Wikipedia:Miscellany for 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

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

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

• 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

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	0	0
TfD	0	0	8	0	8
MfD	0	0	0	0	1
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	15	0	15
AfD	0	0	1	0	1

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.

October 14, 2020

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Energy/Energy news

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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ysangkok (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC) Portal:Energy/Energy news Portal:Energy/Energy news (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) listing is old, and listing is no longer referenced from Portal:energy Ysangkok (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Keep. No requirement to delete as opposed to archive. No explanation as to why archiving is not good enough. No explanation of how the nominator is associated with the page or the portal of an associated WikiProject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC) @SmokeyJoe:. I don't think I am affiliated with this page or any WikiProject. I don't have any opinion about archiving, I didn't know that was what was done to unused pages. --Ysangkok (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC) The page has a huge edit history. It was clearly used. This means it should not be deleted, but it can happily be archived, including archiving by redirection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Comment. It would be worth asking if the project uses or needs Portal:Energy/Energy news/Archive. If these are red letter dates then they can always be suggested at Portal talk:Energy/Did you know for inclusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC) I let the project know about this discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Weak Keep - This looks like another case of an editor looking at old stuff and looking for things to propose for deletion. User:Ysangkok - Are you ragpicking? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC) 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:Contents/History and events/Topics

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: no consensus. bibliomaniac15 22:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia:Contents/History and events/Topics Wikipedia:Contents/History and events/Topics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Relatively orphaned, and all this does is include another page in its entirety. Any page that still needs this content can just use the other page directly. Beland (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Neutral - No obvious reason to keep or delete. Is the nominator ragpicking? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC) Neutral - Relatively updated, and it could use some work tho. Thy Pyrometer (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC) 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:Contents/TOC

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: no consensus. bibliomaniac15 22:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia:Contents/TOC Wikipedia:Contents/TOC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Seems to be relatively orphaned, rotting (there's a red link) and redundant to Template:Contents pages (footer box). Beland (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Neutral - I fail to see a reason to keep or to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Then why vote at all? Your vote is equivalent to saying "Neutral - Ducks quack." ‑Scottywong| [gossip] || 05:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC) 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.

October 13, 2020

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:New Welfare Party

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| [verbalize] || 06:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC) Draft:New Welfare Party Draft:New Welfare Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) made by blocked sock Shadow4dark (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Delete: Submitted five times with basically no improvement, creator has been indeffed for socking, but the creation predates their sock so it's not eligible for G5. Regardless, this almost certainly isn't ever making it to mainspace. There's no reason to retain it. Nathan2055talk - contribs 22:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Keep. Plausibly notable. Relates to mainspace articles Fatih Erbakan and Welfare Party. Tendentious resubmission is solved by the blocking of the tendentious resubmitter. The block of the author is a poor reason for deletion, unless the recommendation to delete comes from an SPI clerk. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Weak Delete - I respectfully disagree with User:SmokeyJoe that sockpuppetry is a poor reason for deletion. Sockpuppetry is a reason why a draft should be viewed with deep suspicion. If I see that a draft was created by a sockpuppeteer, I tag it with a comment to that effect, so that any future edits or resubmissions will be viewed warily by reviewers and brought to the attention of SPI clerks. Since we are here, we might as well go ahead and delete it. The organization is plausibly notable, but a good-faith editor can write a good-faith draft. It is true that the tendentious resubmission, which was six months ago, has been stopped by the block; but the sockpuppetry is a reason to delete while we are here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Robert McClenon, Sockpuppetry is a poor reason for third parties to nominate drafts for deletion at MfD. It is contrary to WP:DENY. Bringing these old things here amounts to shadow WP:SPI clerking, which should not be encouraged. Drafts deleted by blocked editors should be left for G13. The delay allows plenty of time for the block editor to seek unblocking. Gnome edits that delay G13 are not an issue, it doesn't matter if 6 months becomes 12 months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC) 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 talk:Wikipedia

