved by the "Please note that it is not template, its draft template" part, which is comprehensible. The rest is not comprehensible.—Alalch E. 19:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Useless, and very close to G1. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template has only been used once on this page as an April Fool's prank, although the edit was done after April 1st. 27 is my favorite number. You can ask me why here. 18:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 11, 2024

User:HansWobbe/Books/SrEd References

This is a grab bag deletion of discussion regarding a network of related pages created by banned User:HansWobbe. This is discussion is focused on his "lightly edited template pages", which I feel have a good case for deletion given they probably fall under WP:UP#GOALS. Most of these seem to have been in an effort ot make a Wikipedia book (a now depricated feature). I'm doing this so I don't have to open an MfD for all of these articles, and will list them below:

Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close or Keep -I have not reviewed the pages, but it is probable that some of them should be deleted and some should be kept. The editor has been indefinitely blocked, not banned, and the guidelines say that we normally keep files of departed or blocked users, who might return. (I think that I disagree with the guideline, but it is a plausible guideline, and should be respected.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User hate CCP

WP:UBCR and WP:POLEMIC. Divisive userbox. Broc (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The word 'hate' should not appear in userboxes.—Alalch E. 09:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I lean to supporting this, but not without limit. A userbox might mention hate without expressing or advocating hate.

There are several transcluders. The transcluders should be advised of this discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to the transcluders of this userbox: SunDawn Moreno Ardan1 EnverTheHero Magnatyrannus Partyfrittata R09a21045 TeddyRoosevelt1912 Carlinal Michigander901 PoisonHK Delta2571 -- Broc (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Broc, SmokeyJoe, specifically pinging people who are likely to !vote in a certain way is WP:VOTESTACKING. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. The proposal is to alter these people’s userpages, altering their self-introductions, with an allegation that they are doing something wrong. There are therefore key stakeholders. Their contribution here is not to vote, but to explain, or defend. If the userbox is deleted, they may be accused of disruption if they put a similar back. This outcome is an obvious failing of natural justice. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If like to ask them, what is it about the CCP that they hate. Then, I’m sure it can be improved by an edit. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hate of a political class of tyrants should not be equated with a group of individuals. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is a party which counts 98 million members not "a group of individuals"? Broc (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dislike towards an organization (that has done "things") is different than hating millions of Chinese. I didn't think the word "hate" should immediately be construed as divisive. I didn't think "hating" the Nazi Party or ISIS is violating WP:UBCR.✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now read the userbox as "This user hates the US Republican Party". Do you still consider it non-divisive? If the template said "oppose" I would have no problem with it, but hate is a different thing. Broc (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My usage of the anti-CCP infobox isn't of any malice towards Chinese culture or society at all, but as a protest against the party's omnipresent dominance and human rights violations that led to a moral decline within the country's political state, if not with China altogether. This includes but is not limited to Mao Zedong's cult of personality (similar with Joseph Stalin's), several massacres (Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution and Red August, the Tiananmen massacre and suppression of its discussion and the related), declining human and Internet rights, and other forms of crimes against humanity. That's what I hate about the party and its impact; I believe other users with the infobox aren't drastically different in motive. The party's slogan is "Serve the People", but it only serves itself, of a code not revealed to anyone with any sympathy. I wouldn't be anti-communist in the first place if all of this never happened. My use of this infobox is not light, and it speaks out for the preservation of common sense and human dignity. Carlinal (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wording Change: I am a Hong Konger, and this template sums up a large part about my childhood in the city, so I'm definitely against deleting the template entirely (please see Hong Kong-Mainland China conflict). I personally have no problem using the word "hate" towards a political organization that has no respect for human rights whatsoever, but I can understand why some would feel problematic about this. So, I would be fine if the template is re-worded to take out the word "hate" but keep much of the meaning, something along the lines of: "This user strongly condemns the CCP (for its gross violations of human rights)". TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is disruptive to use userspace or projectspace as a WP:SOAPBOX. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not to move away from focus on this infobox, but with several more examples and an entire category's worth of similarly politically charged infoboxes, how exactly does this one cross the line? Carlinal (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This userbox being nominated doesn't mean it's special, it was just the one that happened to be nominated. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place for this; WP:SOAPBOX per above. Uhai (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 10, 2024

