Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). |
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 |
---|
|
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[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 |
|
Duplications in draftspace? |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
Alternatives to MfD |
|
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]
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.
|
Administrator instructions[edit]
V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 12 | 37 | 49 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 8 | 20 | 28 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
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.
May 23, 2024[edit]
User:Kachu bhay[edit]
Partial copy of Chiranjeevi. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Another useless copy from mainspace, a redundant fork, and an unreferenced BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Nouha mam[edit]
Copy of Larbi Ben M'hidi. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Another useless copy from article space, and a redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
User:67743hh[edit]
copy of Coventry Airport Flounder fillet (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - A useless good-quality copy, and a redundant fork. It is an image of the article as it was in 2015; an image of the article as it was in 2015 is available in the page history, so that this is useless for that purpose. It is harmful otherwise as a copy of the article, because it hasn't been updated in nine years. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Waiel Hassan[edit]
Seems to be a hoax created with the use of a crudely copy-pasted mainspace article as a base. This name is not present on any mainspace list of Arsenal F. C. players, and the only relevant Google search result is this: https://www.pitchero.com/clubs/canterburycityfc/teams/148259/player/waiel-hassan-2442160 Flounder fillet (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - If this is correct, it is a low-quality unreferenced BLP. If it is incorrect, it is a hoax. Those are both reasons to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Manojsanthi[edit]
Test page that seems to be wholly or in part composed of text copied from an old version of Love. Flounder fillet (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - As per nominator, a stupid test copy. Another one-and-done coprolite. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Mbaldarey[edit]
Apparent unattributed machine translation of ca:José Luis Rey Vila Flounder fillet (talk) 09:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Unattributed, and unreferenced because the references were dropped. Not even a current machine translation, but of the 2016 version. Another one-and-done piece of junk. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Jthefortuneate[edit]
Copy of Billy Mays. Flounder fillet (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - A properly formatted copy of an existing article, but a redundant fork from 2017. Another one-and-done fragment. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
May 22, 2024[edit]
User:Seneja[edit]
Partial copy of Willy Paul Flounder fillet (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a malformed partial copy, which breaks the formatting and the references. The broken references make this an unsourced BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Shawn Grow[edit]
Hoax voice actor continually falsely added into The Queen's Corgi, Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure, StarDog and TurboCat, and other articles by vandal on 2600:1700::/32. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as an unreferenced BLP. Normally I would allow some time for the originator of a BLP in draft or user space to finish it, including to add the references, but only if it isn't be used for any other sort of misconduct, such as making vandal additions to articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/KurdîmHeval[edit]
This LTA page seems to be not necessary for this particular sockmaster. By all accounts, this LTA report seems to go against the WP:LTA instructions. "Names should only be added for the most egregious and well attested cases". This sockmaster seems to be a relatively small nuisance, there are many sockmasters that have a lot more socks and have caused a lot more disruption that do not have LTA pages. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 13:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that this is a small nuisance. If that is based on the small amount of examples found in this report, that should not really give the impression that the disruption was limited. I can easily bloat the report by countless diffs by the LTA. The LTA has been socking continuously for 3 years, has edit-warred, removed content, misused copyrighted content, added pieces of information either unsourced or with sources that do not support the change aimed at misleading other editors. Lately, the sockmaster has been using IPs to evade the block, which the SPI report or the LTA report does not cover, although I could have added those to this report. It is often possible to find socks or IPs used by the sock (evident from behavioral cues) lingering here and there as they circumvent detection. The track record is pretty long to fully elaborate. This is not at all a small nuisance. Aintabli (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Do the instructions for long-term abuse pages need to have advice for when these pages should be deleted? My opinion is that these pages, once created rightly or wrongly, should not be nominated for deletion without a reason, and that maybe nominating them for deletion should be restricted to SPI clerks. The reasoning behind nominating LTA pages for deletion may be Deny Recognition or Do Not Feed the Troll, but nominating the page for deletion gives the sockmaster (whether or not a troll) more recognition. These pages should only be created in egregious cases, and, once created, should be left alone unless there is a reason to expand them. Maybe we need instructions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - as there are 8 confirmed socks, and 8 suspected per Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of KurdîmHeval. I wouldn't call this a "relatively small nuisance", - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
May 21, 2024[edit]
Talk:Fairvote[edit]
Appears to be an accidental creation that should be at Talk:FairVote. –Sincerely, A Lime 14:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Closed Limelike Curves: It looks like you are right, but I don't think this requires a week-long deletion discussion. Why don't you just ask the person who made the comment if they meant to do so at the other page, and if the answer is yes just move it there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect (as is already done).
- If someone makes this mistake, so might someone else, and this is good enough to have a redirect. Redirects are cheap. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as is, accidental creation, sure, but its still a useful redirect. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep after Redirection - The tag {{R from miscapitalization}} has been applied to the redirect. This is one of the many uses for redirects. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
May 20, 2024[edit]
User:Georgiagayle[edit]
Copy of Buford, Wyoming. Flounder fillet (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as an inappropriate copy which is a redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Ronald mugula[edit]
WP:FAKEARTICLE, poorly referenced BLP. Flounder fillet (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Reasonable draft, no good reason to delete. The subject was a public figure. As it is old an abandoned, but not hopeless, one might WP:Move to a subpage (drafts should not sit on the main Userpage, even if the user is the subject, and blank. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Move to Draft or Delete -
As a user page, it would be U5.The only rescue is to move it to Draft:Ronald Mugula as a draft of a sports person. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)- It is a Userpage. It does not fit U5 because it is a plausible draft of an article. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- True. On rereading U5, I see (again) that it has two parts, and this is a combination that we very seldom see. U5 has to do with pages having little or nothing to do with Wikipedia by editors who have made no or few other edits. We very seldom see a page that is a plausible draft by a user who has made no other edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is a Userpage. It does not fit U5 because it is a plausible draft of an article. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Joe Neilson[edit]
An unreferenced WP:FAKEARTICLE about a possibly living person. Flounder fillet (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Weak keep, weak blank. I have added {{Userpage}}. It is a Wikipedia article style Userpage about the user himself. There is a url in there. It is not unsourced, and as it looks like a draft it is not eligible for WP:U5, but is very close. The intention appears to be self promotion for a political candidate, who did not win. Probably it should be Blanked, and pages like this should be blanked instead of being brought to MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Blank. Despite WP:FAKEARTICLE indeed suggesting deletion, there is a negligible probability that anyone will ever even view this content once blanked, or will want to restore it to be able to keep editing it or to copy it somewhere else on Wikipedia, and its nature is not such that applying a "high degree of sensitivity" would point to a need to make the content inaccessible from page history. So deletion is not realistically, meaningfully better than blanking, and if deletion is not better than blanking, blanking is better than deletion.—Alalch E. 02:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - This would be a marginally valid use of userspace by a user who was editing Wikipedia. The user is not editing Wikipedia, so that this is U5 and is web hosting. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Have you read “except for plausible drafts” at WP:U5. This page is a plausible draft, even if it is an autobiography. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. We very seldom see plausible draft autobiographies by users who do not otherwise edit Wikipedia.
- I still consider this a misuse of Wikipedia, although it is not one covered by any of the criteria for speedy deletion, so we are here at MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with that. Not meeting U5 doesn’t mean it is not misuse of Wikipedia, just that it is formatted like an article.
- I think pages like this, involving a public person autobiography, might be better blanked on sight than put through MfD, but I don’t oppose deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Have you read “except for plausible drafts” at WP:U5. This page is a plausible draft, even if it is an autobiography. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
May 17, 2024[edit]
User:Kadenphill394745/Sample page[edit]
Exactly Sample page but some words are altered with languages inappropriate for wikipedia, with no intent of changing it up after over 7 hours. Originally CSDed under G3 but has been contested by a different editor as too hasty. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 22:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. After giving it a little time, it seems unlikely that it will ever meet the userpage guidelines. (comment from CSD contestor) QwertyForest (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a test page of a different sort, a test to see if the reviewers notice the naughty words. Of course we did. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per others.—Alalch E. 12:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Sayyad Mohsin[edit]
Copy of Holkar Stadium. Flounder fillet (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, yet another stupid mainspace copy. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as a copy from mainspace and a redundant fork. The infobox is malformed, but it wouldn't be worth keeping anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
User:AutarchistPapers[edit]
Copy of Autarchism. Flounder fillet (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Alalch E. 10:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, yet another stupid mainspace copy. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as a redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Vaibhavrocks2580[edit]
Crude copy-paste of a list or several lists. WP:COPIES Flounder fillet (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - as Samoht27 says, ugly, malformed, useless. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Smallet20[edit]
Crude partial copy-paste of Stewart Downing with a BLP violation added at the beginning. WP:COPIES Flounder fillet (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom, but the whole thing is also a BLP violation because the references have been garbled, and a redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 12:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Calitoz[edit]
Crude copy-paste of Acid sulfate soil. WP:COPIES Flounder fillet (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, yet another stupid mainspace copy. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, and as an unformatted redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Tricia Andres[edit]
WP:FAKEARTICLE Flounder fillet (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, yet another stupid fake article. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete although this is not nearly as stupid as some fake articles. It is properly formatted and has references. But it is an autobiography in user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Paige Grimes[edit]
Seems to be a copy from a The Walking Dead wiki or something similar, which makes it at least as bad as WP:COPIES of Wikipedia mainspace articles. Flounder fillet (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete This has to be a copyvio, right? Babysharkboss2 was here!! I killed JFK 14:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - This is an "interesting" concept in that this fake article purports to be a biography of the user whose user page it is on. If it were true (if we were in this post-apocalyptic world), it would be an unsourced biography of a living person. But it is something else that still needs deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, if someone wants to host something like this, Wikipedia ain't the place. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, I agree with the above. Bduke (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:January 2018 United States federal government shutdown/Current consensus[edit]
- Talk:January 2018 United States federal government shutdown/Current consensus (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- Talk:Special Counsel investigation (2017–present)/Current consensus (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- Talk:Fire and Fury/Current consensus (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- Talk:Doug Jones (politician)/Current consensus (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- Talk:2018 Women's March/Current consensus (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:January 2018 United States federal government shutdown/Current consensus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Fire and Fury/Current consensus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Doug Jones (politician)/Current consensus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
- Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:2018 Women's March/Current consensus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Unused talk subpages. Contains copy pasted template code, but was never filled in with unique content. It's a numbered bulleted list but the bulleted list is blank. Intended for transcluding, but never filled in. Page creator has retired. I thought about G6ing these, should be completely uncontroversial. But better safe than sorry :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, none are useful now, and none appear to have been useful in the past. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wrong venue for 6th thru 9th items - They are templates, and are not userbox templates, and there is no special provision for them to be discussed at MFD. These trains are in the wrong station. They are templates, and be unloaded or reloaded at TFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Kun123z[edit]
Crude copy-paste of an old version of Hockey. WP:COPIES Flounder fillet (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Another stupid redundant fork without the original formatting. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Shrachik agrahari[edit]
Crude copy-paste of an old version of Topology. WP:COPIES Flounder fillet (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - There are at least two types of "copy-pastes", ones that are from the wiki markup, and so look like fake articles, and ones that are from the web browser display, and so have lost formatting. The latter are not exactly copies, and are stupid. Maybe we need an essay ridiculing them. This is one of them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
May 16, 2024[edit]
Draft:Voiceless alveolar median fricative[edit]
- Draft:Voiceless alveolar median fricative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Article for the voiceless alveolar median fricative exists 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There should be a speedy criteria for this. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you can identify the article, redirect the new draft to it. Otherwise keep. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I could not find the corresponding article. There is a speedy criterion for this, which is Speedy Redirect from draft space to article space. I am not ready to redirect this draft to voiceless alveolar fricative. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Template:Voiceless alveolar median fricative[edit]
- Draft:Template:Voiceless alveolar median fricative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Not a template, created by IP who is known to vandalize IPA and Cyrillic-related articles 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 14:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - No content. Would be A1 in article space, and equally useless in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ignore per WP:NDRAFT. Leave it for G13. It is counterproductive to push draft junk through MfD, defeating the purpose of draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demo0012 |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 14:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC) User:Demo0012[edit]A copy of Microsoft. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ROYAL RED ft. LADY TAPA |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 14:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC) User:ROYAL RED ft. LADY TAPA[edit]copy of Seini Draughn. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
|
May 15, 2024[edit]
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gretselle |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 14:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC) User:Gretselle[edit]An unattributed copy of an old version of Science and technology studies. Flounder fillet (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
|
May 14, 2024[edit]
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Geode (Geometry Dash) |
---|
The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 14:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Draft:Geode (Geometry Dash)[edit]Only sources are User Generated and Self Referencial, and it is unlikely a reliable source will be found. Tw294. User | Talk | Contribs 16:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Old business[edit]
Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 15:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC) ended today on 23 May 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. |
May 6, 2024[edit]
Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh[edit]
The BLP is already in the main NS at Amina Hassan. This draft lacks citations and contains WP:OR. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- History merge. User:Saqib mistates the history. The draft was already there first. Awesimf (talk · contribs) gets the new article credit, and should not have their contribution history deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's not about which page was created first, it's about which one aligns with WP:V. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Disagree. Failing WP:V is not a deletion reason, especially not now that you have found sources. You should have improved the draft, not create a content fork. Which page was created first is important. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I only found out about this draft yesterday. If I'd known earlier, I would've definitely worked on improving it. Further, there's WP:OR and WP:PROMO content in there which it's a clear violation of WP:BLP. Anyway, I don't have strong feelings about it. The closing admin can do whatever they want with it. I'm not concerned about getting credit for merely creating a BLP. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Disagree. Failing WP:V is not a deletion reason, especially not now that you have found sources. You should have improved the draft, not create a content fork. Which page was created first is important. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- History merge the first 5 revisions, from 17 March 2024. Delete the later revisions. There is then no overlapping history problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's not about which page was created first, it's about which one aligns with WP:V. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - This nomination is vexatious. Drafts are not deleted simply because an article exists. The usual way of dealing with a draft when there is also an article is to Speedy Redirect the draft to the article, not to delete the draft and its history. This appears to be an effort to deprive a previous contributor of credit and so obtain credit to which the nominator is not entitled. The good faith assumption has to be that the nominator is unaware of the usual practice when a draft and an article both exist, in which case the nominator should not be nominating drafts for deletion. In this case, as SmokeyJoe explains, a history merge is in order rather than a Speedy Redirect. The nominator should not be nominating drafts for deletion if they don't know about Speedy Redirection. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect draft to article. Thanks to Awesimf for writing the draft, and to Saqib for writing a referenced stub. Perhaps they and/or others could see which of the currently unreferenced additional bits in the draft could be referenced and added to the article? Beyond that, I see no particular reason to delete this draft and its history, nor do I see any particular reason to not assume good faith regarding anyone's motivations here. Martinp (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per Matrinp. There are WP:Parallel histories here so this can't be histmerged. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Redirect per Martinp and Pppery (parallel histories). Selectively histmerge as SmokeyJoe says. Delete the later revisions.—Alalch E. 23:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words[edit]
- Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
The advice is based on false premises: "Stress marks don't belong in any Belarusian, Russian, or Ukrainian word". Yes stress marks belong to Russian orthography and covered in Russian orthography books. It instructed to use them in dictionaties and in texts intended to teach Russian. They may be used selectively when stress is ambiguous (до́роги/доро́ги), for little known words, such as personal name (Конакри́, Фе́рми) etc. Therefore I say the page must be nuked as ignorant. - Altenmann >talk 00:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, there is the RfC where the thing had been talked through and out, nothing more to say.And thank you for reminding me of a Soviet cartoon of my childhood, The Bremen Town Musicians, where the stress goes ambiguous intentionally:
“ | Тем, кто дружен, не страшны тревоги,
Нам любые до́роги доро́ги! |
” |
- This is exactly what is mentioned in the essay as "very special cases".
- And, as I've already told you, if you think that the RfC was "malformed and an imprpoperly closed" you are always welcome to open your own one. — Mike Novikoff 01:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Resolve this on the talk page and update the project page to make it correct. MfD is not for resolving policy dispute, including this page, whatever the tag. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)- The is not a policy, it is an ignorant opinion of a single person. I would let it be, but some people mistook it for policy (just like you) and started making massive changes in Wikipedia, which IMO is inadmissible. - Altenmann >talk 07:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- It’s an essay on how to do things, in mainspace. That’s definitely on the small p end of policy.
- Project-related essays should not be deleted, but fixed. If only the author supports it, it can be userfied.
- Project space essays do carry weight and will influence editors. If the essay is wrong, it is important to fix, but mfd is not the forum for fixing essays. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I tried to fix it (by adding a warning), but the owner reverts my changes. - Altenmann >talk 15:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Take this problem to Wikipedia talk:Stress marks in East Slavic words. The two of you there seem to be at an impasse. Summarise the conflict, and then list it at WP:3O. Should that fail to resolve the problem, start a WP:RFC. Should that fail to solve the problem, except to demonstrate that it is at best a waste of time, then consider bringing it to MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, disagreed. There is no "conflict". The page is based on the provably false premise, see the top here; hence, MfD. - Altenmann >talk 05:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Take this problem to Wikipedia talk:Stress marks in East Slavic words. The two of you there seem to be at an impasse. Summarise the conflict, and then list it at WP:3O. Should that fail to resolve the problem, start a WP:RFC. Should that fail to solve the problem, except to demonstrate that it is at best a waste of time, then consider bringing it to MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I tried to fix it (by adding a warning), but the owner reverts my changes. - Altenmann >talk 15:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- The is not a policy, it is an ignorant opinion of a single person. I would let it be, but some people mistook it for policy (just like you) and started making massive changes in Wikipedia, which IMO is inadmissible. - Altenmann >talk 07:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- What about the 2021 MoS RfC—@Altenmann:? Is the essay mostly inconsistent or mostly consistent with the RfC?—Alalch E. 23:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- tl;dr, The conclusion of the closer "there is a discernible consensus to generally omit stress marks." But this is about general chaotic discussion, while the RFC !vote part shows overwhelming support of keeping stress marks where they are reasonable. This contradicts the discussed document, which demands exclusion of them altogether, and basing on false premises, too. The issue belongs to WP:MOS and as I see Cyrillic stress marks are not covered in WP:MOSPRON nor in MOS:DIACRITICS. Yes the essay is mostly inconsistent with RFC, which, by the way contained reasonable suggestions by user:SMcCandlish, but it appears it went nowhere. 16:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that the essay is consistent with the close of the RfC but you consider the close to have been a wrong close. Why don't you challenge the RfC close or start a new one ... you know that this RfC won't go away just because you think it was closed incorrectly, right? An MfD is no way to challenge an RfC. —Alalch E. 16:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I didnt say the close was wrong. It was basically correct. But The essay's "nutshell" is "Stress marks don't belong in any Belarusian, Russian, or Ukrainian word and should be removed on sight"" I fail to see how this drastic suggestion is the same as generally omit stress marks, not to say that <sigh> I have to repeat again and again to each comer here, the "don't belong " is a provably false statement- Altenmann >talk 18:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, then perhaps rewrite the essay to be more consistent with the RfC? Have you been having problems with that? —Alalch E. 18:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- No can do; its owner objects. Not to say that the RfC must result in the improvement of the guideline, but the discussion run out of steam. - Altenmann >talk 18:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- This good? Special:Permalink/1223236130? —Alalch E. 19:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- No can do; its owner objects. Not to say that the RfC must result in the improvement of the guideline, but the discussion run out of steam. - Altenmann >talk 18:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, then perhaps rewrite the essay to be more consistent with the RfC? Have you been having problems with that? —Alalch E. 18:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I didnt say the close was wrong. It was basically correct. But The essay's "nutshell" is "Stress marks don't belong in any Belarusian, Russian, or Ukrainian word and should be removed on sight"" I fail to see how this drastic suggestion is the same as generally omit stress marks, not to say that <sigh> I have to repeat again and again to each comer here, the "don't belong " is a provably false statement- Altenmann >talk 18:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that the essay is consistent with the close of the RfC but you consider the close to have been a wrong close. Why don't you challenge the RfC close or start a new one ... you know that this RfC won't go away just because you think it was closed incorrectly, right? An MfD is no way to challenge an RfC. —Alalch E. 16:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- tl;dr, The conclusion of the closer "there is a discernible consensus to generally omit stress marks." But this is about general chaotic discussion, while the RFC !vote part shows overwhelming support of keeping stress marks where they are reasonable. This contradicts the discussed document, which demands exclusion of them altogether, and basing on false premises, too. The issue belongs to WP:MOS and as I see Cyrillic stress marks are not covered in WP:MOSPRON nor in MOS:DIACRITICS. Yes the essay is mostly inconsistent with RFC, which, by the way contained reasonable suggestions by user:SMcCandlish, but it appears it went nowhere. 16:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
P.S. I was reverted with the edit summary of WP:OWN : "and realize that this essay was *never* meant to advocate and promote *any* usage of stress marks at all" - which reaffirms my strong opinion for deletion of an essay which is not an explanation of any wikipedia guideline, just an opinion of a single strong-hanged person. - Altenmann >talk 18:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Userfy, as a disputed single-author essay. Noted WP:OWNership issues are serious and will be solved by userfication. —SmokeyJoe (talk)
- Please note that the essay has been successfully edited by many users, passed a WP:RM with discussion, and had a consensus version from September 2023. Then suddenly Altenmann appeared with this in January. — Mike Novikoff 02:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: I think we're good now actually.—Alalch E. 11:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete this has no business in wikispace and given the author of it was banned for civility issues around this topic i don't really see the point of userfying it—blindlynx 01:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Who was banned? Where? Around what? — Mike Novikoff 02:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Shit sorry i thought Taurus Littrow wrote most of this, i didn't realize i wasn't looking at the earliest history—blindlynx 01:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Who was banned? Where? Around what? — Mike Novikoff 02:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The essay, in its current version, as seen in Special:PermanentLink/1223433915 is consistent with the 2021 RfC and can't be described as a "disputed single-author essay". The problem is located in the previous wording: "Stress marks don't belong ... and should be removed on sight". And while that language was not fully consistent with the RfC result, it was not very far from it either. But now the wording has been tweaked to truly match the RfC, and that is how it should be. If someone wants more flexibility than the RfC allows, start a new RfC. If someone wants more rigidity, start a new RfC. In my opinion the existing RfC is satisfactory, and this essay is okay.—Alalch E. 10:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Legitimate explainer of extant consensus and past discussions akin to WP:RSP. Nardog (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)