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: and the various Talk: namespaces, and the MOS namespace (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect)
• Userboxes (regardless of 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	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	9	6	15
TfD	0	0	1	7	8
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	30	18	48
AfD	0	0	0	11	11

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

Archived discussions

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

Current discussions

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

April 1, 2021

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: keep. for archival purposes (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Darn it. Someone already did my joke. One Blue Hat❯❯❯ (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Comment: I tagged the page with G7'd for you. Aasim (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Keep since other people have voted and for archival purposes. I've also removed the G7 tag. — csc-1 20:02, 1 April 2021 (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:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. In the interest of not prolonging past April Fool's, I am construing the creator's comment below as a request to delete, with the acknowledgement that this was a good faith attempt at good fun. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ This nomination is not a joke, by the way. Per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:April Fools' Day 2021/Requests for adminship/COVID-19, COVID jokes are in poor taste. If that one wouldn't fly, then this one shouldn't either. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Delete per nom. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Keep - With only 6 hours to go this is going to be closed and archived anyways long before this MfD closes. I would only nominate things that would qualify for a speedy deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Quick Keep or Speedy Delete We only have a little over 5 hours left in April Fools Day, and I'd rather not keep this thing open for a week. Either speedy delete the nomination at issue or allow it to be safely archived; either is preferable to dragging out April Fools Day stuff for a week. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC) I don't think this qualifies for WP:G6 as its not a non controversial technical request. There would need to be some kind of consensus put into place on a blanket ban. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Comment @Knowledgekid87: - Last year, all COVID-19 related joke noms were deleted per WP:G6 so new versions should be deleted as well. Some examples are listed on an old version of the April 1, 2020 log under the section "Coronavirus attempts". Here are some examples included: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coronavirus disease 2019. I had a notice put on my talk page last year due to reopening a COVID-19 related joke nom. -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 19:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Delete - I added the into under WP:FOOLR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Comment If I had known that they weren't allowed I wouldn't have done it. It can be deleted if that's what you guys think. A Wild Wolf has appeared! | Gotta catch 'em all! (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC) @Blaze The Wolf: No worries your joke was done in good faith, I didn't know this either which is why I added it to WP:FOOLR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2021 (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/Draft:FTRAINNOI

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted by Jeepday as a test page (CSD G2). (non-admin closure) SK2242 (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:FTRAINNOI Draft:FTRAINNOI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Just nonsense Kaseng55 (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Speedy Delete (G1). — csc-1 00:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Delete - G1 is marginal, but no value. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Delete - If this were an article, it would an A3. Utterly useless as a draft. -- Whpq (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2021 (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/Draft:List of Planet Express employees

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 03:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:List of Planet Express employees Draft:List of Planet Express employees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ As creator of this draft, I think this can be safely deleted as the page's purposes are now covered in List of Futurama characters WuTang94 (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC) @WuTang94: since you're the only author, you can just request G7 speedy deletion as opposed to sending it to MfD. — csc-1 02:47, 1 April 2021 (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:April Fools' Day 2021/Requests for adminship/COVID-19

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: Speedy deleted (G7) by DragonflySixtyseven (non-admin closure) — csc-1 01:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:April Fools' Day 2021/Requests for adminship/COVID-19 Wikipedia:April Fools' Day 2021/Requests for adminship/COVID-19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Serious deletion nomination. COVID-19 jokes are tasteless and unfunny. They were unofficially banned last year, and I think we should do the same this year. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Delete per nom. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Delete Oh, I didn't realize about the ban. Noah 💬 00:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC) It wasn't a ban so much as common sense. Delete per nom, this crossed a line. Even if this was an ok joke, no one would be able to comment on it as they would have all had serious conflicts of interest with the "user" in question (this was a joke, but the first sentence I stand by). D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Delete: Per nom ThatIPEditor Talk · Contribs 00:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Delete: Honestly, I'd be inclined to avoid April Fool's RfAs this year entirely, considering recent events. Vaticidalprophet 00:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Nominator comment: Could we please get this closed and resolved in the next few hours/minutes? Thanks —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:07, 1 April 2021 (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.

April Fool's Day Nominations

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Special:Block (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: No more blocks. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Special:Block Special:Block (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ This page causes drama, thus ought to be deleted. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 17:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Redirect To Special:MakeSysop per WP:ATD. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2021 (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:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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: So meta. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Terrible joke. No one is as funny as me. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Speedy Delete and WP:SALT as repeatedly recreated. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2021 (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:Miscellany for deletion

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: Nuked. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Wikipedia:Files for discussion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Wikipedia:Templates for discussion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​ Admins can just delete pages anyway and it is up to admin discretion to delete a page immediately. I'd say replace this all with {{speedy}}. Aasim (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Redirect to Special:Nuke, saves time. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2021 (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/Special:AllPages

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: mutually assured destruction invoked, Wikipedia not nuked (non-admin closure) — csc-1 00:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Special:AllPages Special:AllPages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Let's nuke Wikipedia before the vandals do. Aasim (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Nuke 'em all! ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 15:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC) There's no kill like overkill -- 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2021 (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:Administrators

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: Joke's over (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 11:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Administrators Wikipedia:Administrators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ They are spineless courtiers, uninterested in doing good yet dangerous when they seek to do harm, they go back to lay their power at their master's feet and help him to resume arbitrary power on condition they become his chief servants. Nomination on behalf of User:Maximilien Robespierre, who cannot type (for a medical reason) since 1794. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Merge with WP:Rouge admin —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Rouge per pythoncoder Gimubrc (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Delete - solely because I'm not one and I'm jealous. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2021 (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:Unusual articles

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: Joke's over (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 11:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Unusual articles Wikipedia:Unusual articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Per WP:TLDR. Every article is unusual in some way. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC) You fooled me. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Keep - makes sense if you don't think about it. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Delete. Stolen by Half as Interesting. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:01, 1 April 2021 (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:Users for Deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: delete user per WP:BOOMERANG. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Users for Deletion Wikipedia:Users for Deletion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Delete it before someone tries to delete me Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Keep and delete the user. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 05:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Users for Deletion/TenPoundHammer —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Move to Wikipedia:Users for Wheelation 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2021 (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:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Xaosflux/Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan (2nd nom)

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: Joke's over (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 11:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Xaosflux/Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Xaosflux/Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Some men don't nominate pages for deletion based on anything logical, like policies and guidelines... they can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn. jp×g 04:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Restore. I already did this joke. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Double comment. Per results of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/WP:MFD/WP:MFD/WP:MFD/WP:MFD/WP:MFD/User:Xaosflux/Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan. I am the greatest at this game. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Keep per ........ One day I'll nominate Wikipe-tan again... — xaosflux Talk 18:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC) I approve, she would make an excellent admin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2021 (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:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rules for Fools (3rd nomination) (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: April 1st is over. (non-admin closure) — csc-1 00:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rules for Fools (3rd nomination) (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rules for Fools (3rd nomination) (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Mandatory continuation of said lame joke. — csc-1 02:55, 1 April 2021 (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:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rules for Fools (3rd nomination) (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: April 1st is over. (non-admin closure) — csc-1 00:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rules for Fools (3rd nomination) (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rules for Fools (3rd nomination) (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Lame joke. jp×g 02:51, 1 April 2021 (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:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rules for Fools (3rd nomination) (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: April 1st is over. (non-admin closure) — csc-1 00:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rules for Fools (3rd nomination) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rules for Fools (3rd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Unfunny recursive nomination; meta-humor is lame. jp×g 02:50, 1 April 2021 (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:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rules for Fools (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: April 1st is over. (non-admin closure) — csc-1 00:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rules for Fools (3rd nomination) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rules for Fools (3rd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Delete per serious spirit of WP:APRIL violation. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:44, 1 April 2021 (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:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rules for Fools (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: April 1st is over. (non-admin closure) — csc-1 00:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rules for Fools (3rd nomination) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rules for Fools (3rd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Delete per serious WP:APRIL violation. Deleting this stops people from making joke MFD nominations Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC) I can't even tell if this is serious or not. OwO (what's this?) 02:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Me neither. ThatIPEditor Talk · Contribs 02:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC) I'm legitimately unsure whether this is a serious nomination or not...Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Damn. I forgot about April 1st. I usually just stay off the project but not this year. Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Probably a wise move if you want to maintain your sanity. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC) DELETE! Pointless essay, ruins all our fun! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC) What can I say, except delete this? 'cause a true fool heeds no rules. Gimubrc (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2021 (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:Manual of Style (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: April 1st is over (non-admin closure) — csc-1 00:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Manual of Style Wikipedia:Manual of Style (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Because who cares about silly 'style'! (even if we're writing an encyclopedia) Noah 💬 00:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Strong delete so that I can make WP:MOS point to a short novel that I will write titled Moon Over Saugerties. BD2412 T 00:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Note: I may change my mind about this in another 24 hours. BD2412 T 00:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Delete to finally end the edit wars. Vaticidalprophet 00:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Strong delete per WP:IAR. No need for rules. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Strong delete I can write however I want. --BlueCrabRedCrab 00:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC) CSD instead We literally haven't even credited WMF... it's a 20 year copyvio... Sennecaster (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. JJPMaster 01:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC) aaaaaaaah Panini📚 03:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC) dEleET, proper style/grammer iz overr8ted. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Counterproposal. Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Narky Blert (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Redirect to Moss. クロッド (読んで) 09:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Delete - This is totally annoying. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC) NO Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Strong clean-up it's not MOS compliant. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2021 (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:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: Joke's over (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 11:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Frankly, I can't think of a good reason to have the thing. Vaticidalprophet 00:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Keep. Where else am I going to get my Wikipedia drama? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Delete in order to crash the servers by deleting a page with so many revisions. — csc-1 00:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) nope * Pppery * it has begun... 00:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC) In that case, histmerge and selective undelete so random articles can be enhanced by having random revisions of ANI in their history. — csc-1 01:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC) I'd quite like some bits-o-ANI in my user talk page. Vaticidalprophet 01:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Move to WP:Drama board. Much better/more accurate name. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Keep: Keeping Up With The Kardashians is ending soon, and I need my source of drama. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Merge with Wikipedia:Drama. JJPMaster 01:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC) JJPMaster 01:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Panini📚 03:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Delete. Disruptive incidents are clearly a bad thing. Without this noticeboard, they won't exist, which would clearly be better. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Delete/Merge it's a hostile environment. Discussions can lead to bans and blocks without the issue being resolved. The behaviour there is no better than what's being reported in many cases. Unfortunately it's unlikely to be deleted as this discussion has been put in the April Fools section. Although it does mean that the reasons to keep are all nonsense. I agree with the histmerge suggestion; revisions can be merged to unwatched pages. Peter James (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Delete. Admins are lame... we need to block all of them so that users can run wild and free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Comment deletion would may be good for Wikipedians, but think of all the server kittens that will have to die for this to happen. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2021 (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:Discord

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: Deleted, oversighted, salted, title blacklisted, spam blacklisted, added to bad image list, creation blocked by edit filter. (non-admin closure) — csc-1 00:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Discord Wikipedia:Discord (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ The Discord Cabal is having too much fun. Get almost instant help from tenured editors, admin or not? Live-streaming Huggle sessions and voice chat? Too many Hololive references peko? As we all know, Wikipedia is a strictly no fun place, so we must all hop back onto user talk pages and wait hours to hopefully get pinged. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Keep we have epic lulz there --BlueCrabRedCrab 00:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC) @Everyone: InvalidOStalk 00:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Delete per policy regarding having to be serious at all times, even when sleeping. ThatIPEditor Talk · Contribs 00:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Keep Where will Epicgenius share his moyais now? What about our favorite confused icon?  Eeeehhhhhhh Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)  Eeeehhhhhhh Keep i'll lose my only source of Oshwah's beautiful voice umu クロッド (読んで) 02:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Keep per Chlod Skingo12 (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Put it through FAR because some of its sources look pretty low quality. Panini📚 03:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Keep because otherwise Fluttershy would be sad. MorphinBrony (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Keep FOR FLUTTERSHY! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC) WP:TINC. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Oversight per discussion on IRC. — csc-1 19:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Keep, Discord is great wdym? Link20XX (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2021 (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:Rules for Fools (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: delete per WP:IAR. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Rules for Fools Wikipedia:Rules for Fools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Fools don't follow rules —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 00:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Speedy Keep Fool! Noah 💬 00:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Delete - what rules? WP:IAR is my only rule. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC) I pity the fool who follows these rules. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Delete per WP:IAR per Wimbo Jales. Panini📚 03:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Delete There are no rules today! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2021 (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/Special:UserLogin

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 accounts. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Special:UserLogin Special:UserLogin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD) We don't need users to log in. Per WP:HUMAN. -322UbnBr2 (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 18:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Strongest Possible Support Accounts? We ain't got no accounts! We don't need no stinking accounts! IP editing rules, no accounts allowed, and its for everyone's best see WP:WNCAA. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Support as a logged-in user. JJPMaster 23:34, 1 April 2021 (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.

March 31, 2021

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Austhistory99/Indigenous Australian Inter-tribal Wars and Violence

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 23:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC) User:Austhistory99/Indigenous Australian Inter-tribal Wars and Violence User:Austhistory99/Indigenous Australian Inter-tribal Wars and Violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ page is a draft by now blocked user. Based on original research and novel interpretations that are completely out of step with mainstream scholarship on the subject, this draft was clearly created as an attack on Aboriginal Australians - It's essentially racist in its tone, aims to present Aboriginal Australians in worst possible light, to make them look like savages by massively exaggerating the severity and extent of what we know about inter-tribal violence. The creator of this draft is now indef-blocked for blatant COI and advocacy issues which amounted to a racist attack on an Aboriginal author. This kind of racist attack page doesn't belong anywhere on wikipedia Bacondrum 20:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Note: the draft's creator has provided a lengthy riposte at User talk:Austhistory99#MfD nomination of User:Austhistory99/Indigenous Australian Inter-tribal Wars and Violence, with further comments by the nominator. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Comment - See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Indigenous Australian Inter-tribal Wars and Violence. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Delete: User space material by indefinitely blocked users should be viewed with suspicion. This essay was already downgraded from project space to user space in a previous MFD, and now the author is blocked. I wrote to Keep this the first time because war is an ancient tragic activity of H. sapiens, so that this is not an attack on any ethnic group. But we don't need essays by H. sapiens who are not allowed to edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC) I don't think an article with that many citations from anthropologists and historians can be categorized as an "essay". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Depends on how the content is framed, one can write an essay or an attack piece and attach many great sources without reflecting them accurately, absent of the broader mainstream and contemporary view. Especially when dealing with Aboriginal Australians, historians and anthropologists need to be considered very carefully. This is a country with a profound history of racism. Regardless, this draft article is a load of racist nonsense, we have no comparable article on Wikipedia, Aboriginal people should not be singlesd out in such a manner, presenting only the most negative claims available, mainstream contemporary scholarship does not treat this subject in such a manner and it is fair to say that doing so is bald faced racism. Bacondrum 03:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Keep. Sufficiently scholarly to overcome perceived racial offensiveness. Anyone may attempt to pick this up and work with it, for the improvement of mainspace. It’s deletion would smack more of censorship. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC) I immediately looked for a link to Quadrant, it is in the magazine's online "opinion" section, by some fella citing the editor, Keith Windschuttle, entitled "A blacked-out past — Part III". ~ cygnis insignis 16:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Keep per SmokeyJoe. Vaticidalprophet 01:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Keep Unsuitable for mainspace at the moment, but has the potential to be useful after editing. Zoozaz1 talk 22:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Keep: Reasonably-sourced start to an article, though I'd remove the and Violence from the title to remove the "savages" connotations if moved to mainspace. We have countless articles on European wars, so I don't see the need to delete this singular draft. Somnifuguist (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Keep per those above. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:51, 14 April 2021 (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:A conlanger/ubx/vp-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: keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC) User:A conlanger/ubx/vp-1 User:A conlanger/ubx/vp-1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Appears to be a hoax. There is no article Viossa, and a transcluded template warns: error: langer/u not found in ISO 639-1, -2, -2B, -3, -5. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC) It's for a small conlang I and others created that doesn't have a ISO code. A conlanger (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC) I have stopped using the Bable template if that helps. A conlanger (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Keep — In userspace and an explanation has been provided. — csc-1 18:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Keep Harmless userbox (I would suggest to the creator that they specify what Viossa is for editors who may nominate it for deletion in the future) Zoozaz1 talk 22:19, 6 April 2021 (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/Draft:Laerta

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) 02:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Laerta Draft:Laerta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Promotional draft article on non-notable child model created by blocked user AnxFab. LJF2019 talk 10:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Delete created by user blocked for UPE and sockpuppetry. –Cupper52Discuss! 17:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as promotional, and created by a blocked user. — csc-1 18:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as product of blocked user. Laerta in article space is also nominated for deletion. The puppeteer was trying to game the system by creating in both draft space and article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Comment Let's switch to delete both per Robert. –Cupper52Discuss! 08:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Comment - User:Cupper52 - The AFD is a separate discussion and is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laerta. (It might occasionally be convenient to bundle an AFD with an MFD, but there are reasons to keep them separate, such as that AFD has its own lists. So they are separate.) Robert McClenon (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2021 (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/Draft:Sa Nubu

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) 02:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Sa Nubu Draft:Sa Nubu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Draft and articles, not for promoting yourself Kaseng55 (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Delete — clearly promotional. — csc-1 03:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Delete or Userfy - Within bounds for user page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2021 (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/Draft:Iblisism

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) 02:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Iblisism Draft:Iblisism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ May fail WP:NOTESSAY Kaseng55 (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Delete — Essay-like, clearly not an encyclopedic article, potential WP:NFT violation/hoax. — csc-1 03:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Weak Delete - This could have been the start of a draft on a religion. But it wasn't. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2021 (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:UBX/User drinks Coca-Cola

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC) User:UBX/User drinks Coca-Cola User:UBX/User drinks Coca-Cola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Delete as a violation of WP:PROMOTION. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Keep many people drink Coke and this isn’t even overly promo. SK2242 (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Comment from nominator - This would be less objectionable if it did not include the Coca-Cola logo. And, yes, I understand the "Don't be a spoilsport, let people who drink Coke express themselves" feeling, but that's really not the issue here. If we allow this, then what is to stop another, less-known beverage company from looking at this and seeing in our allowing it the potential for a perfect little viral campaign to promote their product? If we allow Coke drinkers to do it, why can't Slurm drinkers do it as well? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Keep I don't really buy the argument presented above. On the extremely unlikely chance that a company finds this discussion/visits a Wikipedia user page and either creates a massive amount of sockpuppets for the sole purpose of putting a userbox on their userpage or convincing a large contingent of Wikipedia editors to love their drink so much they put a userbox saying as much on userpages we can deal with it on a case by case basis. A personal statement of "I like x" is fine. Zoozaz1 talk 22:24, 6 April 2021 (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.

March 30, 2021

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Abdelhalim Adel Abdelrahman

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) 02:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Abdelhalim Adel Abdelrahman Draft:Abdelhalim Adel Abdelrahman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Appears to be an ad or promotion. Might be a misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. Kaseng55 (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as a blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violation, appears to be some sort of resume. — csc-1 03:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - We have a policy Wikipedia is not for resumes. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2021 (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/Draft:RTTMTP2B Returning to Truth Ministries

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: Already deleted. The page was deleted by User:Jimfbleak per WP:G11. (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 16:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 16:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:RTTMTP2B Returning to Truth Ministries Draft:RTTMTP2B Returning to Truth Ministries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Appears to be promotional Kaseng55 (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Delete — obviously promotional, specifically due to the tone. — csc-1 03:06, 31 March 2021 (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/Draft:Star.Keys The Pianist

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) 02:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Star.Keys The Pianist Draft:Star.Keys The Pianist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ This should go on the user page instead Kaseng55 (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - Before this can go to a user page, the IP should register an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2021 (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/Draft:Daft Punk

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: redirect to Daft Punk. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Daft Punk Draft:Daft Punk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ This should be on the user page instead, not just creating article that promote yourself Kaseng55 (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy Redirect to Daft Punk. — csc-1 03:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy Redirect Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2021 (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/Draft:Tommyinnit mask au

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) 23:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Tommyinnit mask au Draft:Tommyinnit mask au (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Appears to be an original story (technically an alternate universe for fanfic) about the Minecraft YouTuber Dream's SMP server. WP:NFT Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per WP:NFT. — csc-1 03:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Weak Delete pending explanation from originator. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2021 (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:Featured article review/archive/September 2015

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) 23:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/September 2015 Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/September 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Seems unlikely to be useful - a project archive for a month when nothing was archived. Newer instances of this occurring at Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive just have no link to a monthly archive page if nothing was archived, which seems to be the most effective way to go about this. Hog Farm Talk 17:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Delete. Has nothing at all. –MarioMario456 17:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Delete, yep, this works. The only place it has an effect is at WP:FAS, and all it does there is turn the zero red, which is fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as empty, no reason to keep this around. — csc-1 20:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Comment from page creator: I'm fine with deleting the page. When I first got the deletion discussion notice, I didn't even remember why I created it in the first place. I did a little digging and found out that I created it to get rid of a red link when I was updating the featured article statistics page in October 2015 (see [1]). AmericanLemming (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC) The red links will be a bit wonky in a way that works. Some of the zero entries for the demoted column at WP:FAS are blue, because kept and delisted are both stored in the same file, so blue-linked 0s mean there was at least one Keep but no Delists, while red-linked 0s indicate no FAR activity at all for that month ... and I think that’s a good distinction to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Hog Farm did you check whether there are any others that are completely empty (that is, no FAR activity at all, as opposed to a 0 that represents no Delisted)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Also got Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/September 2014 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/July 2013 that are completely blank. September in mid 2010s must have been a bad month for FAR. Hog Farm Talk 22:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Then, Delete all three; @Arccosecant, AmericanLemming, and MarioMario456: for a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Delete: They're empty pages that don't serve any useful purpose. AmericanLemming (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC) To the closing admin, I was the creator of the last two, as I routinely set the page up at the beginning of the month; those pages were never used, so I can also just put a db-author on them. In fact, will do that now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Weak Delete - Nothing worth even saving as historical. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC) ^Delete - other pages where nothing was kept or deleted are non-pages Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 2 April 2021 (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/Draft:Virus Text

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 unanimously. (Aside: although the draft in its current state is a WP:NOTGUIDE issue, I wrote a DYK about something quite similar.) Nominators are reminded that there is no need to bring WP:NMFD situations to MfD. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet 16:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Virus Text Draft:Virus Text (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Blatant WP:NOTGUIDE violation. –MarioMario456 16:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Keep per WP:NMFD, as this does contain an encyclopedic description of the topic in the lead. Should this be repeatedly submitted and rejected, then I'd support deletion, otherwise just leave it for G13. — csc-1 20:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Weak Keep - Was already rejected, and could possibly have been reworked after discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Keep - Under the current system, unfortunately, G13 will eventually overtake this anyhow. Thus, there is especially no need to list such things here. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:33, 17 April 2021 (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/Draft:Let Me Reintroduce Myself (EP)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: wrong venue; now being discussed at RfD. (non-admin closure) JJPMaster 13:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Draft:Let Me Reintroduce Myself (EP) Draft:Let Me Reintroduce Myself (EP) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ This "EP" is fictitious and no such thing exists, so a draft is irrelevant. Carbrera (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Procedural close - redirects are discussed at WP:RFD. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2021 (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/Draft:About the Aftons

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted by JGHowes as a blatant hoax (CSD G3). (non-admin closure) SK2242 (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Draft:About the Aftons Draft:About the Aftons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Not sure if a story like this can be nominated for deletion, but there is some sort of promotion that says to subscribe to a YouTube channel. Kaseng55 (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Delete — Clearly not a genuine attempt at an article. — csc-1 12:22, 30 March 2021 (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/Draft:Akoma

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. as G11 Unambiguous advertising. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Draft:Akoma Draft:Akoma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ May fail WP:PROMO Kaseng55 (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as clearly promotional. — csc-1 12:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy delete. Blatant advertising. –MarioMario456 17:24, 30 March 2021 (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/Draft:Dankmemestonks

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) 23:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Dankmemestonks Draft:Dankmemestonks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Semi-nonsensical WP:CRYSTAL violation, likely promotional. — csc-1 01:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as useless, etc. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2021 (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/Draft:Among us strats

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) 23:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Among us strats Draft:Among us strats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ WP:GAMEGUIDE — csc-1 01:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Weak Delete - I don't know what this is. It doesn't need keeping. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2021 (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/Draft:How many ocean and Continents in World

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) 23:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:How many ocean and Continents in World Draft:How many ocean and Continents in World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ This is a quiz/faq-style page, not an article. — csc-1 00:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - Will never be an article when translated. Quit ragpicking. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2021 (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/Draft:How we use magnetism in science and technology

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. Ehhh I don't find the keep persuasive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:How we use magnetism in science and technology Draft:How we use magnetism in science and technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ WP:NOTESSAY with a bit of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. — csc-1 00:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Weak Keep - No content. We don't delete based only on title. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2021 (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:Sawmdma223/sandbox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. WP:G11 & promotional user name - https://www.sawm.in/ Cabayi (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC) User:Sawmdma223/sandbox User:Sawmdma223/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Appears to be advertisement or promotional Kaseng55 (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy Delete (G11). — csc-1 00:12, 30 March 2021 (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.

March 29, 2021

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Science and technology:how to think instead of what to think.

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) 23:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Science and technology:how to think instead of what to think. Draft:Science and technology:how to think instead of what to think. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ WP:NOTESSAY. — csc-1 23:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as Wikipedia is not for essays. Sometimes you search for how-to rags and find essay rags. They can all be left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2021 (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/Draft:HOW TO DRIBBLE (Soccer)

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) 23:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:HOW TO DRIBBLE (Soccer) Draft:HOW TO DRIBBLE (Soccer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ WP:NOTHOWTO — csc-1 23:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Delete. This should be in wikiHow instead. Kaseng55 (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as Wikipedia is not for how-to guides, but this would fizzled out in May. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2021 (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/Draft:हर हाल में खुशी से रहना सीखें। How to remain happy in every situation.

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) 23:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:हर हाल में खुशी से रहना सीखें। How to remain happy in every situation. Draft:हर हाल में खुशी से रहना सीखें। How to remain happy in every situation. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Cross between an essay and a how-to guide, both of which Wikipedia is not. — csc-1 23:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as non-English that needed declining before it was stirred. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (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/Draft:How to Tee up a Golf Ball

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) 23:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:How to Tee up a Golf Ball Draft:How to Tee up a Golf Ball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ WP:NOTHOWTO — csc-1 23:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as a how-to guide since you poked the bear and woke it up, but this bear would died in its hibernation in two weeks. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2021 (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/Draft:How to Angle Catfish

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) 23:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:How to Angle Catfish Draft:How to Angle Catfish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ WP:NOTHOWTO — csc-1 23:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - Wikipedia is not for how-to manuals, since we are here, but this would have expired in May if it hadn't been poked. Some rags can be left to rot. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2021 (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/Draft:How to make a schedule

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) 23:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:How to make a schedule Draft:How to make a schedule (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ WP:NOTHOWTO — csc-1 23:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - Wikipedia is not for how-to manuals. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2021 (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/Draft:How to use wikipedia in research

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) 23:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:How to use wikipedia in research Draft:How to use wikipedia in research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ WP:NOTHOWTO — csc-1 23:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as Wikipedia is not for how-to guides. User:Arccossecant - Were you searching draft space for "How to"? That is ragpicking, although the how-to's are rags. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2021 (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/Draft:The effects of social media on family relationships

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) 23:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:The effects of social media on family relationships Draft:The effects of social media on family relationships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ WP:NOTESSAY Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. — csc-1 23:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Weak Delete as in Wikipedia is not for essays. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Comment - User:Chess - Are you ragpicking? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Robert McClenon I use new pages feed for draftspace so I can patrol it. Generally this is because it's filled with BLP violations, minors revealing their personal information (I've found like 20 of those I had to report to oversight), and other pretty bad violations of policy. When I see a really really bad draft on a topic that cannot be notable for wikipedia I MfD it but that's not really the main purpose of going through drafts. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Comment - Okay. Yes, draft space does need to be patrolled for blatant BLP violations, really stupid vandalism, and other stuff. You have reported more minors for oversight than I have, which means that we have both protected children from harm caused by being silly children. You are reporting new drafts that never should have existed. Old drafts are a different matter. Thank you for the explanation, User:Chess. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2021 (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/Draft:Neb au-t-ȧb

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) 16:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Neb au-t-ȧb Draft:Neb au-t-ȧb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Not sure if stuff like this meet deletion, but there is no need for creating article just for asking a question. You can just use the talk page instead. Kaseng55 (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Delete — Clearly not a serious attempt at an article. — csc-1 17:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Weak Delete because Wikipedia is not for middle-school essays. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2021 (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/Draft:You're Going To Brazil

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: Has been G3'd. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:You're Going To Brazil Draft:You're Going To Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Wikipedia is not for meme Kaseng55 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Weak Keep per WP:NMFD. — csc-1 17:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Memes that are notable can have articles - see List of Internet phenomena. SK2242 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Weak Delete as this doesn't appear to be an article about the meme, but only a repetition of the meme. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2021 (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/Draft:Hinkapoo

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Hinkapoo Draft:Hinkapoo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Wikipedia is not a dictionary Kaseng55 (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep per WP:NMFD, WP:NOTDIC doesn't mean we don't have articles on notable words (see Category:Pejorative terms for people), it's about having articles on concepts as opposed to words. — csc-1 17:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Weak Keep - No reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2021 (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/Draft:75 Alternative Words to use instead of 'said'

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) 16:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:75 Alternative Words to use instead of 'said' Draft:75 Alternative Words to use instead of 'said' (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Unencyclopedic, rejected AfC submission. There is no way to make this encyclopedic. –MarioMario456 15:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Since you've brought this here, Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY (though WP:NOTTHESAURUS is probably a more appropriate link) but this really didn't need an MfD discussion and should have been allowed to go G13. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per nom. No point in waiting for G13 for something that can never be usable. BD2412 T 16:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per nom, with the IP's caveats. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIC. — csc-1 17:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Weak Delete - Needed declining or rejecting. Was rejected. Didn't need to come here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2021 (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/Draft:Grand Theft Auto VI (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Grand Theft Auto VI Draft:Grand Theft Auto VI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Grand Theft Auto VI is not officially confirmed by Rockstar. Fails WP:CRYSTALBALL Kaseng55 (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep per WP:NMFD; no need to list such things here. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep We can have articles on products that haven't been officially confirmed, as long as they have been the subject of coverage in reliable sources, so in itself that isn't a reason for deletion. The entire point of draftspace is to give people a place to work on articles out of the public eye, so writing a draft about a future game in the franchise is OK. The article is a bit WP:CRYSTALLY at the moment, but that could be fixed with editing as more sources turn up, and this does appear to be a genuine attempt at writing an article. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep in draft. It would need declining if submitted. It will need submitting when the game is released. (After release, the game might or might not be notable, but will need submitting.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep — genuine attempt at an article, albeit one that wouldn't be accepted until release. — csc-1 17:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Snowball Keep Perfectly valid draft. Obviously not ready for article space, but that is the entire point of drafts. If and when Rockstar does make it official, you can bet it will be instantly very notable as the next chapter of one of the most storied franchises in all of video games. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2021 (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/Draft:Aman Chourasia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: Speedy deleted (G11) by Deb (non-admin closure) — csc-1 18:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Draft:Aman Chourasia Draft:Aman Chourasia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Appears to be promotional, they are either promoting themselves or promoting their blog website. Kaseng55 (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy Delete G11 Promotional spam about a non-notable blog. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as promotion and web hosting. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy Delete (G11) per IP and utterly blatant COI. I've tagged the page. — csc-1 17:53, 29 March 2021 (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/Draft:Abhiram KB

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: Speedy deleted by Deb, noted as a G11 at talk page (non-admin closure) — csc-1 18:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Draft:Abhiram KB Draft:Abhiram KB (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ May not be notable for inclusion for Wikipedia Kaseng55 (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC) MfD does not examine notability. Do not bring things here for "May not be notable". However, consider WP:CSD#G11, blatant promotion by a youtuber of their youtube channel. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Agreed; notability itself is not a reason to list something here - WP:NMFD. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:48, 29 March 2021 (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/Draft:The Philippine Empire

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) 16:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:The Philippine Empire Draft:The Philippine Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ I'm not sure of the actual source of the text here (suspect it was copied from elsewhere on-wiki), but the "Phillippine Empire" is entirely fictional. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Google gives me Fandom Alt History. Delete as a hoax. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as a hoax. Alternate history is an annoyingly common type of hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as an alt-history hoax. — csc-1 17:54, 29 March 2021 (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:Klillrud/sandbox

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) 23:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC) User:Klillrud/sandbox User:Klillrud/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ The following are draft BLPs in various states of preparation or un-preparation of Karl Lillrud, Previous draft BLPs were already deleted in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Karl Lillrud User:MaxwellJames/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Razasardar/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Dr.maryamsajjad/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Klillrud/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:JoeKRuthe/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Muhammed Adnan Sheikh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) There is also a sockpuppet investigation of these draft BLPs. These may be multiple paid editors working for one client, which is meatpuppetry (and which is poorly defined), or these may be sockpuppetry. However, sockpuppetry is not relevant to the question of misuse of draft space, in order to create an article about a non-notable person by stealth. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC) One of these, Razasardar, was submitted and rejected. The rest were unsubmitted, and are in various degrees of incompletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep. User:Klillrud/sandbox may be Karl Lillrud's autobiography, but a userspace autobiography is acceptable. It is sourced. Forms of WP:Sockpuppetry are not a deletion reason unless voiced by someone qualified at WP:SPI, what you are doing is background unqualified clerking of SPI. Your nomination is a lot of WP:ABF without citing evidence. If the other pages have better cases for deletion, please list them separately with the better reasons explained. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Delete all. No indication that any of these is an autobiography, and Lillrud has been hiring people since (at least) 2019 to create an article about him; this post from today talks about a "deadline" to get an article about Lillrud published. Even if one of these accounts should be Lillrud himself, WP:UPNO would apply since all the seven accounts are SPAs, only concerned with creating drafts about Lillrud. This is an individual who is not notable so none of these drafts could ever become an article, and given that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Karl Lillrud ended with several drafts being speedy deleted, there is no reason to let these languish in userspace. --bonadea contributions talk 17:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Delete all as blatant promotional paid editing per the deletion log for Draft:Karl Lillrud, the speedy deletions at the other MfD, the lack of any other contributions of these accounts, the open admission of paid editing as pointed out by bonadea, and the fact that two of these have been rejected. — csc-1 18:16, 29 March 2021 (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.

March 28, 2021

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Snad dunderflail

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: Speedy deleted (G1) by Liz (non-admin closure) — csc-1 01:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Draft:Snad dunderflail Draft:Snad dunderflail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Looks nonsense to me Kaseng55 (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - Needed declining or rejecting. Comes close to G1 as nonsense. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep, leave for G13. It is busywork, aka a net negative, to bring worthless harmless stuff to MfD. If G1 applies, use it, but MfD is not for near-G1s. It might be a positive use of your time to go to the author's talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy G1/G2/maybe G3. This really didn't need an MfD discussion, it could have been tagged with multiple speedy criterion or left for G13, but since it's been brought here it should be deleted. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy G1. Waiting 6 months for obvious crap is stupid. –Fredddie™ 21:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy Delete (G1) — Complete nonsense, page tagged. — csc-1 23:56, 29 March 2021 (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:FauphTalk Fiction

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted by Alexf as unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSD G11). (non-admin closure) SK2242 (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC) User:FauphTalk Fiction User:FauphTalk Fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Fails WP:PROMO because it promotes a website Kaseng55 (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy delete G11. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2021 (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/Draft:Şenceylik

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) 23:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Şenceylik Draft:Şenceylik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Remember, this is not Turkish Wikipedia. This is English Wikipedia Kaseng55 (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Not in English is not a reason to delete a draft. En.Wikipedia.org is the de facto central Wikipedia where inter-language translations may happen, and these should not be deleted, not for that reason alone anyway. I have google translated the page, and declined the submission, let's wait for the author to respond. I suspect an autobiography. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Weak Delete as an autobiography, pending a response from the author. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Comment Most of it was copied from Spotify.— Diannaa (talk) 09:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per suspicions of autobiography, and apparent copying from Spotify. — csc-1 23:59, 29 March 2021 (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/Draft:TeachPE.com

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: Keep (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:TeachPE.com Draft:TeachPE.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Not sure if this is promotional or what, but it may be promoting an education website. Kaseng55 (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Weak Keep - Not obvious what this is, but it hasn't been submitted yet and isn't CSD material. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC) It doesn't look like advertising, but there are no references and it probably isn't notable (Google book search finds a few mentions, but they don't look like significant coverage), and the username looks like it represents an organization associated with TeachPE.com. Peter James (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep - the genie of G13 will poof this into obscurity should it go unedited. No need to list such things here. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:38, 17 April 2021 (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.

March 27, 2021

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thewhitebox/Walmartsucks.com

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: Draftify - I'll also add a link to Draft:Walmartsucks.com at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. - jc37 01:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC) User:Thewhitebox/Walmartsucks.com User:Thewhitebox/Walmartsucks.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Draft article in user namespace of blocked user; not edited since 2014 Peter James (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Keep. Plausibly notable or mergable. Blocking users does not include clearing out their subpages. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC) It wouldn't be accepted if submitted as a draft, and would have been deleted years ago. Whether subpages are deleted depends on the user; in this case they were disruptive, using sockpuppets, and probably evading a block. If an account is blocked it doesn't make the subpages exempt from deletion. Peter James (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Sure, but you need a nomination rationale better than "blocker user". I don't see a reason not to leave this here for someone to pick up. A quick search on "Walmartsucks" shows interesting stuff, google suppression of criticism of major brands, trademark issues, etc, involving multiple big brands. Unlikely to be notable on its own, but it might fit in a larger topic. G13 was implemented due to the tens of thousands of unreviewable drafts including BLP and copyright violations. I have reviewed this userpage and decided there is no such issue here. It is not an AfC page, and we do not routinely delete usersubpages for being old and unedited. The user may return, and anther user may find it by the title and make use of it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - I respectfully disagree with SmokeyJoe. We don't need dung that has been sitting around for seven years from blocked users that never had a purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC) You are not being respectful to a reasonable standard. This draft is not comparable to dung, presumably you mean "animal feces". It is a serious topic, serious legal issue, censorship issues. It is serious references. Many things that might be useful and will be lost if this is deleted. "Never had a purpose"? Disagree, this draft fits will the purpose of userspace, to build up material that might add to mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep or draftify. This is most of a reasonable article and I wouldn't mind working on it. jp×g 05:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Draftify (Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts#Stale userspace drafts #8); WP:User pages allows it for long-term inactive users' pages. Peter James (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Retain and oppose draftification because of G13, which was expanded after some of the above guidance was incepted, and because of the systematic failure of the draftspace (i.e. it is not much more likely to be discovered and expanded there than where it is at). The only thing that will very likely occur from draftification is deletion (WP:DUD). Secondly, there is no need to delete this over that of an older draft in the userspace of any other blocked user; thus, I oppose their deletion on a class basis. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC) Although there's no specific time limit for drafts in user namespace it is not intended to be somewhere to keep pages permanently - five years is long enough as the user is inactive and unlikely to resume editing from that account. There are other reasons not to keep it there - most of it is quoted from sources, and although it is not a biographical article most of the content refers to living people. Peter James (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC) Question Why, but oh why, was this not just G13ed? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Because (a) G13 only applies to userspace drafts if they contain a {{AFC submission}} template, which this one didn't and (b) even if this page were of a type that qualified for G13, Peter James' addition of the MfD tag counts as an edit that would have reset the clock, so your deletion tag was inappropriate. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:11, 24 April 2021 (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:Theplugsboy/sandbox

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) 23:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC) User:Theplugsboy/sandbox User:Theplugsboy/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Once again, a collection of placement tables for imaginary "fantasy football" versions of television reality competitions. Although there are no specific identifiers of exactly which shows are being spoofed, two of the tables are RuPaul's Drag Race format (i.e. highs and lows and Miss Congenialities) and filled with names that do seem strongly redolent of drag queens (including, but not limited to, a couple that are right-on-the-nose expies of real RPDR contestants) -- while the third is straight-up Big Brother (with "Villa" allusions suggestive of the Hungarian version specifically). The page has also been used in the past to create an imaginary teenagers' season of Big Brother UK. As always, sandbox space is not a free playground for users to make up imaginary stuff for the lulz -- it is for working on stuff that's meant to be returned to mainspace, such as draft versions of real articles about real things, not for playing fantasy football with stuff that's happening only in your imagination. Bearcat (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. — csc-1 15:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - The disputes over the multicolored tables for real seasons of Ru Paul's Drag Race have been disruptive enough. Wikipedia is not for web hosting does apply, and so do other rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2021 (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/Draft:To my honey-son

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) 23:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:To my honey-son Draft:To my honey-son (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Wikipedia is not a place to self publish poetry. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per WP:NFT. — csc-1 15:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - as made up. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2021 (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/Draft:Young Women power

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) 23:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Young Women power Draft:Young Women power (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ WP:NOTESSAY and maybe WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Draft is long essay on the importance of feminism and how men treat women badly. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per nom. Vaticidalprophet 14:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. — csc-1 15:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per nom. It clearly does not meet our standards. --Bduke (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - Wikipedia is not for essays and other reasons. Poorly written, but that isn't the point. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2021 (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.

March 26, 2021

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Step by step process how to meditate with mindfulness

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) 23:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Step by step process how to meditate with mindfulness Draft:Step by step process how to meditate with mindfulness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ WP:NOTHOWTO Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per nom. — csc-1 02:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete. A how to guide that clearly cannot be an encyclopedia article. The author had previously created another how to guide that was speedily deleted. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as Wikipedia is not for how-to guides. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2021 (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/Draft:Is a mRNA therapy a vaccine as generally defined?

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) 23:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Is a mRNA therapy a vaccine as generally defined? Draft:Is a mRNA therapy a vaccine as generally defined? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Asking for advice on the definition of a vaccine. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete — Not an attempt at an article. — csc-1 02:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - An effort to answer the question would be original research. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2021 (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/Draft:Impact of Humorous and Rational Advertisements on Consumer Purchase Intentions with Moderating Effect of Celebrity Endorsement

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) 23:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Impact of Humorous and Rational Advertisements on Consumer Purchase Intentions with Moderating Effect of Celebrity Endorsement Draft:Impact of Humorous and Rational Advertisements on Consumer Purchase Intentions with Moderating Effect of Celebrity Endorsement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Fails WP:NOTESSAY. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per nom. — csc-1 02:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as an essay that isn't there. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2021 (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/Draft:Do you exist

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) 23:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Do you exist Draft:Do you exist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ WP:NOTESSAY Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete — Clearly not a serious attempt at an article, and a violation of WP:NOTESSAY on top of that. — csc-1 02:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - The real question is whether this page should exist, and the answer is no. It is a bad joke. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2021 (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/Draft:Why toe pics should be illigal

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: speedy delete under criterion G3 FASTILY 09:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Draft:Why toe pics should be illigal Draft:Why toe pics should be illigal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ WP:NOTESSAY Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as an incoherent violation of WP:NOTESSAY. — csc-1 02:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as another bad joke, and stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Delete, but I chuckled. Vaticidalprophet 02:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Delete. I chuckled too. Did anybody try to CSD G3 this? "If I told you somehow [toes] can be illigal, well, I would be true." seems like blatant misinformation (hoax) to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Has potential to be an essay, but Delete this mess. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 03:20, 29 March 2021 (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/Draft:Brutenforcer

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) 23:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Brutenforcer Draft:Brutenforcer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Unlikely for this "well-endowed Minotaur" to ever have an article about him. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Keep per WP:NMFD. — csc-1 02:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as a bad joke, and made up in one day, and as work of an editor who is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, but this is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2021 (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/Draft:I have a question

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) 23:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:I have a question Draft:I have a question (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ The word is probably "xenophobia" or "xenotraumaphobia". Regardless, this should be redirected to the WP:Reference Desk. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete — Clearly not a serious attempt at an article. — csc-1 02:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete rather than answering the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2021 (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/Draft:Mixing·Sailors

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: Speedy deleted (G1) by Jeepday (non-admin closure) — csc-1 19:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Draft:Mixing·Sailors Draft:Mixing·Sailors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Doesn't appear to be a serious draft. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy delete (G1) — csc-1 02:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy Delete G1. I've tagged the article. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2021 (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/Draft:The truth

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) 23:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:The truth Draft:The truth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Personal essay about the author's conception of what "truth" is. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete — Mostly nonsensical, never going to be an article. — csc-1 01:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as a mixture of sense and nonsense, more the latter, and made up in one day, and "stupid". Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Worthless harmless not worth bringing to MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC) It'd be great if we had PROD for drafts to prevent this issue. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC) As drafts are unwatched, DraftPROD would be a slow CSD, and so would need to be highly objective. We have G13. I am pushing for DraftBLPPROD, any unsourced BLP is draftspace to be deleted if a reliable source is not added within a week. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2021 (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/Draft:S.S.X Slime Destroyer

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) 23:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:S.S.X Slime Destroyer Draft:S.S.X Slime Destroyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ I don't really understand what this is but I'm pretty sure it's not a serious draft. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete — Whatever this is, it's not a serious draft. — csc-1 01:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - Is there a guideline that Wikipedia is not for bad jokes? This slime should be destroyed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Unworthy of MfD. Just leave things. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Since you've brought it here, Delete, as in article space it could be A11'd, and in draft space it's borderline G1/G3, but I echo the comments above that a MfD discussion was a waste of time for this and it should have been allowed to go G13. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2021 (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/Draft:Corpsekkuno

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) 23:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Corpsekkuno Draft:Corpsekkuno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ There's a vanishingly small chance this will ever be notable. Questionable if we should even have an unsourced draft about "shipping" two living people when it's extraordinarily unlikely it will ever become an article. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete — This has no reason to be an article. — csc-1 01:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - Perhaps we need a guideline that Wikipedia is not for bad jokes. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2021 (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/Draft:The Great Bot Clan War

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: Speedied. BLP violations involving minors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Draft:The Great Bot Clan War Draft:The Great Bot Clan War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ No chance this will ever be notable. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per WP:NFT, never going to be notable. — csc-1 00:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - NFT answers what to do with the bad jokes. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Keep per WP:NMFD. Do not bring drafts to MfD due to a notability concern. Leave for G13. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC) NMFD applies when the nomination is based on the draft not demonstrating notability; not when the nomination is based on the idea that the draft will NEVER be notable. In this case the topic isn't notable and there is a vanishingly small chance it will ever become notable in the future. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC) You brought it here citing notability. MfD is not for examining notability. Please identify a failing at WP:NOT when nominating drafts for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK and WP:BLP. Appears to be a post about a fortnight group chat with some biographical information (like full names) of some random minors thrown in. Not going to make it to article space as it falls afoul of what Wikipedia is not and we should not be hosting pages about random non-notable minors and the jokes they were making in high school. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2021 (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.

March 25, 2021

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Do worry about performance

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, marking historical. — xaosflux Talk 14:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Do worry about performance Wikipedia:Do worry about performance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ This is a 10-year-old "quick draft to be expanded later" created by a user who was indefinitely blocked and thus will never expand it. No substantive edits to the page since 2012. Guy Macon (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Keep (possibly in userspace): I for one like having these old essays and other WP: pages around. They give the wiki a bit of character, and while they may be obsolete as actual guidelines they do no harm as long as they have a “historical” tag on top. User:GKFXtalk 00:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Keep — should be marked as historical, but it's not doing any harm. — csc-1 00:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Userfy, despite the creator being indeffed. This doesn't deserve the implicit approval of projectspace, but isn't so incoherent or dangerous as to demand deletion. Vaticidalprophet 05:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Userfy and Mark Historical. Part completed draft that is incomplete, a decade out of date, and directly contradicts the instructions from the WMF that normal editors should not be worrying about performance. The editors who work in areas where performance is important (i.e. template editors, interface administrators, bot operators etc) should have sufficient knowledge of the site to avoid creating major issues, and there are much better places to get advice on issues than an "I told you so" essay from a decade ago. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Userfy and Mark Historical as per above comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Keep. Project related essay. Could be merged into Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance, but it is accepted to have an essay and counter essay. Could be improved, but note that there are no time limits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Retain in some form per above. No need to obscure the seemingly non-problematic history and content (itself) from public view through deletion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Delete, or at the very least Userfy + Mark Historical as second choice. The advice in this essay is simply incorrect, not "another opinion" that merely didn't find consensus. We wouldn't keep around false essays like Wikipedia:Books are unreliable sources or Wikipedia:Avoid capital letters or the servers get clogged. There's no value, and minor harm, in keeping this in the Wikipedia space. SnowFire (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2021 (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:AMK152/FoundingFathers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. Page creator has requested deletion, though is invited to request undeletion should they wish to continue work. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC) User:AMK152/FoundingFathers User:AMK152/FoundingFathers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Userspace draft abandoned in 2012 that entirely duplicates article content. Vaticidalprophet 19:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per WP:UP#COPIES. SK2242 (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as an abandoned copy of mainspace content. — csc-1 02:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per user request first of all, it's not a copy, it was meant to reorganize the list, and then I got busy and never finished it. I don't need it anymore. You could have just asked me. Go ahead and delete it. — AMK152 (t • c) 15:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - Treat as U1 or G7. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2021 (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/Draft:Rajendra Prasad Shrestha

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Rajendra Prasad Shrestha Draft:Rajendra Prasad Shrestha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ I did not see WP:AFC submit option in this draft. Bdm166 (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Could you clarify why you've nominated this for deletion? To submit the draft all you need to do is add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page in the source editor. It is an unsourced BLP and would need sourcing before it can be accepted into the encyclopedia, but the subject seems like they would be notable and it isn't promotional. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy keep so what? SK2242 (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Delete Unsourced BLP. SK2242 (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Weak keep: I'm hesitant to cast an unconditional keep !vote for an unsourced BLP, but an unsourced draft BLP is a very different thing ("drafts are not checked for notability or sanity"). Presumably, the author had planned to add sources, and as the subject appears notable anyone planning to pick it up would be able to do so. The dangers of an unsourced BLP relate to their presence in the mainspace, where they're accessible to readers and search engines; draftspace is a black box. The deletion rationale given, of course, is irrelevant. Vaticidalprophet 18:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Keep per Vaticidalprohpet. Appears to be a serious attempt at an article that lacks contentious information. It'll get picked up by G13 if it remains abandoned. — csc-1 01:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Keep to allow user time to source the BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2021 (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/Draft:Endeavor Business Media

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. But, you know, weakly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Draft:Endeavor Business Media Draft:Endeavor Business Media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Nominating this draft for an MfD. As the CSD-G11 tag was not appropriate in the first place. - Hatchens (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Comment. Hey Hatchens. Just wondering if you have additional info to add to your nomination? Is your concern notability, spamming, something else? Personally I am leaning toward keep, as this COI editor disclosed their COI early on (see top and [2]) and in my opinion has tried in good faith to follow our protocols. However, I am happy to hear your reasoning. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Weak keep for now. This doesn't seem to be in the fairly narrow range of drafts MfD is good for, where speedies are inappropriate but the thing needs to get out ASAP without waiting for a G13. Draftspace is hidden and self-clearing; declared/'legitimate' COI editing that nonetheless doesn't rise to the level of inclusion in the encyclopedia proper is just fine. Vaticidalprophet 07:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Weak keep not promo enough to get rid of now. SK2242 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Weak Keep per Vaticidalprophet, should probably be sent back here if rejected. — csc-1 02:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Comment: Hi Novem Linguae, The only additional information is... a general consensus needed to either keep this draft or delete it because CSD-G11 tag which I put earlier was not appropriate (as suggested by Timtrent). -Hatchens (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Comment it was not a clear G11, so declined it. While the draft is referenced solely to PR and regurgitated PR and authored by a paid editor who cannot hear that their referencing is unacceptable, it might just as well wither on the vine. However, does this not just give work for folk at G13 time? If resubmitted it ought to be rejected, after all. It will fail a main space AfD (0.8 probability) in this state. Fiddle Faddle 08:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Weak Keep - Needed declining, and was declined. Rejecting would be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2021 (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.

March 24, 2021

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Champ Imi/sandbox

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) 09:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC) User:Champ Imi/sandbox User:Champ Imi/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ According to the bottom of this page, this is an AfC submission, and a draft article about the same subject was deleted because it was promotional. Although this is a sandbox, this covers the same subject as the deleted draft. Also, an article covering the same thing was deleted per XfD. It is a BLP that doesn't meet NMODEL or GNG. -Cupper52Discuss! 18:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Delete — clearly promotional. — csc-1 19:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as promotion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Delete promo. SK2242 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as per nominator and other editors. Also notice that the headings are Shouting at the reader, which is promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2021 (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.

March 23, 2021

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Virion Mask/sandbox/The World’s 1st Certified Coronavirus and Influenza Killing Medical Face Mask.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. Advertising only material - deleted as G11. Account blocked for spam username. Nick (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC) User:Virion Mask/sandbox/The World’s 1st Certified Coronavirus and Influenza Killing Medical Face Mask. User:Virion Mask/sandbox/The World’s 1st Certified Coronavirus and Influenza Killing Medical Face Mask. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Appear to fail WP:RUMOUR. There is probably no such thing as a mask that can kill the coronavirus, but not sure if it can block the coronavirus. Also fail WP:NOTNEWS because it may appear to be part of COVID news. Kaseng55 (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Delete — Blatant promotional material, see author username. — csc-1 21:02, 23 March 2021 (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/Draft:The One Shoe Mystery

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) 09:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Draft:The One Shoe Mystery Draft:The One Shoe Mystery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ It probably fail WP:NOTNEWS or WP:PROMO. It just to me that it sounds like a mystery news or a hoax. Kaseng55 (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Delete — appears to be promotional, not going to be an article. — csc-1 19:38, 23 March 2021 (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:GBStokes22/sandbox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC) User:GBStokes22/sandbox User:GBStokes22/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Long-abandoned userspace draft; not remotely notable, and appears to have some BLP issues. Home Lander (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Delete due to BLP issues. — csc-1 13:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Delete due to a mixture of BLP issues (unsourced negative commentary about a living person) and having content that seems to read like an advert for a YouTube channel. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - Editor came, did her thing, left this turd, and went away. Will never become an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2021 (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.

March 22, 2021

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cesar Tort

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC) User:Cesar Tort User:Cesar Tort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Racist and inappropriate commentary; see history. Could be considered harassment. Firestar464 (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as WP:POLEMIC. — csc-1 13:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Delete WP:NONAZIS. SK2242 (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - Some nonsense really does call for deleting. Too often a reference to polemic simply means WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This really is a hateful polemic. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Comment The possibly offensive text has been removed now, so should it stay blanked? -Cupper52Discuss! 21:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC) This either needs to be deleted(as it should have been) or revdeled. Firestar464 (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Delete: If the user has constructive edits to make to userspace they are welcome to recreate their user page in compliance of our user page policy. But currently, the writings are either WP:U5 or WP:G10. Aasim (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Delete Clear U5 as mentioned above, also a violation of WP:POLEMIC. Zoozaz1 talk 02:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - I was going to suggest revdelete but there is too much problematic content for it to have any effect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - Blanking it was an easy decision when I noticed it (too many edits for WP:NOTWEBHOST CSD, MfD was possible but seemed unnecessary), but there's nothing that is worth preserving/improving and deletion is also fine, —PaleoNeonate – 19:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Delete: Indeed reads like an attack page to some extent, and certainly violates WP:UPNOT and WP:POLEMIC. Could be a U5 candidate too. JavaHurricane 11:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Delete: per WP:POLEMIC. I think WP:NONAZIS can apply too. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Delete No Nazis also applies to racists, white supremacists, anyone who thinks all people are created unequal is one who WP:NONAZIS applies to. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:10, 28 March 2021 (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:UBX/sex (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) JJPMaster 21:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC) User:UBX/sex User:UBX/sex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Unencyclopedic; WP:NOTCENSORED only applies to articles. Not sure how this improves the encyclopedia. Firestar464 (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Keep: Harmless userbox nominated based on apparently misunderstood premises; userpages are permitted to have this kind of content (there's a few quite high-profile ones I could point you to if I wanted to name names). Vaticidalprophet 07:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy keep Virtually no userboxen are encyclopedic – that is not their purpose. There is nothing about this userbox that violates WP:USERPAGE. --bonadea contributions talk 08:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Keep — No WP:UBCR or WP:UPNOT violations. — csc-1 13:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Keep - Is there a reason why userboxes should be censored? (And deletion discussions over political userboxes are absurdly contentious.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Comment - See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/sex. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Keep not discriminatory/hateful, though a bit crude. SK2242 (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Delete: Talking about sex in user space is very unprofessional. Per our WP:UP guidelines, we do not allow WP:POLEMIC material. Our user page is a place to talk about our Wikipedia activities primarily, and this userbox is asking to be used as vandalism. Aasim (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Also per WP:OM - According to the Wikimedia Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment', that is, we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. For example, editors selecting images for articles like Human body have thousands of images of naked bodies and body parts available to them, but they normally choose images that portray the human body in an unemotional, non-sexual standard anatomical position over more sexual images due to greater relevance to the subject. The more sexual image is not given special favor simply because it is more offensive. Similarly, editors of articles such as Automobile do not include images of vehicles with naked women posing near them, even though such images exist and "Wikipedia is not censored", due to concerns about relevance. Wikipedia is not censored, but Wikipedia also does not favor offensive images over non-offensive images. A template like this is a potential violation of the PLA. Aasim (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Unprofessional? Wikipedia editors are not professionals, so that's pretty much a non-sequitur. I also wonder how the userbox could be interpreted as polemic? Which opinion or position does it dispute? You claim that it "is asking to be used as vandalism", which is a confusing statement to me – could you point to a place where this userbox has been used for vandalism in the 15 years it has existed? As for WP:OM, it is specifically about "the use of potentially offensive words and images in articles", and the principle of least astonishment (PLA) is also about articles, so those arguments (as well as the long quoted text) don't apply here. Even if it did apply, an early-20th century illustration for a literary work on Greek mythology would hardly be considered "offensive" by most standards. --bonadea contributions talk 21:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC) We do not have to agree on the definition of "professional", but I believe maintaining some level of professionalism is important to help contextualize policies and make improvements. I am saying that if you were to bring up sex out of an educational context it is not super appropriate or professional. I do not care about what the image has to do with it. I just care that user pages and talk pages maintain a degree of professionalism. Aasim (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Keep - Harmless userbox that offends absolutely nobody. It was pointed out on the previous nomination: "Sex is a valid encyclopedic topic, and the expression of interest in (or affinity for) it is within the range of topical disclosures usually permitted on userpages". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Keep No real reason for deletion other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Zoozaz1 talk 12:51, 24 March 2021 (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.

March 20, 2021

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:How to make an LPS video

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) 02:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Draft:How to make an LPS video Draft:How to make an LPS video (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Per WP:NOTHOWTO SK2242 (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Delete, but bringing this here is a complete waste of time - just leave these drafts alone and they'll be G13'd in a few months time, they don't need discussion at MfD. The draft is, however, purely a how to guide and has no chance of making it into article space as it falls afoul of what Wikipedia is not. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Leaving these drafts alone even if only for 6 months give the impression that pages like this are allowed on Wikipedia. SK2242 (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC) It really doesn't matter if these sit around in draft space for 6 months - it's not a public facing part of the encyclopedia and they're not indexed by search engines so people searching google and the like won't come across them. The only way someone would come across one of these drafts is if they specifically look for them. Draft space is full of pages that we don't allow in the encyclopaedia: non-notable stuff, promotional autobiographies, test pages, content forks etc. Bringing them here for discussion is just unnecessary when we have an automated process for dealing with them. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy delete It has unencyclopedic text inside. -Cupper52Discuss! Why would this qualify for speedy deletion? Pages can only be speedy deleted if they meet one of the criteria listed at WP:CSD, we can't just speedy pages for being "Unencyclopedic". 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. — csc-1 18:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as long as we are here, as Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. This wasn't worth bringing to MFD and should have been allowed to go G13. At least no rabbits have been used. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC) I'm just on the other side on this sort of thing. It is a recently created page, and it clearly cross an explicit exclusion on WP:NOT. I think these are good to MfD promptly, when discovered during new page patrol. If there are too many, we can talk about that later. What I object to in nominations is worthless harmless drafts that do not violate any single line at WP:NOT. Also, old pages, more than 2-4 weeks unedited, are better left for G13. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Delete: Post this to wikiHow, not Wikipedia. Aasim (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per ip. CanadianOtaku Talk Page 00:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:23, 23 March 2021 (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/Draft:How to kill a rabbit for Meat

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: speedily deleted per G3 by Anthony Bradbury. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Draft:How to kill a rabbit for Meat Draft:How to kill a rabbit for Meat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Horrific page that violates WP:NOTHOWTO. SK2242 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Delete, though 'horrific' is really quite a stretch -- where do you think food comes from? Nonetheless, I concur with the attitude discussed in other nominations that this nomination was unnecessary. Draftspace is self-cleaning, so drafts really only have to go through MfD if they have some unusual issue like tendentious resubmission. Vaticidalprophet 07:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC) I don’t think the methods listed are how rabbits are actually slaughtered for meat. Anyway leaving these pages up even if not forever gives the impression that pages like these are allowed here. SK2242 (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as purely a how to guide that has no chance of making it to main space, but, as above, it is a waste of time nominating it here. The nom should also bear in mind Wikipedia is WP:NOT CENSORED and we don't delete pages because some readers might find them objectionable - The Animal slaughter article contains a list of descriptions of various ways that animals are killed which is content that is entirely suitable for the encyclopaedia, and some properly sourced and written information on various methods of dispatching rabbits would be an OK addition to the Rabbiting article. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC) I think I should clarify that I don’t have any problem with NOTCENSORED content as long as it’s sourced and not written in an appropriate "how to" guide. SK2242 (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. — csc-1 18:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Presenting it as computer code is a reason to reject the draft as currently written. Has other issues also. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - Written encyclopedias used to have "how to" sections or give advice (ex: World Book Encyclopedia), but here on Wikipedia we have WP:NOTHOWTO. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Comment: Tagged for speedy deletion because it is mostly incoherent HTML and appears to be spam from another webpage. Aasim (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2021 (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.

March 19, 2021

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Ricky Martin

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. I don't see a consensus to delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Ricky Martin Wikipedia:WikiProject Ricky Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Appears to be a one-participant WikiProject created without going through the procedures per Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. As it states there, the most important thing before starting a project is "to start with numerous interested editors committed to collaborating on a topic." StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC) @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Ok, please give me a few days and I will try to find some people to join me. Plus I saw some similar Wikiprojects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Jennifer Lopez that only had one participant, while they are also inactive. But I myself I am active in this peoject and this project helps me to have a good observation on the articles related to Ricky Martin and it will help me to focus on my edits. I just worked on Tiburones and Cántalo and now they are good articles. This project really helps me and I really worked hard on it and spent a few days just to make it complete. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC) The Jennifer Lopez WikiProject has had a number of participants and also went through the proper procedures prior to creation (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Jennifer Lopez). Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Six WikiProjects are tagged on Talk:Ricky Martin. How about try coordinating them? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC) If this is deleted, please also delete Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ricky Martin articles by quality log and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ricky Martin articles by quality statistics (as well as a bunch of other pages that are discussed at forums other than MfD which I'll nominate elsewhere) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Please give me a few days I will ask other people who are interested to join me. Today is the New Year's Day (Nowruz) in my country and I don't have time. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Comment — Should the project find other participants, than it can be kept, as WP:NOTBUREAU would apply with regards to not going through Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. — csc-1 15:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Keep - I see more harm getting rid of all of these things than I do giving the project a fighting chance. I would revisit the issue on April 6, 2021 when the project is a month old. If no additional people join then my comfortable opinion would be a solid delete. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Keep as a premature nomination. I'm not very inclined to support these sorts of tiny WikiProjects, but this is way too soon. Vaticidalprophet 07:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Comment - Although Ricky Martin is very notable in latino music, the articles can be gathered into a portal, not a WikiProject. However, It's too soon to delete this WikiProject. The deletion proposal can be re-issued when the WikiProject gets inactive. An example: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Camila Cabello (2nd nomination). -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Comment - There appears to be at least 5 participants now in the project. While its a low number, I feel that the nominator's concern is met here as the project appears to be heading in the right direction. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - Per nom. The nomination is not premature; the project is premature. The reason we have guidelines is to keep over-enthusiastic editors from finding themselves in deep holes because they got the cart before the horse. Ignoring institutional wisdom because it can be ignored just encourages more recklessness by this user. But if it must be kept, at least downgrade it to a task force, and place it under an active project where it can be shepherded properly. BilCat (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC) I don't see any relevant guidelines which prohibit new wiki-projects. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Not what I said. BilCat (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC) @BilCat: I'm sorry sir, I don't know why you're talking about me this way. I just created this project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Ricky Martin. He's a notable artist in Latin Music, and his article (Ricky Martin) has received over 11 million views. Plus, he has many releases and there are many related articles to him and I thought creating a wikiproject for him is a good idea, as many other notable artists have wikiprojects. That's all. I know I'm not an expert and I'm not as professional as you are, your majesty. I just try to improve wikipedia articles and myself. I promise that I'm not reckless and ignoring this won't "encourage more recklessness" by me. I'm sorry if I had done something wrong that made you think about me this way. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Keep for now, with no prejudice against renomination in say 6 months to a years time. Give it a chance to get started, if in 6 months it's inactive then consider merging it to someplace like WikiProject Musicians. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Keep, I joined the project. Creator is active in improving articles and helping them reach GA status. I've made some edits to articles on this project and plan to add sources and content, as needed. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2021 (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:LightningComplexFire/UBX/NoAnarchy

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: snowball keep. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 02:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC) User:LightningComplexFire/UBX/NoAnarchy User:LightningComplexFire/UBX/NoAnarchy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ WP:UBCR violation. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC) What’s the violation? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Exactly, SmokeyJoe 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 00:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Keep. I might be missing something, but I really don't see this userbox as being a violation of WP:UBCR, it's certainly nowhere near the level where it would need deletion. I don't think it's any worse than the multitude of "This user supports/opposes -----" userboxes that are in widespread use. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Keep — "This user opposes [ideology]" isn't a violation of WP:UBCR, even if it is worded a little stronger than that. — csc-1 15:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Keep Opposing anarchy is the same as opposing capitalism, socialism or communism. Not polemic. SK2242 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy keep: This is one's own views on anarchy and one may want to share it. Not a personal attack lol Aasim (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy Keep: What's wrong with hating on anarchism!? It's a political user template, not an attack. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy Keep: Nominator fails to address the specific problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy Keep No reason for deletion. Zoozaz1 talk 12:53, 24 March 2021 (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:When sources conflict

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) 04:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:When sources conflict Wikipedia:When sources conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Request per User:86.23.109.101 at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion: This page is a completely redundant fork of Wikipedia:Conflicting sources, written by a newcomer who seems to have fundamentally misunderstood the policies they were writing about and who has confused verifiability, truth and the existence of different opinions. The advice given by the essay is a combination of confusing and nonsensical (what does "Verify each source" mean? where would you report sources as inaccurate?) and just flat out wrong ("show every source and use all of them" is not the correct way of dealing with this - you should represent all well reported mainstream views in accordance with due weight, not every source you can find). I see no need to have two essays covering the exact same issue and reaching the exact same conclusion (Write articles according to NPOV) when one of them deviates so far from accepted practices. I propose that this essay should be deleted and it's shortcut retargeted to Wikipedia:Conflicting sources. See also the TfD discussion related to it's associated clean up template and this discussion at wikiproject clean up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Delete or userify. Should not be in project space as it is an essay under development that does not match accepted practices. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC) A redirect to Wikipedia:Conflicting sources is also fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Delete in favour of Wikipedia:Conflicting sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC). Bad advice. A negative contribution entirely inferior to the existing essay. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Redirect to Wikipedia:Conflicting sources. Zoozaz1 talk 12:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - bad advice -- Whpq (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - I just resolved a dispute at DRN concerning conflicting sources, and this essay would have made an inedible hash of the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as bad advice, and retarget shortcut as specified in the nomination. — csc-1 15:08, 20 March 2021 (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.

March 18, 2021

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Jack Cabhan

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) 04:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Draft:Jack Cabhan Draft:Jack Cabhan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Speedy tag was removed, so I have opened up this MFD instead. This person exists, but most of the article is a hoax and notability seems doubtful at best. Author is a sock of Peluches extronidos, a locked LTA. —Hasley[talk] 22:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Delete for the following reasons: G5 was a complex issue because sockmaster is globally locked after abuse on Spanish Wikipedia and Commons. Author is a blocked user, but blocked in a complex manner. Probable hoax. Will never be an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Delete — Created by LTA, not going to become an article. — csc-1 04:19, 19 March 2021 (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/Draft:The Tenor Show

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) 04:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Draft:The Tenor Show Draft:The Tenor Show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Partial hoax. The series exists, but most of the content is made-up and there is no indication of notability. Author is a sock of Peluches extronidos, a locked LTA. —Hasley[talk] 21:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy Delete as G5. G5 tag was removed by an IP address which may be the globally locked user. Also delete as work of a blocked editor. Also delete as crud. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Speedy Delete (G5) — I hear a distinct quacking sound upon inspecting that IP. — csc-1 04:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Keep, as plausibly notable enough for a draft, unless an SPI clerk or better agrees to delete on the basis of sock puppetry. MfD should not be a side SPI clerking forum. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edd Acevedo/Archive. —Hasley[talk] 17:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Delete. Even ignoring the sock puppetry concerns a draft that is mostly a hoax is of no use to anyone, and it would be better to start again than risk ending up with hoax content in the resulting article. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2021 (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/Draft:Offshore Model Racing Association

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) 04:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Draft:Offshore Model Racing Association Draft:Offshore Model Racing Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ This draft has been declined twice and rejected twice, all by different reviewers. Today the author resubmitted it for review with no improvement. I rolled back their edits and left them a message on their user talk page warning them about disruptive editing. They have just resubmitted it yet again, with the only change being to remove the name of the organisation's chairman from the infobox. I think this constitutes tendentious editing, the editor has confirmed COI. There's no hope for this draft and it should be deleted. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Delete - Rejection was implemented in order to try to put a stop to tendentious resubmissions. Any resubmission after a rejection without attempting to discuss it instead is disruptive. The only real question is whether to take content action, viz., deletion, or conduct action, against the submitter, or both. We are here, and this draft will never become an article while the spammer is pushing it, and it needs to go into a bit bucket. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Delete — Rejected thrice without any attempt to discuss. — csc-1 04:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Why am I being called a spammer? — Thebadnewslive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC). Strong delete Wow, it got rejected 3 times per failing to meet WP:NOTABLE and declined three times before that. -Cupper52Discuss!21:25, 23 March 2021 (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:Rgreenberg95/sandbox

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) 04:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC) User:Rgreenberg95/sandbox User:Rgreenberg95/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Hoax / alternative history sandbox of a user with few constructive edits (and none recently). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Weak Delete as per nominator, but why is the nominator ragpicking? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: I maintain {{US elections imagemap}} and {{United States presidential election imagemap}} and occasionally check transclusions on them. I don't go seeking out random userpages to delete. Though, these have been getting on my nerves a bit recently due to the quantity I've seen (many already deleted). Elli (talk | contribs) 17:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Comment - Thank you for the explanation. This is not so much a case of ragpicking then as of the theft of the rags. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per nom, quite a clear case of WP:NOTWEBHOST. — csc-1 04:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Keep: This does not look like sandbox misuse; this looks like someone genuinely experimenting with a template. Aasim (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Nvm, I'd agree with deletion as this user has not made productive contributions to Wikipedia yet. Aasim (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2021 (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:Long-term abuse/Rgalo10

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) 04:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Rgalo10 Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Rgalo10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Utterly pointless and contrary to policy. Not every sock master is an LTA and we certainly shouldn’t be giving attention them. This has no value and SPI is functional enough for this purpose. VAXIDICAE💉 02:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Delete Pointless promotion of a routine troublemaker. The page has no value and WP:DENY is best. Johnuniq (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Delete. VAXIDICAE💉, please inform the MfD that you are an SPI clerk and qualified for this, when MFDing LTA or SPI pages. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC) SmokeyJoe if it were up to me we would deprecate the use of this entirely...;)VAXIDICAE💉 10:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Depricate what? MfD? LTA? Life? The universe? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC) New LTA pages. VAXIDICAE💉 10:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC) I would look at arguments made during past MfDs before going down this route. If SPI clerks find the information useful then why deprecate it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Knowledgekid87 We don't generally. That was the point. I don't know of a single clerk that finds these pages generally useful. VAXIDICAE💉 20:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC) WP:QUICKSOCK and WP:NOTFISHING concern me here when it comes to dismissing these pages. Some users go to great lengths to conceal their identity, and its not unheard of where a years long user has been found to be socking. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Every single sock master is not an LTA. LTA is long term abuse, not every person who gets blocked and socks. And if someone's identity is concealed, it shouldn't be posted at WP:LTA as that would be WP:OUTING. Stop feeding trolls. We need to stop making their tells even more obvious so they can evade and stop giving them the glory. VAXIDICAE💉 20:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Yes you are right... not every sock is a WP:LTA. I never said anything about posting personal information though... this is more along the line of identifying behaviors and patterns. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Which is done easily at SPI. And almost all of the socks listed here are so mind numbingly obvious, they just get reported to AIV. VAXIDICAE💉 20:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Yes I am in agreement for this particular case... If you choose to go after WP:LTA then I encourage a look-through on arguments presented in past MfDs is all. There is no sense repeating the same WP:DENY rationales posed by past nominators. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Delete. This sockmaster is so obviously socking and disruptive that they can be blocked on sight even by someone who isn't familiar with them at all. Documentation like this is unneeded and does little aside from memorialising them. --Blablubbs|talk 11:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per WP:DENY. — csc-1 14:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per WP:LTA "Only add vandals that have a need to be pointed out, especially ones whose contributions could be confused for good-faith edits by somebody unfamiliar with their modus operandi. This includes sneaky sockpuppeteers, prolific trolls, POV-pushers, editors who add deliberately false or biased information and promotional editors. Blatant vandals whose sockpuppet accounts would be blocked swiftly as vandalism-only even if they weren't evading a previous block usually do not need to be listed here." - The vandalism put forward in this case is straightforward per Blablubbs. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Delete per WP:DENY. Personally I'd like to go one step further and either delete all of these or password-protect the pages as at this point these are just a hall of fame really. –Davey2010Talk 20:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Strong delete per WP:DENY. User:D47817 and User:Profile101 are two similar users that have a lot longer wikispans and yet both dont have LTA pages - I am with Praxidicae here in saying that this isn't really warranted. SPI and AIV are better pages when it comes to reporting socks, not LTA pages. Nightfury 22:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Delete: WP:DENY Aasim (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Comment: Praxidicae (alias VAXIDICAE) says "We need to stop making their tells even more obvious so they can evade ... "' Why is that not glaringly obvious to everyone? How often is a perfectly good SPI report either declined or turned into a very useful piece of advice to the sockpuppeteer on how to avoid detection next time, by some administrator or clerk telling the person who filed the report that they need to give a detailed explanation of the evidence, instead of just providing enough pointers so that an experienced administrator or clerk can follow them up? I have always thought that is stupid. And helping out sockpuppeteers by setting up a "long term abuse" page where we write out carefully detailed instructions for them on what giveaway signs to avoid with their future sockpuppets is taking the same thing one more step forward. JBW (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2021 (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/Draft:Mooshroom

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: redirect to Minecraft. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Draft:Mooshroom Draft:Mooshroom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Non-notable item of Minecraft fancruft. This is being submitted to MFD because it was Rejected by reviewer User:Tagishsimon, but an IP, probably the originator editing logged out, then removed the rejection: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Mooshroom&type=revision&diff=994837124&oldid=994834709&diffmode=source Then copied into article space also, where it could not be draftified, because there was already a draft, and was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mooshroom. That is an article in article space. This is in draft space, so that deletion is not bundled with the AFD. Deletion is being requested, not because of non-notability, which does not apply to drafts, but because of abuse of the review process. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Redirect to Minecraft: Per WP:ATD-R. The linked AfD has just closed as redirect to Minecraft. If abuse of the review process is truly persistent, a semi-protection of the draft redirect will probably work. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Redirect to Minecraft per above, to match the main space article and prevent cruft accumulation. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Keep. –MarioMario456 16:43, 30 March 2021 (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.

March 16, 2021

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 01:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ It's a trap for newbies, as per WP:HATC. Adminship is not a trophy to aspire for. Firestar464 (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Support, as this template is pretty much a trap. As an aside, I think I recall Barkeep49 saying he did a review of people with this template when RfA-hunting, so he might have some thoughts on the nomination's merits. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Comment - Just for the record this template has been nominated 3 times in the past: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 14#Template:User_wikipedia/Administrator_someday Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 October 18#Template:User_wikipedia/Administrator_someday Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Keep - as nothing in the nominator's rationale is different from the discussion in 2020. Can someone point me towards any evidence that having this template implies the editor is just looking to gain Adminship for a "trophy"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC) It's a bit of a misrepresentation to describe the last discussion as a clean/uncontroversial keep, particularly considering that towards the end there was discussion forming about deprecating it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Yeah but deprecation doesn't involve MfD, a discussion could have been opened at any time regarding the suggestion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Keep, not harmful enough to warrant deletion. — csc-1 01:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Comment: This is a problematic one. It does on occasion have value -- I've seen Barkeep and others discuss it in more optimistic terms -- but it's been a meme for years for good reason. Considering that keep arguments in prior discussions have included "this userbox lets us screen out the people who should never be admins", it seems...perhaps a little cruel to have, honestly. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Keep. Not a trap. Looking at the transcluders is to look at bias. This template attracts Adminship nominators, and the good ones become admins, and the others don’t, and some don’t realise and leave it one their userpage forever. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Curious: exactly how many editors, in the past 5 years, passed RfA and had this template on their user page beforehand? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC) That will be difficult, but you could sleuth it out. It is hard because templates' Special:WhatLinksHere don't record past transclusions or substitutions. You might have to examine RfA candidates userboxes before and after their RfA. Some might remove the template on the starting of discussion with a nominator, or on an agreement to nominate, or on the drafting of their RfA, or the launching of their RfA, or on their promotion, or a random time after their promotion. You might try WikiBlame on every admin's userpage, searching for the userbox text. A yet another complication is that many admins, on becoming admins, delete their userpage, understandably clearing their old personal data posted long ago, and so even WikiBlame will be unreliable. Also, their are a bunch of similar templates, and I really don't think one should be deleted before the others. These templates generally categorize, so it is very easy to find editors thinking about adminship, and in places like WT:RfA, you can find lots of evidence of admins looking for potential new admin candidates, and I am completely sure that these categories are browsed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Delete It is a bit of a trap for new users, and it really should be deleted as long as it is used as a negative example of unwanted hat collecting at RFAs. ( Also, delete the similar ones as well. ) Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Can you offer any evidence for this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Keep Wanting to be an admin (at least for the right reasons) shouldn’t be criminalised. SK2242 (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Keep Nothing has meaningfully changed since the past MfD. And, as a user who has this userbox on my userpage, I do not wish to become an administrator for the sake of collecting a trophy, but instead because my editing routine involves frequent requests for administrative action, and that those requests sometimes are not handled in a timely fashion. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Keep but warn in the template documentation that using this template may be looked upon negatively. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC) It also may be looked upon positively. I am quite sure that back in 2006-7, it was NOT a negative to aspire to being an admin, and back then everyone who aspired and was competent succeeded at RfA. If there is a problem, the problem is with the current cultural attitude to adminship, not with these old templates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC) While I agree that an aspiration towards adminship isn't inherently a bad thing, a significant portion of the users using this template have, in my experience, been more on the level of "narrowly avoiding a CIR block" than "about to be an admin", since well, most people who aspire to be admins and have the competency to pass an RfA know that this template is going to generate opposes. Should the culture be different? Yeah, but we work with what we have. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC) And I'm telling you that in the years since 2006, this template (and others like it) had a lot of uses on userpages of people who later passed RfA, and deleted the evidence, and that if you only look at the residual uses by users that RfA nominators pass over, you are looking at a biased selection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Fair enough. All I can say here is the perception that I've heard from other editors of the template, as well as my very-much anecdotal evidence. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Keep - It is causing any harm ? No. Will potential RFAs be slam dunk opposed based on showing this userbox ? No. Stupid MFD is stupid. –Davey2010Talk 21:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Keep. This was discussed 5 months ago and I don't see how anything has changed since then. This doesn't run afoul of any userbox policies so if people want to stick it on their user pages let them. It may be that this userbox is used a lot by newcomers closer to a CIR block than adminship but there are a lot of people that I think would make great administrators that have this on their userpage. Anyone opposing a candidate purely on the basis of them having this userbox is doing the RfA process a disservice in my view. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Keep per SK#2 and SNOW (very loosely in regard to both). Suggest a year moratorium on discussing this here again. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Keep per above and WP:SNOW. -Cupper52Discuss! 21:28, 23 March 2021 (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:Questia/Userbox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 01:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Questia/Userbox Wikipedia:Questia/Userbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ This userbox says that a user has access to Questia, but now that Questia is defunct this is obsolete as far as I can tell. Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Keep — While it might be defunct, that doesn't mean people can't display it. Perhaps change the wording to past tense though. — csc-1 00:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Keep - per arccosecant — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Keep - per CSC. Changing to past tense would've been much quicker than this route. –Davey2010Talk 21:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Keep and change to past tense. Nothing wrong with userboxes stating past actions. That said, I have nominated the user category this userbox populates for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 20#Category:Wikipedians who have access to Questia since user categories are subject to much higher standards than userboxes and the category now clearly fails those standards. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Keep per precedent as with e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User LyricWiki and accordingly adjust language to be past tense. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:09, 21 March 2021 (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.

March 15, 2021

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Firefly/Userbox Archive/User 911truth

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: delete. I have not subst'd it - if we're deleting it based on the content being problematic, substing to preserve it would rather defeat the purpose. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC) User:Firefly/Userbox Archive/User 911truth User:Firefly/Userbox Archive/User 911truth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ This userbox is offensive and supports a disproved conspiracy theory. By allowing this userbox to remain we are telling users that it is okay to believe this. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 21:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC) I had no idea this still existed, it was from a mass move of userboxes out of Template/Project space over ten years ago. Agreed it should go, I’ll CSD U1 it now. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 21:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Procedurally, I don't think that U1 is appropriate, since Firefly is not the creator of this page. I have removed the CSD template, following the criterion that Pages which have previously been moved are only eligible if all previous titles were in the user's userspace. I have no opinion about whether it should be deleted; if it is, however, we should probably consider a mass nomination of many of the templates in Category:Religion and belief user templates on similar grounds. I also note that this template is transcluded in about 35 user pages. Should those editors be notified? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Whoops - you’re quite right, I hadn’t realised, what with it being so long ago. I’d probably say subst and delete in that case. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 07:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC) I would say that the users probably should be notified along with a message saying that disproven ideas like that are not allowed on Wikipedia. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 11:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Delete I would also support somebody bringing up other similar templates in the religion and belief user templates for deletion. (within reason) Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Delete As inflammatory and substantially divisive. Zoozaz1 talk 12:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Delete as obviously offensive. –Davey2010Talk 21:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Delete; this is not a platform to promote offensive conspiracy theories. Home Lander (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2021 (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/Adopt-a-user wizard

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) 04:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Adopt-a-user wizard Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/wizard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/wizard/End (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:Wikipedia Adopt-a-user wizard templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:Wikipedia Adopt-a-user wizard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Template:Adopt-a-user Barnstar/Wizard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Template:Adopt-a-User wizard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Template:Adopt-a-User wizard/box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Abandoned/no development since 2011. Was never used. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC) I'm fine with it, if it could be deleted under G7. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:32, 15 March 2021 (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