Talk:Qazwsxedcrfvtgbyhnujmikolp

This subpage isn't useful, despite the tag on it. Highly implausible query. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 17:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending a statement from User:L293D, who tagged it as useful, because I don't see the utility of this page, but am ready to consider an explanation. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Create the mainspace redirect to QWERTY. Not an implausible implausible query. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Create Qazwsxedcrfvtgbyhnujmikolp as a redirect per SmokeyJoe. Undeletion is consistent with policy. The deletions were not consensus-based. There was an RfD but it lasted a day and was also interrupted by a speedy deletion, and this can not be considered a deletion by consensus: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 31#Qazwsxedcrfvtgbyhnujmikolp → QWERTY. The nomination statement in that RfD is also completely erroneous. Unlike what the nominator said, this is not something created by mashing keys randomly in different combinations. This redirect was like Qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm. "Qazwsxedcrfvtgbyhnujmikolp" produces results when googled.—Alalch E. 08:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm is arguably a more plausible query than qazwsxedcrfvtgbyhnujmikolp. I don't think we need redirects from every possible key combination. I just RfD'd Qwertqwert for the same reason. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 17:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be recreated then nominated at RfD. I think it's plausible. Please keep in mind that the deletions were not carried out per a consensus. —Alalch E. 17:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense. Nobody is going to search for the QWERTY keyboard by writing the keys vertically. No reason to keep this around forever. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already have. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised on Urban Dictionary... —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 20:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Create redirect and send to RfD: If the redirect wasn't deleted by consensus, we should just create it and, if anyone objects to it, send it to RfD. If the RfD is closed as delete, this will naturally be deleted. I personally think it's WP:CHEAP, but I digress. Queen of ♡ | speak 18:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Create redirect and send to RfD: Yes, there was an RfD in 2008, but it had little participation and the result was a speedy deletion anyway. I would say there's not much point going to DRV for this. A lot of bored people in work/school (I would know) end up just mashing random key combinations. Just look at the pageviews for Qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm. Even if we divide that by 5, that's still ~30 page views/month, which is sizeable. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old business[edit]

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 10:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC) ended today on 17 April 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.

April 3, 2024

Wikipedia:Voting for busy beavers

I don't even remember how I came across this essay, but I am a little dumbfounded by it. It advocates for keeping a list of trusted contributors (called the "White List") and a group of not trusted contributors (called the "Black List"). It then calls for !voting on RfAs/RfBs/RfCs based on how they were supported by people on the "White List"/"Black List", without considering the merits of the candidate/issue. If you are so busy that you cannot consider a proposal/candidate on the merits, ignore the discussion. Don't !vote a certain way because of how people on your "White List"/"Black List" !voted.

I don't necessarily think this needs deletion, but it certainly needs userfication. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 02:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as per nominator. But who are the Crowd People to whom the author refers? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Iserfy might be OK, but we would just be better off by deleting it. Bduke (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a valid essay about a real feature of the Wikipedia community, about what I would call the dramaboards regulars. I support the essay for addressing a serious issue. Such essays belong in projectspace. This is not to say that I agree with the proposed solution. I agree, it seems dumbfounding, but I think it is worth studying before probably editing away dumb bits. There is enough merit in the essay to keep it. To improve it, I would probably confine brainstorming ideas to a subsection, and put more effort into a study of the dramaboards regulars of the years. I have observed this behavioural oddity for many years, and believe it is significantly lessened. One can see, for example, that the compulsive “Oppose” RfA !voters who would nearly always !vote “oppose” with a rationale that did not vary with the nominee, are now virtually all blocked. If you install the gadget that reveals signatures of blocked editors, you can see it quite clearly in old RfAs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an old essay, from 2013, which more reflects Wikipedia in 2013 than 2024. It was written by a productive and respected editor, active from 2006 until retirement in 2014.