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 per SNOW; no need to waste more time on this. (non-admin closure) — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC) User talk:Wikipedia User talk:Wikipedia (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) User:Wikipedia was Deleted Mohananad Bhatti (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Keep The nomination reason is untrue. The user still exists. See Special:Contributions/Wikipedia. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Keep Irrelevant deletion rationale. This user page contains content that is germane. We rarely if ever delete user talk pages because the discussion history needs to remain visible to the community. As a matter of fact, an unblock request for this user name came up on UTRS. I needed the history intact to sort it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Comment Not sure how this affects the discussion, but the nominator was just blocked for 2 weeks. Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Don't think it does much for their rationale. Probably, as there is no policy basis for the nom, it will be snow-balled or some such. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Keep - Relevant history. Userpage has been deleted, that is all. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Keep. Talk page of deleted pages only work for other namespace pages. This is a user talk page for a user, even when its userpage is deleted, so there is no reason for it to be deleted. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Weak Keep - This talk page should never have existed because the user should never have existed, but that is not a reason. It's a troll-eat-troll world out there. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC) 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:Lwile/Books/Islam

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. The nominator withdraws the nomination or [is not advancing] any argument for deletion or redirection. No prejudice against renomination in the future. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC) User:Lwile/Books/Islam User:Lwile/Books/Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Book consisting of one article by editor who hasn't edited in three years. The purpose of this book can be better served by the article. The book functionality doesn't work anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Comment - This isn't a book after all, but an entry in user space. Procedurally changing !vote to Neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Neutral - As noted. User hasn't edited in three years. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC) 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:Mender/Comprised Of

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: no consensus. No consensus to delete. Blanking is available. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC) User:Mender/Comprised Of User:Mender/Comprised Of (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) This was linked from a project page as a counterargument to GD's essay. Given that it makes no actual argument and the inflammatory edit summary at creation, I think this is safe to kill at this point. I realize user space has quite a bit of leeway, but come on. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Weak Delete as useless work of user who hasn't edited in five years. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Keep but Blank. A petty protest about Comprised of and User:Giraffedata/comprised of, which has upset a number of people, despite being right. The page is a Wikipedian's expression in userspace, and is well covered by reasonable leeway, and deleting would amount to censorship of project-related opinion. Given that the user is five years inactive, blank, but allow them to unblank on their return, if they have not changed their mind about the essay and related improvements to English expression in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Keep and blank with {{inactive userpage blanked}} per SmokeyJoe. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC) 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.

October 12, 2020

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Steam

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. bibliomaniac15 21:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia:Steam Wikipedia:Steam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) As an avid user of both WP:DISCORD and WP:IRC, I am all for providing ample alternatives to talk page communication, and to ensure smooth collaboration. But I think a Steam group goes a step too far. Discord and IRC are useful because they allow communication faster than talk pages, thus aiding collaboration. But Steam is not a collaboration software, it is a gaming platform. Wikipedia is not a game host. I also take issue with the fact that this page has been created by an editor with only ten edits to the English Wikipedia. Their native platform is the Ukrainian wiki, and the steam group itself is partially in Ukrainian...which is not very helpful to us English speakers. If the Ukrainian wiki would like to have a group, that is their prerogative. But I do not think the English Wiki should have one, especially if it isn't moderated by an English admin, like the Discord server is. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC) I don't think the point of the page was for communication or anything. I also don't think the comparison to Discord makes sense here either. One of the primary purposes of the Discord is offtopic banter. Plus discord is unofficial while IRC is. I think that if an unofficial Discord page is allowed, an unofficial Steam page should also be. You linked to WP:NOTSOCIAL to justify this, but indeed the Discord page is quite for social purposes. While Wikipedia is not to be used as a social networking, I see no reason not to have other platforms to do such on. I think the disclaimers that it is unofficial and such would be sufficient here. I will say that I was not aware of the low edit count of the person creating it, and that is certainly a point to be considered, but I would not want to delete the page on that alone. I ultimately do not see a reason to delete this as long as it is treated in a manner similar to Project:Discord Naleksuh (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Delete: We are not a a social networking service. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC) @Susmuffin: By that logic, Project:Discord should also be deleted. Wikipedia is not a social networking service, but what is the problem with having something else that is one? Naleksuh (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC) I would argue that Discord is not a social media service. Sure it has an offtopic section, but more so to have a place to send conversations that aren't wiki related so they don't suck up oxygen. The rest of the channels are dedicated to specific parts of Wikimedia. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Our Discord server is used to discuss Wikipedia and other relevant topics. Steam is only used for gaming. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC) I cannot imagine how does this nomination apply to fact that the main place of my work is Ukrainian Wikipedia. Do you have something against Ukraine and Ukrainians? Or are you dissatisfied only with Ukrainian Wikipedia itself? On the account of «partially in Ukrainian» — I fundamentally disagree. The main language of the group in Steam is English. And you can easily verify this for yourself. I think that this nomination for removal is completely far-fetched and wrong. After all, the page does not violate WP:NOTSOCIAL. But, if in the nominator's opinion the page still violates the rules of English Wikipedia, I ask him to also nominate similar WP:Discord and WP:IRC. Steam is a platform not only for games, but also for communication! And the argument that the group «is not moderated by the administrators of the English Wikipedia» is generally incredible! --Kisnaak (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC) The nomination makes zero mentions of the Ukraine at any point at all, so you really shouldn’t cast aspersions and try to make it about that. This is coming from a neutral edit who isn’t taking a stance on the matter either, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Weak keep or merge to a not-yet-existent directory of offwiki groups. Under the rule "project space is exclusively for coordination of activities directly linked to improving the encyclopedia", this page would definitely be deleted. I don't think that's the consensus position - or at least it's not enshrined in policy anywhere I've looked. We should clarify with an RfC. But in this case, I think the page is useful. One general question is "since some platforms on the Internet, like Steam, allow interest groups/social groups to be created, can interest groups by and for Wikipedians be advertised onwiki in project space?" I think so, yes (meeting Wikipedians in other mediums, offline or not, is good for the community), although to cut down on the spammy nature of such advertisement we could probably centralize at one directory. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Soft redirect in place of above "weak keep" but merge to a not-yet-existent directory of offwiki groups per everything else above. Yay, hyphenation! —Geekdiva (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Move to meta which is place for keeping stuff that aren't enwiki-specific, but possibly relevant to all of wikimedia. @Kisnaak: is there a reason you chose to create this page on enwiki rather than on meta or your own wiki? – SD0001 (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC) The page was on Meta, English, Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedias from the beginning. --Kisnaak (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Transwiki to Meta: per SD0001. This seems to be the best option. It would address most of the concerns above while giving it a more proper place to reside. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Move to meta per SD0001/Godsy. Delete per Barkeep, SmokeyJoe. It looks like a Meta page has already been created by Kisnaak so simply redirect to it (or delete, either one). -- ferret (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Since it's already on meta I am at delete because that's the right place for this. I think the right parallels here are to Facebook or Twitter which have enwiki/Wikimedia Foundation related groups/content/users but which we don't promote in quite the same way as IRC/Discord/Mattermost. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC) @Barkeep49: Personally, I would not oppose a soft redirect existing here. I agree this is different than IRC & Discord, but it is not quite Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram either. I am not too familiar with Steam, but it may have a function similar to discord built into it. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Delete. Does not contribute to the project, the connection is less than flimsy. It is not more relevant to meta. Do not even Userfy, because the author is not a contributor. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC) More or less agree here. I'm a long time Steam user, from the very beginning, but I cannot see how the community would use the platform in a meaningful way beyond "play games together". If a directory of "social media platform groups" is ever built, it could be listed there. -- ferret (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Delete. If kiddies want to play video games and network, there are many other communities out there specific to that purpose. If people with a similar interest want to improve Wikipedia, there is the IRC. --WaltCip-(talk) 12:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Delete for a combination of reasons. First, it isn't clear what value the originator wants to add with it. Second, it doesn't appear to belong in WP space. Third, the originator appears not to be using Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, but only for Steam, whatever it is. Any discussion about whether to allow on Meta can be at Meta. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Delete. I use Steam and can safely say that nobody uses it to discuss Wikipedia. It would make for an interesting Youtuber account though as outside of the box. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Delete. I think the WP:Steam is off topic, just like WaltCip said. Thy Pyrometer (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Delete - Wikipedia is not a game playing matchmaking service -- Whpq (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC) 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.

October 11, 2020

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:George Marbulcanti

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| [communicate] || 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Draft:George Marbulcanti Draft:George Marbulcanti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Non-notable person, will definitely not be passing any sort of notability guidelines at any point- is just one of many FANDOM staff members. Draft created by a disruptive user who has since been blocked for a week. Magitroopa (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC) Keep per WP:NMFD. I removed the bits that seemed unreasonable for a draft. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC) Delete - User has been globally locked. (A global lock is not the same as a ban or a global ban, but it is a block on all WMF wikis, and is more extreme than an indefinite block.) As long as we are here, there is no point in keeping this around for six months. Other users may disagree, but I generally support deleting stuff by banned or locked users, unless there is a specific reason to keep it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Delete When it comes to these types of deletion discussions, I'm ready to help but there's little to nothing I can see, that could be added to the article to even pass it as a stub. In my opinion it's just about some guy that does tech support services, has an American wife, (which I don't understand as to why that's relevant) a dog named Bogie and they live by the seaside. I'm crying out of laughter right now, I can't believe what I've just comes across. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 16:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Based on their edit history (such as this and this), it seems they are just some sort of super-fan of Wikia/FANDOM, wanting to praise one of their staff members (And as an FYI, this is the FANDOM profile for this 'George Marbulcanti' person). Magitroopa (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC) 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.

October 8, 2020

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dastor

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. bibliomaniac15 18:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC) Draft:Dastor Draft:Dastor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Draft:Dastor has been twice submitted as a draft consisting only of an infobox with no text. When it was first submitted, it was Rejected by User:Salimfadhley as not sufficiently notable. I was about to Reject it for the same reason, because it doesn't make a credible claim of significance. The submitter then Reverted the rejection: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Dastor&type=revision&diff=982509244&oldid=982507391&diffmode=source At this point deletion seems like the least disruptive way to deal with disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Delete - this page is obvious vanity spam by an abusive editor. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Delete: This user appears to be socking between two accounts (Necirvanyousif (talk · contribs) and Necirvan Kurdish (talk · contribs), SPI opened here) and based on the edit summary of Special:Permalink/982462012 is also a WP:UPE. This should probably just been WP:G11d, but since we're already here we may as well just do this. Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Delete per nom, resubmitted without improvement, and reversion of the AfC rejection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC) 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/Book:TecKhan Cryptocurrency Software

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) 05:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Book:TecKhan Cryptocurrency Software Book:TecKhan Cryptocurrency Software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) A collection of articles so large that PediaPress refuses to even render it somehow connected to some non-notable Cryptocurrency Software. If you want to read the book you would have to wait for many hours or possibly days to get it rendered through MediaWiki2LaTeX. --Trialpears (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Delete - We don't need cryptocurrency stuff by authors who haven't edited in five years, and the book functionality doesn't work, and whether cryptocurrency works is a question for analytic philosophers. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC) 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/Book:Princípios de Ciência da Computação

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) 05:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Book:Princípios de Ciência da Computação Book:Princípios de Ciência da Computação (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Seems to be a collection of article related to a specific course at some portugese university. A book in the book namespace shouldn't only be relevant for people taking a specific course and not be partly in Portugese. --Trialpears (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Delete as work of an editor who hasn't edited in four years and books don't work, but the articles appear to be in English. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC) 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/Book:IMT1002

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) 05:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Book:IMT1002 Book:IMT1002 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Seems to be article related to a specific course at Norwegian University of Science and Technology with IMT1002. A book in the book namespace shouldn't only be relevant for people taking a specific course. --Trialpears (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Delete - We don't need books by editors who haven't edited in four years when the book functionality doesn't work. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC) 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/Book:Misc CS Topics

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| [squeal] || 23:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Book:Misc CS Topics Book:Misc CS Topics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Miscellaneous is not a good selection criteria. Books in the book namespace should be structured and with some actual selection criteria. --Trialpears (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Neutral - This book, by an editor who has edited occasionally in recent weeks, is useless and harmless. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC) (weak) delete I presume book's are mostly useful if they provide some structure and organization beyond regular articles. This one does not. - Nabla (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC) 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/Book:Cryptography 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: delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Book:Cryptography 1 Book:Cryptography 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Seems like a study guide for the Cryptography 1 course at stanford university. Unlikely to be of interest to anyone not taking this specific course and we have several other books on cryptography such as Book:Cryptography. --Trialpears (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Delete - We don't need books by editors who haven't edited in three years. The fact that the book is for a particular course is not a problem in itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC) 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/Book:QM

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) 05:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Book:QM Book:QM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) With 817 articles this book about quantum mechanics is essentially impossible to use and so broad in scope that it's unlikely to be a good fit for anyone. To read this book you would have to either render it using mediawiki2latex which would take many hours, possibly days or buy it from PediaPress which said "Book rendering failed" when trying to just check the price tag. We also have many better books on the same topic at Category:Wikipedia books on quantum mechanics --Trialpears (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Keep and rename perhaps, but otherwise seems fine. Broad is one way to look at it, near all-encompassing (potentially) is another. If someone wants to spend however much time rendering, so be it. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Just for context, according to wikibooks:de:Benutzer:Dirk_Hünniger/wb2pdf, the currently largest book known to be created with mediawiki2latex is 8991 pages long and 306 articles or less than two fifths the article count in this book. With regards to time it took 6 hours and 15 minutes for a 100 article trial to complete which if you extrapolate (which probably is the best we can do here) would give this book a rendering time of over two whole days non-stop. This book has never been rendered or read and if you want a near all-encompassing list of quantum mechanics topic we have the better structured Category:Quantum mechanics. --Trialpears (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Delete - We don't need books by editors who haven't edited in five years when the book functionality doesn't work, about subjects that cannot be understood anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Delete Unreadlable books are unnecessary and confusing for the readers. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC) 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/Book:LIBERAL LEFTIST POLITICAL GEOGRAPHIES

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) 05:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Book:LIBERAL LEFTIST POLITICAL GEOGRAPHIES Book:LIBERAL LEFTIST POLITICAL GEOGRAPHIES (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Book about LIBERAL LEFTIST POLITICAL GEOGRAPHIES. Quite a messy collection of articles unlikely to be of any use for anyone but it's creator. It includes article about Green politics, social democracy and liberal democracy with a collection of random individuals related to each of these groups. --Trialpears (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Weak Delete - We don't need hodge-podge books by editors who edit sporadically, last in February 2020, when the book feature doesn't work. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC) 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/Book:A LITTLE ON LAW

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) 05:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Book:A LITTLE ON LAW Book:A LITTLE ON LAW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Book on law by an editor blocked for advertising. It includes the obviously law related articles Canada, Eastern Orthodox Church, London, Roman Empire and Oxford University Press. --Trialpears (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Delete - We don't need books by indefinitely blocked users when the book feature doesn't work. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC) 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/Book:The Encounter

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) 05:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Book:The Encounter Book:The Encounter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Seems to be a collection of things mentioned in The Singularity Series by William Hertling? Honestly I'm not sure, but this grouping is definitely not useful for anyone but it's creator who created this 7 years ago. --Trialpears (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Delete - We don't need books by editors who haven't edited in four years when the Book functionality doesn't work anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC) 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

September 19, 2020

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force forks

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 all. ‑Scottywong| [speak] || 06:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC) Translation task force forks (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ‑Scottywong| [confer] || 05:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC) I am proposing a that all forms associated with the translation task force are deleted; this involves around a thousand articles in this category ([1]). I will need some help tagging these articles. These articles: are not maintained, meaning content can be inaccurate and out of date appear to be part of our encyclopedia, when in fact they are unmaintained content forks are indexed by search engines are needless and redundant content forks (WP:REDUNDANTFORK) that are not temporary are all titled "Simple", which is also a fork of the simple English Wikipedia do not reflect our current consensus. For example Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/Simple Desmopressin and the recent drug pricing discussions. have content that is copied and pasted without attribution to original authors waste a lot of the valuable time of Wikignmoes relating to maintenance (particularly the gnoming editors updating templates, citation styles etc). are out of date, often by some years, which poses a risk to the communities and readers of the non English wikipedias where they are translated into. are also not in use - I have also gained email confirmation from User:Doc James that these articles are no longer in use and can be deleted from the perspective of the task force. This follows a trial nomination of five articles. Ping to participants there: Doc James, SmokeyJoe, WhatamIdoing, SandyGeorgia, Colin, Robert McClenon. All pages have been tagged. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC) Background These articles are associated with the translation task force (link here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force). These articles seem to be copied lead statements and most haven't been edited since creation eg here. This has come to my attention whilst doing a survey of medical templates, as many templates that had come to my attention are used on those articles. With regard to Medical translation task force It's clearly a very worthy goal and a great effort has gone in. However, the translation task force really seems to relate to WP MED foundation which is a meta organisation and should more appropriately be based there, in my opinion. I think that the articles that have been copied should be deleted. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC) No objection to what seems like agreed WikiProject maintenance. As an MfD procedural thought, I would have liked to see in the nomination: 1. Who is User:Tom (LT) to be asking to delete these pages? A. He is an active and engaged WikiProject member doing agreed clean up. 2. Where is a starting point thread link in the WikiProject to confirm WikiProject notification and possible discussion? A. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Translation task force forks 2a. At that WT:WikiProject link, there should be a link to this MfD nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC) User:Tom (LT), is this the actual nomination, or just a draft? If it's a draft, then I'd like to suggest that you need to pick either "waste a lot of the valuable time of Wikignmoes relating to maintenance" or "most haven't been edited since creation", because otherwise it's self-contradictory. I'm not convinced that anything in the Wikipedia: namespace has the appearance of being part of the encyclopedia. Also, content that never appeared at simplewiki can't be a fork of simplewiki. (Maybe this should be a transwiki proposal instead of a deletion request.) Hello unsigned commenter. To be clear, this is not a draft, but unfortunately I don't have appropriate technical skills to mark a thousand pages for deletion in an automated way. With regard to the encyclopedia, unless a person is aware of the Wikipedia namespace (which I do not believe readers will be), if you access any of the articles they appear to be from us. I do see what you're saying regarding those two statements but my meaning is that they haven't been materially edited since created. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) It's not an unsigned comment. It's one in which I had two separate points to make. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC) On the merits, the main question is whether the history of the project is worth retaining, in case anyone wants to know what happened. Imagine explaining some of the disputes to editors a few years from now: "See, he re-wrote the leads, so he could use them for this translation project, but you wouldn't be able to find out about that unless you were around and paying attention at the time, because we deleted everything, so just Trust Me that there was this translation thing going on as a primary motivation, okay?" Some of the stated goals (e.g., search engine indexing) can be solved with a response other than deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC) On that basis, there is merit in keeping (and tagging Archived/Historical) Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT(Simplified)L which records exactly what you said and has a history as pages were added to it. The simplified page == the wikipedia lead at the timestamp on the page, so it is merely duplicate info. I don't think there is any merit in keeping the each individual page, which have no history other than to document the wasted efforts of wiki gnomes and bots in fixing up citations and em dashes and other such on these unused pages: no actual editor made actual content edits that anyone might ever want to discuss. I don't think these individual pages add up to any help in finding out about why the leads were rewritten or motivations of editors, nor do I think keeping material in case some future arbcom. We have wikiproject discussion history and an existing arbcom with plenty commentary already. -- Colin°Talk 10:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC) If there actually wikignomes were frequently editing these pages, then I'd have more sympathy for that argument, but I have found zero such instances myself. It sounds like {{Historical|brief=yes|last=2016|comment=This page was part of a now-completed translation project. Please [[Special:Search|search for current articles]].}} would address most of the concerns. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC) Really? I find examples on the first links I click from Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT(Simplified)L. Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/Simple Cellulitis has one wiki gnome edit. Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/Simple Abscess has three wiki gnome edits. Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/Simple HF has three wiki gnome edits and one bot edit. Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/Simple Bronchiectasis has one wiki gnome edit and one bot edit. Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/Simple Diabetes has three wiki gnome edits. Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/Simple Crohn's has two wiki gnome edits. Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/Simple Diarrhea has two wiki gnome edits. Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/Simple Anemia has has four wiki gnome edits. Multiply by 1200 pages and that's a lot of wiki gnome effort wasted. I'm not really seeing any "purpose of Wikipedia" reasons for keeping 1200 pages that were never maintained (many are six years old) and are no longer going to be used (James has moved the translation project off of en-wp). Even James has no sentimental attachment to them, so I'm not sure why this is worth the effort being expended here in order to keep old cruft. -- Colin°Talk 07:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC) Btw, I can't see a link to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/SimpleAmoxicillin/clavulanic acid which was closed Delete and was the "test the waters" MfD. -- Colin°Talk 12:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC) Delete: per nom and 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC) XfD Voting Tool again Delete: per nom and trial discussion. No need to retain a thousand (unused) possible copyright violations, and the author does not oppose deletion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC) Delete them all, per nom, trial, and other concerns. I am sympathetic to WAID’s argument to mark them historical, but I think we should err on the side of integrity of information rather than preserving a record of what happened. We have no way of knowing if someone somewhere may still use or translate one of these pages, or preventing them from doing so, and the case that I know best is wrong. Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/Simple Dementia with Lewy bodies was created on October 3, 2016, the diagnostic criteria changed in July 2017, this was known to DJ in March 2018 when I began to rewrite the entire article, and yet the dated content remains. Experience and history lead me to believe that the situation at DLB is not unique. I should also mention that the 2016 version did not distinguish between dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and Lewy body dementia (LBD)—not the same thing—which led to other errors. Most of the simple version is cited to LBD, not DLB, sources. Nome of this was corrected even though it was pointed out over two years ago. The safest thing to do here, to assure these pages are never read or used, is to remove them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC) Tom (LT), I do not see this page listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Oh no! You're right. Fixed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Full mea culpa for MfD contributors: I created this page, linked to relevant subpages via an AWB request, and then posted at the relevant venue (WikiProject Medicine). However, embarrassingly, due to a fault that is solely my own, I forgot to check that I had listed it at MfD, something I've now rectified. I consider myself trout'd. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Tom (LT) a bot just deleted it. [2] I do not speak this language but I still do not see it on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Ok, not sure what to do about that now. I have posted for help on the MfD talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Help_with_a_listing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC) It is there now, per UnitedStatesian fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Delete all, consistent with the consensus established at the previous MfD. I agree that in this case integrity of information is a more significant concern than in-WP historical preservation. Note: I adjusted the timestamp of the original nom. to avoid the bot problems. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given that this MfD was not properly transcluded on the main MfD page, I think it is appropriate to allow it to run another 7 days. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| [confer] || 05:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC) 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.

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates