Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by B2TF (talk | contribs) at 06:19, 1 April 2022 (→April 1, 2022). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:MFD" redirects here. For media for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files for deletion.


Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

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:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 5 disambiguation pages) and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
  • Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion

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

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

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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

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

I.
Edit PageName:

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

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

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.
If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.
Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
  • Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
  • Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
  • Save the page
II.
Create its MfD subpage.

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

  • Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
  • Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
  • Save the page.
III.
Add a line to MfD.

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

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".
  • Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
    Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
  • If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add
{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.
  • If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
    For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

    {{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~

    to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as

    Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
  • If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
CfD 0 0 0 19 19
TfD 0 0 0 5 5
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 1 2 3
RfD 0 0 6 39 45
AfD 0 0 0 2 2

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

Archived discussions

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

Current discussions

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

April 1, 2022

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia (3rd 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: delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia (3rd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia (3rd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

April Fools' joke made in bad taste. See the April Fools' talk page regarding these types of jokes. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 03:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say that I understand the sentiment of the people who want to delete this, and I hate to be the one asshole who disagrees with an otherwise unanimous consensus, but I really do think that going through project space to demand that nobody have fun in a way that could annoy someone else is an awful way to spend our time. Nobody takes these seriously -- they're already squirreled away in the bowels of projectspace, and then even further they're squirreled away into a clearly labeled joke section of that. If there's something obviously offensive like a personal attack on an editor or a bunch of racial slurs or a BLP violation, then sure, it has to go, but if it's just someone trying to make a joke that ends up being kind of stupid, I cannot see this becoming a problem for the project. jp×g 08:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@B2TF: Like I said above, there have been many brazenly political joke nominations in the last couple years alone, and Russia itself has had two (first and second), none of which were deleted. I do not understand what makes this one different, other than the fact that it has a swear word in it (which could simply be removed without deleting the page). jp×g 16:46, 1 April 2022 (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:Requests for adminship/Bloomfield
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: speedy delete by User:Anthony Bradbury. RL0919 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bloomfield

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bloomfield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Obnoxious non-joke rfa for a banned user, completely unnecessary considering this was a cban. CUPIDICAE💕 03:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how is it not a joke? it was created on April Fools' Day, and is marked as humorous. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marking something as humorous and being humorous are not the same. IT's obnoxious and feeding trolls, like the cbanned user the RFA is for. CUPIDICAE💕 03:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: Perhaps you should start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment about joke Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and joke Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship during April Fools' Day. Wikipedia has been doing this kind of stuff for years on April 1st. B2TF (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, you don't have to; I've already started a request for comment on the Rules for Fools talk page: Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools#RfC: Ban joke Requests for adminship/bureaucratship B2TF (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is G3 available? Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment:I nominated willy on wheels because he was totally inactive and his vandalism seemed to be jokeable. However, I'm not sure is this vandal still active or not, will it be taken as a encouragement for its misbehaviour? Pavlov2 (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're fine. He wants to be recognized for what he did. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be deleted, possibly as G3 but it is in no way G10. CUPIDICAE💕 18:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I was just really offended by this. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry for the shit joke. Delete per G7? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 18:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. You weren't acting in bad faith. Sorry about the template on your talk page. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2022 (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/User:Z1720/URFA
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: keep. (non-admin closure) Z1720 (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Z1720/URFA

User:Z1720/URFA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I want to delete this user page as it is no longer needed. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2022 (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/World War III (2nd 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: speedy delete. ~TNT (talk • she/her) 03:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World War III (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World War III (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Bad joke. Dronebogus (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2022 (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:Users for Deletion/TheresNoTime
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: delete. Cabayi (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Users for Deletion/TheresNoTime

Wikipedia:Users for Deletion/TheresNoTime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per WP:G5. Creator of page has a global block on their account since April 1, 2021 for vandalism related to the April Fools Day events on Wikipedia. See Special:Contributions/TheresStillSomeTimeLeft for more information. B2TF (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2022 (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.

April Fools' Day nominations


Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 1
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: Citation added. April fools' is over. (non-admin closure) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 02:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 1#Template:Citation needed

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 1#Template:Citation needed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Citation needed that there needs to be a citation. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 05:51, 1 April 2022 (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:Wikiality and Other Tripling Elephants
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: April fools' is over. (non-admin closure) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 02:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiality and Other Tripling Elephants

Wikipedia:Wikiality and Other Tripling Elephants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Fails WP:GNG. People vandalize Wikipedia all the time, the fact that random users are vandalizing Wikipedia based upon the words of some random comedian in the world does not mean that the vandalism is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. B2TF (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2022 (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/Game Boy Advance family
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: April fools' is over. (non-admin closure) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 02:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game Boy Advance family

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game Boy Advance family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) ​

This is what Wikipedia immediately sent me to when I tried to create a joke Afd for 2001: A Space Odyssey. OcelotCreeper2 (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2022 (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:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2020
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 more edit wars. April fools' is over. (non-admin closure) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 02:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2020

Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2020 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This page is filled with vandalism. Just take a look at the title of the section that was originally called "Other pranks". At least the page isn't rotated 90 degrees and filled with B emotes right now, but any time soon another vandal could put the B emotes back on the page and rotate it again. The vandalism is so bad that a separate article was created merely to document all the vandalism, as well as this requests for comment discussion about dealing with the vandalism on this page. This page should be deleted ASAP and salted. B2TF (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2022 (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/Special:AllPages (2nd 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: Wikipedia deleted. April fools' is over. (non-admin closure) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 02:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special:AllPages

Special:AllPages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Just purge it. PURGE IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!! OcelotCreeper2 (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We gotta nuke it before the vandals do! Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 14:07, 1 April 2022 (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/Planet of the Apes
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: Crisis averted. (non-admin closure) —GMX(ping!) 00:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet of the Apes

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet of the Apes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​


We need to stop the apes from taking over the Earth. Deletion is the only way! Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Summon the rambling bots to help the apes take over. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just woke up, turns out an ape came along, tilted the whole world, and then my computer came back to life and summoned a third wave of bots. What day is it!? Easter!? I have to stop the AI from taking over. So, I'll warn everyone: Do not, I repeat, DO NOT, copy the last few lines of the AFD, go to https://textsynth.com, go to the Playground, set the model as GPT-J, paste in the last few lines of the AFD, copy the automatically generated text, and paste the automatically generated text after the last line of the AFD. DO NOT DO THIS. GPT's going to spread like wildfire across Wikipedia, and maybe the entire world. I don't want another robot revolution to happen, so please, PLEASE make sure you DO NOT do ANY of this!
The ape has left though, so weak keep because everything is back to normal. At least for now. —GMX(ping!) 04:26, 1 April 2022 (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:IRC
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: I Really Concluded that Discord is much better. (non-admin closure) —GMX(ping!) 00:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:IRC

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

No one uses IRC anymore. Delete[4-1] Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 03:28, 1 April 2022 (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:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2022
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: April fools' is over. (non-admin closure) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 02:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2022

Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2022 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Wikipedia's April Fools' pranks are getting lazy. For the last few years it's just been joke AFD nominations. Someone ought to put a stop to it. Zombiewizard45 (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use automated tools to make an MfD, I got pinged. —moonythedwarf 03:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I am a part of that unoriginality. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:33, 1 April 2022 (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:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
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: Deemed unreliable. April fools' is over. (non-admin closure) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 02:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so this page is unreliable. NasssaNser - T 04:21, 1 April 2022 (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.

March 29, 2022

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of sex symbols
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: Delete, Salt. — xaosflux Talk 15:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of sex symbols

Draft:List of sex symbols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
All prior XfDs for this page:


As the canned message used when restoring a draft that gets G13-ed says, Drafts [...] are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The last serious effort to make this page suitable for the encyclopedia was in July 2020 (all edits since then have been trivial tweaks), and the page sat unedited by a human from September 2021 until I tagged it for G13 deletion in March 2022. That deletion (which requires a steward because the page has more than 5,000 revisions) got bogged down in technicalities at m:SRM#Deletion of Draft:List of sex symbols. Thus, this page would have been speedy deleted weeks ago if it weren't too big to be deleted by an admin, and thus should be deleted lest we enshrine the concept that certain pages are too big to fail. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is more whether some of these revisions are needed for attribution purposes since this edit did copy stuff from the page. I see that the last deletion discussion had a "delete" outcome though so between G13 and that I think the expected outcome should be a deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note see logs 1 and logs 2 - appears following the last bigdelete an undelete was performed. — xaosflux Talk 12:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't needed for attribution because I already performed a recording of the authors of the merged content back on Meta, which I'm copying here for easy access:
Luigifan adds a section on Video Games in 2007
219.95.159.164 adds Lara Croft in 2007
Kevin j adds a mention of Betty Bloop in 2007
76.27.215.219 adds Jessica Rabbit in 2007
Enric Naval reorganizes the video games section in 2008. At this point all copyrightable content related to Lara Croft that survives in the current version of Sex symbol has been written.
PeaceNT expands the cartoons section in 2008.
Curb Chain rewrote the bit about Betty Bloop to its current form in 2011
Jessica Rabbit was removed during a cull in 2011 and then re-added with more detail by 201.87.47.172 (w:Special:Diff/456708756) and Beyond My Ken (w:Special:Diff/456791278) in October 2011.
Curb Chain rewrote the bit about Jessica Rabbit to its current form in 2012
* Pppery * it has begun... 13:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment apparently pinged all of the users I linked to, which was not my intent. At least only one of them is active. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My only issue previously expressed was about preserving the edit history to the extent required to account for this copy-paste merge in compliance with CC-BY, and Pppery appears to have addressed that above, so I'm good with nuking it. TJRC (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2022 (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/Draft:How to make globbles
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: delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:How to make globbles

Draft:How to make globbles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Nominated as a how-to guide with chances of having a strike of being original research. Xingqiu • Talk 03:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://shop.crayola.com/toys-and-activities/globbles-16-count-7472920000.html
  2. ^ https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Globble
  3. ^ https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Globble
  4. ^ https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Globble
  5. ^ https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Globble
  6. ^ https://banjokazooie.fandom.com/wiki/Globble
  7. ^ https://banjokazooiewiki.com/wiki/Globble
  8. ^ https://flobbles.com/globble-zoomit/
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.

March 28, 2022

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SMcCandlish/It (2nd 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: Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:SMcCandlish/It

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

[withdrawn] Dronebogus (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose any nomination that starts by attacking editors who voted in a certain way in a past discussion (=Keep essay.). What a great way to set the tone for what will undoubtedly be a civil discussion and not a waste of everyone's time. 15 (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: “Humorous” is actually a poor word for these sorts of things. What it really is is provocative reflective explorations on sensitive complicated topics. The merit is not in being funny, but in provoking thought. This provokes some thought, and is not simple abuse. It is well within user leeway. I agree that the nom is excessively aggressive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Are we really doing this again? @Dronebogus: Could you just withdraw this? This nomination isn't going to accomplish anything. For the record, I argued for deletion last MfD. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:15, 28 March 2022 (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:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour (2nd 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: Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

[withdrawn] Dronebogus (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t be opposed to preserving it if it was presented in a valid wiki-historical context, though I’m not sure what that would look like, besides saying “this is how unenlightened we were in 2019, do not do this” Dronebogus (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you after here? --WaltCip-(talk) 13:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note MfD1 at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2022 (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/Draft:2022–23 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team
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: redirect to 2022–23 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2022–23 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team

Draft:2022–23 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I believe this draft should be deleted because this topic was already made into an article with proper sources so this draft is unnecessary. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered “speedy redirect”, WP:SRE? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2022 (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/Draft:Chahat Pandey
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: speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1. No reason to delete has been given, just issues that can be settled either on the draft's talk page or in dispute resolution venues. An AfC reviewer has indicated that he intends to publish the article, and the protecting admin of the redirect appears open to unprotecting, so it seems silly that an MfD with no policy-based rationale should prevent that. Courtesy ping Robertsky for next steps at AfC. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Chahat Pandey

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

I believe this draft should be deleted because there are a lot of unnecessary edit wars and controversies happening around just this one draft. It's better to have it getting deleted and make an end to all the unnecessary chaos at once! Thank you! Commonedits (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that you withdraw your resubmission of the draft? 331dot (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Not really I'm tired of "constant & continuous wave of afc comments" in that draft, honestly!Commonedits (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then it makes no sense why you are requesting deletion of something you want accepted as an article. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot It does make "sense" as no editor in Wikipedia will want to undergo mental torcher like this in form of incessant afc comments hurled at them for a "draft" which may or may not get accepted! Thank you!Commonedits (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. You cannot have it both ways. You can want it to be accepted or you can want it deleted. Not both. You also have not cited any Wikipedia policy that supports deletion. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dotNo. You cannot have it both ways. You can want it to be accepted or you can want it deleted. Ok I want it to be accepted without getting mentally torchered by afc comments.
You also have not cited any Wikipedia policy that supports deletion. Honestly, I did not know how to do it. I came here only because you suggested me it in Draft:Chahat Pandey talk page.Commonedits (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very curious indeed. If you want the draft accepted, and have no policy which supports deleting the draft, I suggest that you say that you withdraw this nomination. You are going to have to deal with comments on the draft, and politely/civilly address those concerns if you want to see it accepted. No deleting it and coming back later. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dotVery curious indeed. If you want the draft accepted, and have no policy which supports deleting the draft, I suggest that you say that you withdraw this nomination. I am ok with this deal provided with one condition......
You are going to have to deal with comments on the draft, and politely/civilly address those concerns if you want to see it accepted. No deleting it and coming back later. I don't think I am the only "uncivil savage" here. There are many whom you also know that I need not name here! Anyhow, the way the I was "reimbursed" with comments yesterday was quite "uncivil". And it is too much if someone behaves "uncivilly" to others and then demand "civility" from the same people. So I too expect the "same" civility from them as they expect from me.
One more thing, I would just like to hear a word from AngusWOOF before withdrawing my nomination because he really helped a lot. Thank you so much AngusWOOF Sir!Commonedits (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to make deals, just suggesting the best course of action for you. I have never said you are an "uncivil savage". If others are uncivil towards you(which I haven't seen yet) there are proper channels to address that. Only you can control your behavior. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Ok fine (the suggestion) for me! Commonedits (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commonedits, pissing off the regular AFC reviewers such as 331dot and Robert McClenon and myself, who have provided detailed feedback on how the article needs to be improved to be ready, calling them COI or non-CIV, or resubmitting tendentiously to ignore the feedback and the create protection, is only serving to anger more AFC reviewers and prompting them to endorse create-protection. As it stands, the create-protection is there until June 2022, so I suggest you cool down WP:STICK, WP:COOL. Look at other articles biographies such as Divya Agarwal and see if you can craft a similar biography that walks through the person's major roles on shows. Note that she too had been AFD'ed in 2018, but has had significant roles in shows to meet WP:ENT as proven later and that such details were fleshed out in that bio so that it is clear she meets WP:ENT. No tellychakkars or times of india except for a particular popularity poll conducted by the paper. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF Firstly, I am sorry for pissing you. It wasn't intentional. I apologize for that! I'm sorry to 331dot too. Honestly, both of you have been "really helpful" and I swear I didn't intend to hurt/piss you!
No tellychakkars or times of india except for a particular popularity poll conducted by the paper. Yes sir, as you had already removed all tellychakkars and times of india, none of those have been re-added! Commonedits (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
erm. i am in process of getting the draft accepted though? 🤔 – robertsky (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Robertsky If you are joking then it is a really bad joke, honestly!Commonedits (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Commonedits am not. April 1 isn't here yet. In fact, I had made a request to JBW, the admin who protected the page in the mainspace, to lower the protection, and was typing in a comment on your talk page about it in response to 331dot's comment when I received a notification that the thread was gone. – robertsky (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky Oh thank god it wasn't a joke! Thank you so much for recognizing my efforts! Commonedits (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hindustan Times - this is about her particular situation about her rent, not significant coverage of her career.
The Tribune - Q&A interview, not independent of the subject
Mid-Day - briefly talks about her emotions in portraying her character on the show, not significant coverage of her career, but does establish that she plays that character.
Free Press Journal - announcing her next role on Nath Zevar Ya Zanjeer, not significant coverage of her career (just summarizes briefly her previous role), but establishes that she plays that character
I don't see any of those meeting WP:GNG, but they help towards WP:ENT. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Free Press Journal - same article as previous announcing her next role on Nath Zevar Ya Zanjeer
Bhaskar.com - role in Mishti, talks about her school background and schooling, also mentions mother's name, from 6 years ago. borderline significant coverage if only on her education background, need another editor to confirm.
So all these articles can be used to beef up the biography section. I suggest rewriting her roles chronologically.AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF So all these articles can be used to beef up the biography section. I suggest rewriting her roles chronologically. Yes Sir I agree with you and I will do the needful as you have asked for!Commonedits (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The create protection was applied on 11 March 2022 for "disruptive re-creation contrary to deletion discussion outcome" AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:AngusWOOF: Sir, I believe that was a too hasty decision taken by that admin without thinking of the impending consequences. The last article was deleted in 2019 and this is 2022, the admin who are responsible for taking good and wise decisions with respect to the "rules laid down in Wikipedia" should have thought twice that in the time span of 3 years between 2019 and 2022, the actress could have got enough roles to satisfy WP:ENT. Instead of that, they were just too haste and impulsive to salt the title!Commonedits (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:AngusWOOF: Sir, I would just like to add, I wanted it to be deleted mainly because I was fed-up with the "overflow of comments" in the draft article yesterday and it was unnecessarily leading to a lot of controversies which I did not want to take part in.Commonedits (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.Commonedits, requesting deletion of the entire article because of the long thread of AFC comments isn't a good reason. Presenting the three best sources / GNG sources and discussing ENT and whether it is ready to submit again can be held on the talk page. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF requesting deletion of the entire article because of the long thread of AFC comments isn't a good reason. Sir, I swear it was a"very big mental torcher" and it wasn't worth my time to undergo that!
Presenting the three best sources / GNG sources and discussing ENT and whether it is ready to submit again can be held on the talk page. Ok Thank you Sir!Commonedits (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't wish to give any opinion on whether the draft should be deleted, but editors taking part in this discussion may find it helpful to be aware of the following facts.
  • This was originally an article, deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chahat Pandey.
  • This MfD discussion is the latest in a series of attempts by Commonedits to have the draft deleted. Previously they have tried to have it speedily deleted as an article with one author who has requested deletion, despite the two facts that, firstly, numerous editors have contributed to the draft, and, secondly, the creator of the page had not made any such request. (And indeed couldn't, as they've been indef-blocked for over two and a half years.) Subsequent comments by Commonedits gave the impression that they had decided to take on ownership of the draft, and regarded themself as the de facto creator of the article, as all previous editing was insignificant in comparison to their own contributions. When they found that other editors didn't accept that ownership, and things weren't going to go their way, they decided to have "their" draft deleted rather than allow other editors to influence its form.
  • All of the "unnecessary edit wars and controversies" that Commonedits refers to above have been caused by Commonedits, including IP block-evading editing during a block imposed to try to stop their disruption. (There's no doubt about that: Commonedits has admitted to being the IP editor.) They could put a stop to those problems in a much easier way than trying persistently trying to get the draft deleted, by just walking away and forgetting about it.
  • Obviously anyone may read the editing history and decide whether they agree with that description or not, but that seems to me to be very much what has happened. Whether editors will think there are any policy-based reasons for deletion is,of course, a completely different question, but I don’t believe that Commonedits has provided one. JBW (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a disruptive nomination. I have been involved with the review of this draft, and I have read the editing history one more time now, and User:JBW has described it well. I concur that there is no policy-based reason to delete the draft.
    • User:Commonedits has alternately demanded that the draft be accepted, and attempted to have the draft deleted, but contrary to deletion policy. It appears that they are saying that if they can't get credit for its acceptance, no one should get it accepted in the future. That isn't characteristic of a collaborative project.
    • As stated by JBW, there was an article, and the article was deleted via AFD. The main reason for deletion was too soon. Draft space has various uses, but one of its best uses is as a holding area for draft BLPs of people who are not yet notable because they are too soon. Deleting a draft because it is not about to be accepted would be destructive.
    • I can't find a good faith explanation for requesting to delete a draft only because it isn't about to be accepted. Maybe someone else can tell me what the good-faith reason is. It certainly isn't a policy-based reason.
    • This draft contains content that was still being reviewed before this disruptive nomination. It might be accepted next week, or improved in four months and accepted.
    • This is a content forum, so we do not need to consider whether the nominator is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment:,well, several days ago I found you disruptively edit in some pages, attacking others and now you are disruptively nominating for MfD again, just because being refused a lot?
No, Never. If you really want to delete your draft, you could blank it and submit a CSD instead. Pavlov2 (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pavlov2 Others have edited it so the author CSD criteria would not apply. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Then just keep this draft and let's quick solution for this nomination. By the way, for his long-term behaviors, an ANI or ARB case might be more suitable. Pavlov2 (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His block evasion, attacking others in Draft, assuming bad faith in wp:teahouse and today distruptive nomination all made things more complex. Pavlov2 (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I said above that I didn't wish to give any opinion on whether the draft should be deleted, but following further thought, I have changed my mind. It is entirely possible that this draft may become a suitable article, and there's no good reason to throw away all the work that a number of editors have put into it just because one editor doesn't want it, which is effectively the only reason for deletion which had been put forward. JBW (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm not seeing a really good reason for deleting the draft. It boils down to WP:TNT, but that's not designed to hide history, but to deal with an article that's in such bad shape with BLP, NPOV and ATTACK issues it's not worth keeping anything. That's not true here. This is a draft and the past history is relevant to future reviewers to be aware that there ARE issues around this article and the review needs to be thorough so when it does get to main space, we're not dealing with further drama. Ravensfire (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT, and move conversations above to the draft's talk page. – robertsky (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2022 (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.

March 27, 2022

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-03-27/From the team
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: keep. Boldly closing per WP:SNOW. Wide consensus that WP:NPOV only applies to "encyclopaedic content", which The Signpost is not. (non-admin closure) ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 22:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-03-27/From the team

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-03-27/From the team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This page is flagrant breach of a core policy: WP:NPOV.

Its title is: We stand in solidarity with Ukraine ... WHAT?

Ever heard of WP:NPOV?

Given the demographics of en.wp editors, I think it is very likely that the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors do indeed support Ukraine. But NPOV is a core policy, and our job as neutral editors is to report accurately what the reliable secondary sources say, not to cheerlead for one side. Taking sides in an armed conflict undermines our core mission, and this partisan piece should be deleted unless it is promptly retracted.

And before anyone tries accusing me of being a Putin-apologist or similar, let me absolutely clear that I personally regard all invasions as criminals acts, including the current invasion of Ukraine. But as a Wikipedia editor, I set my personal views aside and work to uphold NPOV. I demand the same of other editors.

My objection here is simply that Wikipedia is not the place to to take stands for or against what we regard as great wrongs.

I am horrified that those who create the Signpost have so flagrantly trampled over one of our core policies. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and the Signpost team should stop abusing Wikipedia as their soapbox. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) But it's not an article, and WP:NPOV pretty clearly says All encyclopedic content (emphasis mine).. are you going to MfD User:TheresNoTime/Pointy? ~TNT (talk • she/her) 21:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I firmly believe that a retraction, signed by all the editors, would be better than an immediate summary deletion. Perhaps let the writers respond, first, instead of consigning this to the delete pile without their knowledge or their input? — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Javert2113: You can see Smallbones' response in this MfD below. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm sorry, did I just get knocked over the head or something? The Signpost doesn't create encyclopedic content, and it's not bound by our rules for creating said content. It should follow some standard journalistic practices, like fact-checking and marking its opinions as such, but newspapers aren't enjoined from having editorial boards. Anyone is free to disagree with The Signpost's viewpoint, but demanding a retraction for expressing an opinion is just ridiculous. As long as we're talking five pillars, what about the part in WP:5P1 that says Wikipedia is... not a newspaper? Which other policies are we going to start holding Signpost articles to? WP:GNG, maybe? Or WP:RS and WP:OR, even for all inside-baseball happenings? Do the crosswords need to adhere to the Manual of Style? This is clearly marked as the viewpoint of Signpost editors, and I dispute the idea that they are never allowed to express any opinion on any notable issue. Maybe I'm misreading this argument or something, but I see no good reason to force the editors to retract this piece. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As I read NPOV, it seems to apply only to "encyclopedic content". It does not apply to Signpost content. I can forgive Smallbones for jumping on the political bandwagon, however inappropriate this piece is. It used to be that if you didn't like something in a publication you would write a comment saying so, not demanding a retraction on threatening the publisher. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If "we" is the team, a defined group of editors, they can express their view in an editorial. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've put my opinion in the comment section there. All other Wikipedians (and IPs) can as well. All I rhink I need to say here is that this is an editorial, and we are not in article space, but project space. The rules are essentially those that govern talk page, Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - the "from the editors" segment is, realistically, a soapbox for what the editors of the Signpost want to say (usually speaking for the newspaper as a whole, but not necessarily). Whilst this is usually in relation to the Signpost itself/wiki-related matters, I see no reason to limit it as such and this nomination seems incredibly hostile. In addition, as per TheresNoTime, this is a project-space page - NPOV is in relation to articles. Finally, the project as a whole has taken far more drastic actions in the past - surely the SOPA blackout was tak[ing a] stand against what we regard as great wrongs? Remagoxer (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep/Oppose deletion frivolous non-controversy. The Signpost isn’t a wiki article, it’s a community project, and this isn’t a controversial or divisive issue (especially since Putin and his minions hate WP for promoting those pesky “facts”) Are we going to go around policing user pages that support Ukraine next? Dronebogus (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole nomination seems WP:POINTy and borders on a violation WP:CIR die to gross policy misinterpretation from an established user who should know better. I see zero support/delete and at least 7 keep votes in its short lifespan so I wouldn’t oppose a WP:SNOW close. Dronebogus (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh look at that speak of the icy devil. Dronebogus (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2022 (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/Draft:List of Outdoor games
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: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 03:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of Outdoor games

Draft:List of Outdoor games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

A category "Category:Outdoor games" already exists. The category method is better, as it will dynamically gain new entries, whereas this proposed "List of..." article will drift out of date because it is static and will need manual maintenance. Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2022 (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/Talk:Ego Pharmaceuticals
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: Wrong venue Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ego Pharmaceuticals (2nd nomination) (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 16:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ego Pharmaceuticals

Talk:Ego Pharmaceuticals (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Promotional article about non-notable company, by ovious company representative The content is a list of brands and thhe customary cute opening story about how they got started. The justification in the previous AfDin 2007 for reasons expanded on the article talk page as : <tq> The uniqueness of Ego in the pharmaceutical industry being Australian owned and Australian made for more than 5 decades (one of only about 5 companies) The single focus of Ego on being the specialist in dermatology only. The staff of Ego living the company values which are embedded throughout The reputation of Ego throughout pharmacy across Australia. Ask your pharmacist in Australia or New Zealand about Ego. .</tq> with the note<tq>NB The author has knowledge of details of Ego and vouches for the accuracy of this data.</tq> DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG, I think you meant to send the article to AfD. User:DGG SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
quiter ight. I've now nominated it there. Thanks DGG ( talk ) 13:57, 27 March 2022 (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.

March 26, 2022

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Briarcliff Manor, New York (2nd 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: delete. I believe this is rather well summed up by User:Robert McClenon's comments. Since there are no guidelines or policies that deal with portals, we must simply use common sense when determining what to do with individual portals. There seems to be rough consensus that this portal covers an overly narrow topic area, gets extremely low viewership (3 views per day are probably just search engine bots in most cases), is not frequently updated or maintained by anyone, and is entirely duplicative of an existing navigation template at Template:Briarcliff Manor, New York. I didn't find any compelling rationale in the keep votes to override the nearly 2-to-1 ratio of delete votes, as most of the keep votes focused on their perception that this is an example of a well-constructed portal. The only interesting argument on the Keep side is that the navigation template doesn't display on mobile browsers. However, considering the portal gets virtually zero views per day on any type of browser, it doesn't appear to be a viable solution to that problem. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Briarcliff Manor, New York

Portal:Briarcliff Manor, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
All prior XfDs for this page:

I'm not really understanding why this page was kept in the last nomination. It describes a village of fewer than 10,000 people; not really a broad topic by any metric. Sure, it has a good deal of history behind it, but what place doesn't? The small number of articles about this topic is suited perfectly fine by Template:Briarcliff Manor, New York, so I'm not really seeing the reason for this portal's continued existence. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I recognize that there are objections to the existence of portals in general, but if portals are allowed, then this is a model for good ones. Briarcliff Manor is among the best documented places on Wikipedia. This place is outside New York City and I with other NYC editors there have talked about this place and its wiki content as an example of excellent writing and a model for city coverage in Wikipedia. This is one of the best portals we have. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a policy based argument for keeping it. Good and Featured articles are being deleted/redirected all the time, despite their status. (Example 1, Example 2)
    (This is also not one of our best portals, seeing as it failed the now deprecated featured portal status). Why? I Ask (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Why? I Ask: Where is the record of this portal failing featured portal review?
The policy based argument for keeping this is that it meets Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines, which I think is the best available guide for defining what a portal should be; and that no one has shown that it meets any particular deletion criteria. The deletion nomination rationales are that small towns cannot have portals, and that if there is a template with overlapping coverage then the template stays and the portal gets deleted. If there is a connection between those arguments and a Wikipedia policy then show it. Bluerasberry (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines is not a Wikipedia policy, as it quite clearly says at the top. Otherwise, I would cite that it has too narrow a scope. There are no policies about deleting portals, at all (as far as I know), so your argument is a bit silly. You're asking for a policy you know doesn't exist. Where is your policy for keeping this page?
And you're right about it not failing Featured Portal status; it actually failed before it even got that far (even worse). Why? I Ask (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cite something documented while you are not linking to anything. Why do you feel that keep votes require a policy to keep but delete votes do not require a policy to delete? Bluerasberry (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither votes need a policy, but it's disengenuous to say that we should keep it based on a policy that doesn't exist. In lieu of there being no formal policies, we must use common sense. Portals are suppose to help the reader branch into articles. This portal that recieves less than five views a day and is incredibly narrow in scope is not helpful. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This meets available inclusion criteria and does not match any exclusion criteria that anyone has shown. What more are you expecting? Am I in error about this? I agree with some of what you say - this is narrowly focused on one city, and maintenance is as slow as this small town's development, but I do not see that as an issue. Portals can be small and stable. Bluerasberry (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User:Why? I Ask asks why this portal was kept three years ago. I will try to answer briefly. It is well-maintained, and is a good slide show. Also, some editors like portals. Some editors apparently think that portals have some mystical value. One of the reasons that I think that they must think that portals have mystical value is that they have, for more than three years, been unable to explain what the purposes of portals are. The previous MFD should, in my view, have been closed as No Consensus. The closer was wrong in saying that there was a consensus to Keep, but that isn't worth arguing about, and certainly not worth appealing to DRV.
    • In 2021, the portal had an average of 3 daily page views. The article had an average of 152 daily page views.
    • In 2020, the portal had an average of 3 daily page views. The article had an average of 166 daily page views.
    • In 2019, the portal had a median of 4 daily page views and an arithmetic mean of 9 daily page views. The skewness is explained by the deletion nomination. The maximum daily number of page views was 138, on 18 March 2019. The article had an average of 166 daily page views.
    • It is typical for a portal to have about 2% as many page views as the article. But some editors think that portals are good, which is probably because they are mystical.
    • There is no policy-based reason to keep this portal, and no policy-based reason to delete this portal, because there is no guideline on portals. During the 2019 portal wars, it was discovered by research that the long-used portal guidelines had never been properly adopted by consensus. So I proposed an RFC to enact the unratified portal guidelines as guidelines. There was a rough consensus against enacting the portal guidelines, so that they are a failed proposal, and there are no portal guidelines. Having reread the failed proposal, it is still not clear to me why it was defeated, except that it appears that portal advocates do not want guidelines or restrictions on portals.
    • It's a well-maintained slideshow.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right about there being no policies about Portals. What's funny is that the two "Keep" voters are asking me to cite "Policies", despite the fact they know that there aren't any. I'm not opposed to Portals in general, but this Portal in particular is not useful to the readers. The dismal page views are probably even inflated by bot traffic or editors checking on backrooms. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete:
    • There are no applicable policies or guidelines on portals, and so there are no policies or guidelines that support keeping this portal.
    • The applicable policy is therefore Use Common Sense. A portal that is only viewed 3 times daily is not serving a useful purpose.
    • During the "portal wars" of 2019, even little-viewed portals were commonly viewed at least 20 to 25 times daily. A view rate of 3 views daily includes portal maintenance and bot searches, and so does not indicate any practical use at all.
    • Articles which are almost never viewed are not deleted for that reason, but articles have encyclopedic content which is lost or hidden by deletion. Portals do not have encyclopedic content but are merely a device for viewing encyclopedic content, and so are not useful if they are almost never viewed.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - In the absence of a wikiproject especific about "Briarcliff Manor, New York", FAILS in WP:P "Providing bridges between reading and editing, and between the encyclopedia proper and the Wikipedia community, via links to pages in project space (and the other namespaces) that are relevant to the portal's subject."Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good example of an well-developed area of Wikipedia.. Portals are basically a dormant area of the encyclopedia, and if that area wakes up again it would be good to keep all old portals around, easily viewable – and for now it is still interesting as a good example of a "complete" area of Wikipedia. The portal might fall afoul of future guidelines in its relatively small breadth, but that can be dealt with when (if) it comes around. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because something is well layed out or complete does not mean it's useful. This portal is not used by readers and has a narrow scope about a small village in New York. If it only serves to show other editors how to only *potentially* make new portals (which I doubt will ever happen given the fact that over half of all portals have been deleted since 2019), then that is not a good enough reason to keep. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would respond properly, but I think my previous comment pretty much summed up my viewpoint (basically, I don't see the point in deleting non-articles all too often). The portal wars never really did make a lot of sense. I think that portals do have the potential to be useful, but maybe they should move away from being mini-Main Pages. This is an area where we need a good discussion on it that leads to something. And preferably that discussion should not be a flamewar. It's late here, I may not be being coherent. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 10:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not against portals, as I think some are useful (e.g., Current Events, United States, etc.). But a Portal that is among the least viewed about an incredibly small town is not helpful. This Portal should be merged with New York or just outright deleted. And I don't think basing your vote on a potential, future discussion is all that good. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2022 (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/Draft:Titan academy
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: Speedy deleted as G3 by User:Bbb23. (non-admin closure) —GMX(on the go!) 13:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Titan academy

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

Has bad grammar, no encyclopedic content, no capitalizations, and no references. Meltdown reverter (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2022 (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/User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Baltics
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: delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Baltics

User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Baltics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Ukraine and Belarus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No different from calling the 1939 German invasion of Poland a "liberation". Super Ψ Dro 10:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UBCR and WP:UPNOT. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion and you will see entries for userboxes. Super Ψ Dro 10:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you. In that case, I support deleting these as well as others from User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор. Political userboxes on their own are okay when used sparingly, but this these ones in particular are highly propagandistic and pretty explicitly express support for the conquest of sovereign nations. Other userboxes created by this user engage in historical revisionism and genocide denial/apologia. These cross the line into being completely unacceptable on the encycloepdia.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also consider deleting the following:
And perhaps more radically:
This might need a separate nomination page, but their entire Wikipedia page is their political views, a majority of which can simply be described as Russian irredentism. I'd be okay with blanket deleting every userbox they published as part of one bulk nomination as opposed to combing through them to see which ones are the worst offenders.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve nominated a lot of their userboxes. I didn’t blanket nom them because some are fairly inoffensive and I think the offensive ones can be determined case-by-case Dronebogus (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2022 (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/User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Famine (2nd 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: delete. What if we didn't have userboxes that supported genocidal dictatorships, that would be nice. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Famine

User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Famine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​
User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Repressions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Поль Крол Злой Диктатор/Userboxes/Repressions2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not sure why should we have genocide apologist userboxes on this project. We wouldn't allow it with the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide and we shouldn't allow it with the Holodomor and the Kazakh genocide. Super Ψ Dro 10:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also endorse the deletion of these three userboxes, on the basis of them being, in essence, Kremlin propaganda from an older age! "Kulak sabotage" (taken from the famine userbox) and "Real enemies of Soviet power" (from the first Repressions userbox) seem very much like phrases taken out of Pravda. This isn't even mentioning how most sources (including, ironically, our own articles about the Soviet famine of 1930–1933 and the Great Terror) contradict both points!

The first box alleges that the famine was not planned, yet our article mentions Stalin's orders to "liquidate" a certain class in the USSR. Meanwhile, the second and third ones talks of the Great Purge eliminating "real enemies to Soviet power", yet the first sentence of the article calls it "Soviet General Secretary Joseph Stalin's campaign to solidify his power over the party and nation". The implications are that the Great Purge is not about "Soviet power" or "public control", but merely the transfer of power from the few to the one.

I would therefore advise Wikipedia to delete these userboxes. We'll show them who the "real enemies of Soviet power" are! SleepTrain456 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anyone who puts these userboxes on their user page deserves to be immediately topic banned from anything relating to 20th century history. Wikipedia is not a place to "right great wrongs", especially if their idea of "righting wrongs" is denying and defending genocides.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:UBCR Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive and Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for: Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind (commercial, political, religious, or otherwise) – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2022 (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/Draft:Sex gifs
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: delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sex gifs

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

Not sure if this is vandalism (G3) so I bring this here. Kaseng55 (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete since we are here. This sort of is vandalism, but wasn't worth either tagging for G3 or bringing here. (I could say that the place for sex gifs is in Commons, but someone might miss the sarcastic humor.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2022 (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.

March 25, 2022

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Chris Chappelear (2nd 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: keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Chris Chappelear

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

There is a lack of sources to establish notability under politicians notability guidelines. Platoonwinterberry (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2022 (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.

March 24, 2022

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2022 West bengal Municipal election
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: Page deleted by Athaenara. (non-admin closure) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 12:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2022 West bengal Municipal election

Draft:2022 West bengal Municipal election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Covers the same subject already covered by 2022 West Bengal municipal elections. + No significant content exists to justify merger/redirection cross-namespace. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 20:41, 24 March 2022 (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/Draft:The Good Food Project
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: delete. User request, no opposition. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Good Food Project

Draft:The Good Food Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I am the major contributor to the article, I think this is a notable project, however since the article is not upto wikipedia standards, please delete it, thanks. Elmisnter! (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2022 (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.

March 23, 2022

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Crypticfirefly/John Lennon Songwriting Contest
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: soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Crypticfirefly/John Lennon Songwriting Contest

User:Crypticfirefly/John Lennon Songwriting Contest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Drafted in 2017 and not touched since. Sources in the article don't cut it and I could find no better Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:30, 23 March 2022 (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.

Old business


Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=1080427155"