He later returned, and was a bit too grumpy, whether he was more grumpy than before, or whether Wikipedia in 2019 was less tolerant of grumpy productive editors (cf the unblockables) than in the older years. In any case, what happened in October-November 2019 has no bearing on the historical insights recorded in the 2013 essay. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the essay, cutting harshly, and I believe it is now not a problem, and what’s left is a valuable historical observation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think my problem with the essay is that—given its title, Voting for busy beavers, emphasis mine—it is explicitly about the proposed solution (!voting without learning about the merits of a dispute), not the problem (dramaboard regulars). House Blaster (talk · he/him) 13:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dramaboard regulars are not necessarily a problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I wouldn't complain about SmokeyJoe making a new essay but... per HouseBlaster, I'm not sure that was really the point of the original essay? Meaning a clean slate might be a better approach. (The old essay was about "if you're lazy, just vote with the group you trust", which is exactly the kind of !votes we do NOT want and are basically just noise, since they haven't engaged with the fundamentals of whatever's under discussion.) SnowFire (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I've culled the bad idea, which was most of the page, and left behind an interesting observation, more relevant to 2013 than 2024. The only problem I have with userfying for User:Incnis_Mrsi is that he might come back and db-u1 it. Maybe userfy to my userspace? But I don't claim it as mine, I just claim that it is an historical observation of some value. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if we userfy to his userspace, but use a WP:DUMMY edit to save an edit summary requesting that it be moved to your userspace if it is tagged with ((db-u1))? House Blaster (talk · he/him) 12:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the best course of action. thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 00:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. It's not patent nonsense. It's misleading, but not so grossly problematic that it has to be deleted from Wikipedia outright. We don't delete essays or screeds we disagree with. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 1, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (21st nomination)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: consensus to title blacklist, no consensus to delete. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (21st nomination)[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (21st nomination) (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) – (View MfD) Trying to finally put a stop to this. DrowssapSMM 12:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Delete as a salt evasion. This !vote is not an April Fools Joke - I genuinely think the page should be deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Honestly I'm extremely tempted to add `^Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth \([0-9]+(st\|nd\|rd\|th) nomination\)$` to the title blacklist to put and end to this. Breaking the convention with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (song) was actually mildly original. This just isn't, and is resorting to tactics more commonly thought of as associated with sockpuppets than with legitimate users, and thus I must do the same. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] The only thing I see that's even mildly funny about this is the rotating !vote. But that can happen anywhere. As it stands the current consensus seems to be to keep this one and add it to the title blacklist for the future. Perhaps we can make some sort of meta-joke about Earth having plot armour in the error message you see :P. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Comment You serious about this, as said, this is not any sort of a joke. Butplease do not add it to the blacklist as this is harmful. Toadette ^{(April Fools Day!)} 15:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Hear that Butplease? —Alalch E. 16:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] As there is no user named Butplease, Butplease cannot add the Earth nominations to the list. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] (serious comment) Keep this one, since some people have contributed to it with funny votes, but I would support blacklisting any future ones for subsequent years. This should be the last time this joke is used. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep As someone who made one of the previous joke nominations, I have to agree that we are running out of ideas for Earth joke nominations. But keep, because there's nothing inherently wrong with the page. I am in support of telling people that there are seven other planets in the solar system that could be blown up by the Death Star though. Mori Calliope fan talk 05:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Also, I'm going to do a WP:BOLD and mark this as a serious nomination because people are treating it that way more than as a humorous nomination. Mori Calliope fan talk 05:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep: Although I think this should be the last time this is done unless if someone is able to come up with something funny and not just stupid. Awesome Aasim 06:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Agreed that this should be the last time per originality's sake. As a compromise, @Pppery: should be able to add this to the blacklist. There are plenty of other planets and objects in the solar system real/fictional as pointed out above. Guys... give the Earth a rest for a bit, things are already chaotic down here as it is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Neutral on this instance, but I think a section of Rules for Fools, or a separate page (or create a new one if none of them would fit) could be created listing jokes that are discouraged due to overuse, including joke deletions for Earth, the Main Page (which is actually salted), and possibly others. Xeroctic (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Delete, it stopped being fun. Adding the above regular expression to the title blacklist will help. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] ~~Keep~~ Delete [changed recommendation per the thread underneath]. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (69th nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (666th nomination) are going to be funny.—Alalch E. 00:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Will Wikipedia even still be around in the 2060s and 2600s? Will Wikipedians still be doing the same dumb jokes? I hope not. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Maybe will be around. If around, jokes certainly still dumb. But dumb =/= unfunny. Some things are inherently funny, like "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (69th nomination)" no matter how dumb. —Alalch E. 08:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] It will only be funny if we actually manage to get 68 Earth AfDs before the 69th. I don't think the pain is worth going through. Mori Calliope fan talk 15:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] You know, you've changed my mind, it isn't worth going through. —Alalch E. 22:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep: at this point, it's a tradition, albeit a stupid and unfunny one. Cremastra (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (42nd nomination) is going to be the smart one. Give it time. —Alalch E. 17:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] This argument doesn't make sense? If the tradition is stupid and unfunny, then why not stop it now? We aren't bound by the stupid traditions of the past, especially for something like April Fools Day. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Comment I am not sure if this principle should also apply to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia, which has more than ten nominations. I couldn't think of another frequently-nominated subject similar to Wikipedia and Earth. AlphaBeta135 talk 01:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Update Jimmy Wales (9 noms) and his pseudonym Jimbo Wales. AlphaBeta135 talk 18:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Neutral on deletion, Blacklist `/^Wikipedia:Articles for deletion\/(Earth\|Wikipedia)/` with regards to future April Fools nominations for the above arguments on this being stale. NasssaNser 13:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Neutral on deletion of the deletion page. Seems like a lost cause when we already have 20 nominations that got us to this point. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (21st nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: consensus to title blacklist, no consensus to delete. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (21st nomination)[edit]

Trying to finally put a stop to this. DrowssapSMM 12:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a salt evasion. This !vote is not an April Fools Joke - I genuinely think the page should be deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'm extremely tempted to add ^Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth $[0-9]+(st|nd|rd|th) nomination$$ to the title blacklist to put and end to this. Breaking the convention with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (song) was actually mildly original. This just isn't, and is resorting to tactics more commonly thought of as associated with sockpuppets than with legitimate users, and thus I must do the same. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I see that's even mildly funny about this is the rotating !vote. But that can happen anywhere.
As it stands the current consensus seems to be to keep this one and add it to the title blacklist for the future. Perhaps we can make some sort of meta-joke about Earth having plot armour in the error message you see :P. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You serious about this, as said, this is not any sort of a joke. Butplease do not add it to the blacklist as this is harmful. Toadette ^{(April Fools Day!)} 15:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hear that Butplease? —Alalch E. 16:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As there is no user named Butplease, Butplease cannot add the Earth nominations to the list. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(serious comment) Keep this one, since some people have contributed to it with funny votes, but I would support blacklisting any future ones for subsequent years. This should be the last time this joke is used. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As someone who made one of the previous joke nominations, I have to agree that we are running out of ideas for Earth joke nominations. But keep, because there's nothing inherently wrong with the page. I am in support of telling people that there are seven other planets in the solar system that could be blown up by the Death Star though. Mori Calliope fan talk 05:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm going to do a WP:BOLD and mark this as a serious nomination because people are treating it that way more than as a humorous nomination. Mori Calliope fan talk 05:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although I think this should be the last time this is done unless if someone is able to come up with something funny and not just stupid. Awesome Aasim 06:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agreed that this should be the last time per originality's sake. As a compromise, @Pppery: should be able to add this to the blacklist. There are plenty of other planets and objects in the solar system real/fictional as pointed out above. Guys... give the Earth a rest for a bit, things are already chaotic down here as it is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on this instance, but I think a section of Rules for Fools, or a separate page (or create a new one if none of them would fit) could be created listing jokes that are discouraged due to overuse, including joke deletions for Earth, the Main Page (which is actually salted), and possibly others. Xeroctic (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it stopped being fun. Adding the above regular expression to the title blacklist will help. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete [changed recommendation per the thread underneath]. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (69th nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (666th nomination) are going to be funny.—Alalch E. 00:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will Wikipedia even still be around in the 2060s and 2600s? Will Wikipedians still be doing the same dumb jokes? I hope not. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe will be around. If around, jokes certainly still dumb. But dumb =/= unfunny. Some things are inherently funny, like "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (69th nomination)" no matter how dumb. —Alalch E. 08:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will only be funny if we actually manage to get 68 Earth AfDs before the 69th. I don't think the pain is worth going through. Mori Calliope fan talk 15:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know, you've changed my mind, it isn't worth going through. —Alalch E. 22:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: at this point, it's a tradition, albeit a stupid and unfunny one. Cremastra (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (42nd nomination) is going to be the smart one. Give it time. —Alalch E. 17:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This argument doesn't make sense? If the tradition is stupid and unfunny, then why not stop it now? We aren't bound by the stupid traditions of the past, especially for something like April Fools Day. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure if this principle should also apply to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia, which has more than ten nominations. I couldn't think of another frequently-nominated subject similar to Wikipedia and Earth. AlphaBeta135 talk 01:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update Jimmy Wales (9 noms) and his pseudonym Jimbo Wales. AlphaBeta135 talk 18:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on deletion, Blacklist /^Wikipedia:Articles for deletion\/(Earth|Wikipedia)/ with regards to future April Fools nominations for the above arguments on this being stale. NasssaNser 13:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on deletion of the deletion page. Seems like a lost cause when we already have 20 nominations that got us to this point. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

February 22, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Interviews
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete. The arguments from those in favor of keeping the article based on its value as a redirect were not sufficiently rebutted, and since those look to be the prevailing argument, I've gone ahead and just made this one a redirect of my own accord. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Interviews[edit] Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Interviews (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) – (View MfD) Ancient junk from 2006 of no actual historical value. If kept rename to Wikipedia:Brooke Vibber interviews. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Not junk. Historical and valuable. No issue with moving or renaming. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] ~~Keep~~. Delete. I finished the transcription at the subpage: Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Interviews/MySQL Conference April 26th 2006.—Alalch E. 02:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Pppery: Move the transcript to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people/MySQL Conference April 26th 2006, add Vibber to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people#Notable contributors (see WP:BROOKEDAY for context), add the link to the transcript to that line, and delete the here nominated one-entry index?—Alalch E. 13:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] I moved the subpage to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people/2006 Citizen Valley interview of Brooke Vibber. Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Interviews can be deleted.—Alalch E. 19:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Mark Historical if of little or no current value. There is no harm from keeping if useless, and there is possible harm to deleting if useful. This is more likely to be useful than a lot of the historical cruft in Wikipedia space, but it should all be kept if there is no actual need to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Robert McClenon The page nominated for deletion is just a page with a link to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people/2006 Citizen Valley interview of Brooke Vibber. It has no content and no real incoming links. The content about Wikipedia history (which is not the same as historical content) is at the page containing the interview transcript. —Alalch E. 15:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep. As has been noted, this page just contains a link to a separate page. However, this on its own does not mean that it should be deleted, or that its existence is not helpful/valuable. Because it seems to be (in effect) a soft redirect page, I have assessed it based on the Redirect guideline. This page has existed since 2006. This strongly engages WP:R#K4, which states that [l]inks that have existed for a significant length of time...should be left alone. The interview transcript is indeed at a different page, but I can't see a reason to prevent this long-standing link from continuing to point to it, especially in the absence of reasons it may cause harm. As far as I can tell, none of the reasons under WP:R#DELETE are engaged in this instance. Redirects are cheap, and I can't see how the continued existence of this page would be harmful. Per Robert McClenon, [t]here is no harm from keeping if useless, and there is possible harm to deleting if useful. Similar to SmokeyJoe, I have no issue with moving or renaming. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 01:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] As was already pointed out by the nominator, the name of the nominated page MOS:DEADNAMEs. The current name must be a red link for this reason and this MfD can not have an outcome preventing this name from becoming a red link. In a hypothetical scenario that the page is moved without leaving a redirect, if construing the current page as a soft redirect, which it is not, because while any page with no content and only a single link superficially resembles a redirect, for that page to be a soft redirect it would need to be a replacement for the usual "hard" redirect and is used where the destination is a Wikimedia sister project (see Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects § Soft redirects from Wikipedia to a sister project), another language Wikimedia site, or in rare cases another website (e.g. meatball: targets). They may also be used for local targets in some cases (e.g. WP:AN/K). This is not a replacement for the usual, "hard", redirect, because there is no such ostensible hard redirect that could be seen as having been replaced, because what is indicated by "Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Interviews" does not correspond to "Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people/2006 Citizen Valley interview of Brooke Vibber" to the degree where having such a redirect is not nonsense, because it speaks of multiple interviews and it links to one interview, and multiple interviews really do exist, making this putative redirection a confusing nonsense. Redirecting from plural denoting a set of different things to one of those things also resembles WP:XY. So this can not be seen as a plausible and appropriate redirect. Further, the destination is not a Wikimedia sister project, not an another language Wikimedia site, and not another website. The destination is a local target, but there is nothing to indicate that in this case the local target as the destination should be the destination, or that anything should be the "destination" as this page really does not function as a redirect, does not have the quality of a redirect, and so this is not a case where this page should be used as or understood to be a soft redirect to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people/2006 Citizen Valley interview of Brooke Vibber. But if seeing it as a soft redirect after all, which I disagree with, moving it would mean "renaming a redirect" which barely makes any sense, and boils down to creating a new redirect. The page under the new name would have to be treated as a new redirect, and so (again, if seeing this as a soft redirect, which it is not) WP:R#K4 would no longer have any bearing. For example, that reason not to delete is about not "breaking incoming or internal links" and in the esoteric scenario of this page being kept, moved, and treated as a redirect, links would be broken, so from the vantage point of that outcome as the consequence of applying RKEEP #4, when RKEEP #4 is thus applied it negates itself. —Alalch E. 02:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] And when SmokeyJoe !voted to keep, circumstances were different, and surely his !vote was about the actual transcript which was at that time a subpage of the nominated page, and deleting the page would also automatically lead to deleting the subpage unless something was done in the meantime (something was indeed done). So it is understandable that he would want to preserve this historically valuable document, and, surely, what he referred to by "historical and valuable" is not the text "These are transcriptions of Brion Vibber's interviews" and a single link, but what is linked to, as the subpage. —Alalch E. 02:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Yes. If you have taken care to preserve the history, I support. Thank you for sorting it out. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom and Alalch E. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Keep - Redirects are cheap. There isn't any other project or page that needs that title, it is a reasonable search term for a redirect. We can't say it will or won't have future importance. We can say it was during an important time, when there were less than a handful of employees and not a lot of interviews going on, but it doesn't matter, if anyone wants to find the information, that is a very likely search term. The main sniff test for me is, is the encyclopedia more or less useful with the redirect? It is ever so slightly useful with it. Also, the age of the redirect does influence the decision to keep as well, because we aren't sure how many outside links to that page exist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Interviews

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete. The arguments from those in favor of keeping the article based on its value as a redirect were not sufficiently rebutted, and since those look to be the prevailing argument, I've gone ahead and just made this one a redirect of my own accord. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Interviews[edit]

Ancient junk from 2006 of no actual historical value. If kept rename to Wikipedia:Brooke Vibber interviews. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not junk. Historical and valuable. No issue with moving or renaming. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Delete. I finished the transcription at the subpage: Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Interviews/MySQL Conference April 26th 2006.—Alalch E. 02:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Move the transcript to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people/MySQL Conference April 26th 2006, add Vibber to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people#Notable contributors (see WP:BROOKEDAY for context), add the link to the transcript to that line, and delete the here nominated one-entry index?—Alalch E. 13:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the subpage to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people/2006 Citizen Valley interview of Brooke Vibber.

Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Interviews can be deleted.—Alalch E. 19:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Historical if of little or no current value. There is no harm from keeping if useless, and there is possible harm to deleting if useful. This is more likely to be useful than a lot of the historical cruft in Wikipedia space, but it should all be kept if there is no actual need to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon The page nominated for deletion is just a page with a link to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people/2006 Citizen Valley interview of Brooke Vibber. It has no content and no real incoming links. The content about Wikipedia history (which is not the same as historical content) is at the page containing the interview transcript. —Alalch E. 15:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As has been noted, this page just contains a link to a separate page. However, this on its own does not mean that it should be deleted, or that its existence is not helpful/valuable. Because it seems to be (in effect) a soft redirect page, I have assessed it based on the Redirect guideline.
- This page has existed since 2006. This strongly engages WP:R#K4, which states that [l]inks that have existed for a significant length of time...should be left alone. The interview transcript is indeed at a different page, but I can't see a reason to prevent this long-standing link from continuing to point to it, especially in the absence of reasons it may cause harm.
- As far as I can tell, none of the reasons under WP:R#DELETE are engaged in this instance. Redirects are cheap, and I can't see how the continued existence of this page would be harmful. Per Robert McClenon, [t]here is no harm from keeping if useless, and there is possible harm to deleting if useful.
Similar to SmokeyJoe, I have no issue with moving or renaming. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 01:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As was already pointed out by the nominator, the name of the nominated page MOS:DEADNAMEs. The current name must be a red link for this reason and this MfD can not have an outcome preventing this name from becoming a red link. In a hypothetical scenario that the page is moved without leaving a redirect, if construing the current page as a soft redirect, which it is not, because while any page with no content and only a single link superficially resembles a redirect, for that page to be a soft redirect it would need to be a replacement for the usual "hard" redirect and is used where the destination is a Wikimedia sister project (see Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects § Soft redirects from Wikipedia to a sister project), another language Wikimedia site, or in rare cases another website (e.g. meatball: targets). They may also be used for local targets in some cases (e.g. WP:AN/K). This is not a replacement for the usual, "hard", redirect, because there is no such ostensible hard redirect that could be seen as having been replaced, because what is indicated by "Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Interviews" does not correspond to "Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people/2006 Citizen Valley interview of Brooke Vibber" to the degree where having such a redirect is not nonsense, because it speaks of multiple interviews and it links to one interview, and multiple interviews really do exist, making this putative redirection a confusing nonsense. Redirecting from plural denoting a set of different things to one of those things also resembles WP:XY. So this can not be seen as a plausible and appropriate redirect. Further, the destination is not a Wikimedia sister project, not an another language Wikimedia site, and not another website. The destination is a local target, but there is nothing to indicate that in this case the local target as the destination should be the destination, or that anything should be the "destination" as this page really does not function as a redirect, does not have the quality of a redirect, and so this is not a case where this page should be used as or understood to be a soft redirect to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people/2006 Citizen Valley interview of Brooke Vibber. But if seeing it as a soft redirect after all, which I disagree with, moving it would mean "renaming a redirect" which barely makes any sense, and boils down to creating a new redirect. The page under the new name would have to be treated as a new redirect, and so (again, if seeing this as a soft redirect, which it is not) WP:R#K4 would no longer have any bearing. For example, that reason not to delete is about not "breaking incoming or internal links" and in the esoteric scenario of this page being kept, moved, and treated as a redirect, links would be broken, so from the vantage point of that outcome as the consequence of applying RKEEP #4, when RKEEP #4 is thus applied it negates itself. —Alalch E. 02:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And when SmokeyJoe !voted to keep, circumstances were different, and surely his !vote was about the actual transcript which was at that time a subpage of the nominated page, and deleting the page would also automatically lead to deleting the subpage unless something was done in the meantime (something was indeed done). So it is understandable that he would want to preserve this historically valuable document, and, surely, what he referred to by "historical and valuable" is not the text "These are transcriptions of Brion Vibber's interviews" and a single link, but what is linked to, as the subpage. —Alalch E. 02:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If you have taken care to preserve the history, I support. Thank you for sorting it out. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Alalch E. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Redirects are cheap. There isn't any other project or page that needs that title, it is a reasonable search term for a redirect. We can't say it will or won't have future importance. We can say it was during an important time, when there were less than a handful of employees and not a lot of interviews going on, but it doesn't matter, if anyone wants to find the information, that is a very likely search term. The main sniff test for me is, is the encyclopedia more or less useful with the redirect? It is ever so slightly useful with it. Also, the age of the redirect does influence the decision to keep as well, because we aren't sure how many outside links to that page exist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates