Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:25, 20 January 2020

Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). Purge this page

Shortcut

WP:MFD

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText: and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
Pages in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

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

Before nominating a page for deletion

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

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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

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

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	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	6	17	6	29
TfD	0	2	3	5
MfD	0	0	0	1
FfD	0	2	1	3
RfD	0	10	19	29
AfD	0	0	0	0

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.

January 20, 2020

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Luístro/My Userboxes

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 WP:CSD U1. (non-admin closure) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Luístro/My Userboxes

Duplicate of User:Luístro/Userboxes Luístro ☎️ 16:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can just U1 this can't we? Adam9007 (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 19, 2020

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Fictional Warrior Races

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. RL0919 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Book:Fictional Warrior Races

Unmaintained Book:, which, as I understand it from Robert McClenon are meant to serve as navigational aids to existing bluelinked articles much like the relatively little-used portals and widely used navboxes. Other than a single category tagging using HotCat in the past year, it has been unmaintained since its creation in 2014 (nearly seven years ago). As such, unmaintained books are breeding grounds for vandalism, off-topic discussions, spammy links, and other undesirable activities. Moreover, it's only had 3 pageviews in the past month (which were probably from patrolling bots). Nevertheless, whether from humans or bots, when each subordinate article gets substantially more pageviews than the navigational aid, one has to question the navigational aid's purpose and usefulness. Moreover, it likely fails our criteria for the book space, with the plethora of redlinks. Doug Mehus T·C 17:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - User:Dmehus - I wasn't making a statement about the purpose of books but agreeing with another editor. I will caution that my opinion on another navigational aid, portals, is a subject of controversy that is dividing the Wikipedia community. In this case, the author hasn't edited in more than four years, and besides this book is in bad quality. I may submit a separate nomination package of other books by this author, but I won't add them to this nomination because that causes problems. But this one can be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator says that the listed articles get more views from humans and bots than this page. That is true, but this page isn't about humans or bots; it is about humanoids. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Robert McClenon and Dmehus: As a general note, Books are not intended for use as navigation aids, (although IMHO between lists, SIAs, outlines, categories, portals, navigation templates, indexes etc. we already have too many) instead the purpose was to provide a location for readers to quickly download a pre-organized pdf of articles in a topic area with a snazzy copy-left cover, or to order a print-version of the same through Pedia-press (see here for specifics). I use the past-tense, because per this discussion, a decision was made to archive all of Book space until the pdf render-er could be fixed. Resultantly, all links to Books have been hidden, and there is no way at the moment for readers to find them. I add further that assuming the argument about pageviews was ever valid to begin with, it is certainly not valid now, and would directly contravene the spirit of the RFC decision to archive book space. I also note that the render-er if it is ever fixed will ignore red linked aricles, although those are easily removed any way if undesired, in fact I will do so shortly. For books in deciding too keep/delete we are supposed to assess whether the collection is too broad, too narrow, trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. Having so stated, ~~I do net yet have an opinion on whether this particular archive should be retained, but given that~~ it is just a non-reader-facing archive, it almost doesn't matter. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The problem with this book is that it's unclear what selection criteria is being used. It seems to have been forked directly from the equivalent category, itself still a messy combination of individual characters, and various humanoid types that in some cases don't have any reliable sources describing them as a "warrior race". It may be peripherally encyclopedic to have a specialized book on this kind of set, but this particular version should be TNT'd. I say weak delete because as I mentioned above it almost doesn't matter given the current status of book-space. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 18, 2020

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Savvymcc/Gabbie Hanna

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: history merge. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Savvymcc/Gabbie Hanna

This page was created in mainspace in December 2016 and became the topic of an AfD in April 2017 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabbie Hanna, where the result was to userfy it (moved to student creator's userspace User:Savvymcc/Gabbie Hanna). It appears that the student creator didn't make any attempt to improve the article after first creating it. A separate creator's mainspace article Gabbie Hanna survived it's own AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabbie Hanna (2nd nomination), and has existed since September 2017. I think it's safe to delete User:Savvymcc/Gabbie Hanna. — Scottyoak2 (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a minute I'm showing this draft was created first, so Savvymcc needs to be updated as the page creator of Gabbie Hanna (this draft predates Gabbie Hanna). I'm pinging S Marshall here for his expertise, but I think we need to merge the history here per WP:ATT. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
History merge with or redirect to the mainspace article. Be very sure about possible attribution failure when deleting. There is no good reason for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with User:Dmehus and User:SmokeyJoe that there may be a need for history merge. In any case, I disagree with User:Scottyoak2 that it is safe to delete the subject page. This isn't crud, and it does no harm to keep this as a redirect with or without merge, and might do good. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
History merge, pretty obviously. I'm not sure any other result would actually be policy compliant, and I would NAC with that result, except I can't actually perform the merge, not being an admin. (So much for WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, ha ha.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason why I think an unbundling of the "delete" function would be useful for experienced editors like you or SmokeyJoe. We've unbundled the CheckUser and Oversight functions, which require signing of confidentiality agreements, so it's odd to me the community has never embraced unbundling the "delete" function. Doug Mehus T·C 13:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 17, 2020

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Short Method Of Multiplication

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. As noted in the discussion, userfication isn't a good option for pages created by IP editors, the page as it stands is definitely not suitable for anything, and even if improved it is not likely to be accepted as an article. RL0919 (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Short Method Of Multiplication

Reads like a how-to guide, fails WP:NOTHOWTO. Barely coherent english. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 13:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as content not suitable for an encyclopedia, while it's not impossible for methods to have articles (e.g. Long division), this could not simply be adapted. I'd suggest amending a How-to on WikiHow. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - It's a draft, and doesn't need deleting yet, but isn't helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral to Weak Keep per Robert McClenon. The arguments above are sound, but there just isn't a compelling reason to delete here. I would be fine with userification without leaving a redirect. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favour of Multiplication algorithm. Draftspace is for new topics. It is not good for forking narrowly defined subtopics from existing coverage in mainspace. If this is worthy of coverage, add it to Multiplication algorithm. If not, it is not for drafting. If it needs to be spun out as it’s own article (unlikely), get consensus at Talk: Multiplication algorithm. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This won't become an article. Userfication would be ideal for a registered user, but doesn't really work for IP editors, as IPs recycle eventually, depending on the network settings sometimes in a matter of hours, deleting immediately would usually seem a tad WP:BITEy tending towards keep at least for a week or two, but the address was blocked for disruptive editing which pushes me the other way, while acknowledging that it might not have been the same person. So I'm content to leave it for now to potentially let a new user play with it as an editing exercise, but I don't see deletion as likely to be a big negative, in the long run it won't do any harm before G13 catches up with it. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and argument by User:SmokeyJoe also makes sense. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral with tendency to Decline as NOTHOWTO if it were submitted and Reject after three times with no improvement. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:NavaShield

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:NavaShield

Abandoned draft for non-notable software. Article was Prod deleted in 2012 as a non-notable virus, and deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NavaShield in 2017. I cannot see the 2017 content so I do not know if the current content differs. The current version is a four-edit one-day dump and run by an SPA editor who was attempting to justify the inclusion of NavaShield in List of rogue security software . There were a few tweaks and comments on the draft over the first few days (by me, User:Begoon and user:David notMD) and two replies on the talk page (by me and user:C.Fred ) more than six months ago, but no content changes since. The content was a verbatim copy of a virtually unsourced user-generated Wikia page https://malware.wikia.org/wiki/NavaShield It's not copyvio since the Wikia page is CC BY-SA 3.0, but a user-generated site is not a reliable source, and it contains no useful references for us to reuse. The original AFD found only instructions on how to remove the software online.

G13 was declined due to a recent, invalid request for G4 by user:JalenFolf . So, what we have is an abandoned draft that has had zero content edits for more than six months that does not qualify for G13 because someone tried to delete it. The author is gone, no-one is working on it, and it does not appear that a useful article could be created even if someone were to work on it. I don't see any point in waiting another six months to G13 this, so here we are at MFD. Meters (talk) 04:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

missed listing the editor who made the initial AFCH comment: user:Theroadislong Meters (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete. Frankly, this should be a case where G13 can still apply. It's an abandoned draft. I'm torn about allowing recreation of the draft later, though. Part of me says the subject will never hit the notability criteria, so allowing a draft is a waste of time—or worse, allowing draft space to act as a web host for the information. Part of me says allow the recreation if a good faith editor is really trying to build an article. So that's why I say soft delete: get rid of it for now, but if somebody is going to put some effort into it (and not just regurgitate another Wiki's article), allow restoration or recreation. —C.Fred (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In my opinion, User:Dreamy Jazz made a newbie-admin error with regard to G13. A request to delete crud is not a real edit to the crud. Easier to delete here than to get another admin to do a G13 or whatever. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do see what you mean (my interpretation was a human edit means any change in wikitext made by a non-bot). By the way, if another admin thinks G13 does apply, you have my support in deleting it. It might be worth adding to the CSD criterion that CSD nominations are not edits for the criteria, but that would definitely need a discussion. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One does. :) —C.Fred (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch If we can't speedy delete this because JalenFolf chose the incorrect CSD rationale, that sucks. WilyD, what's the policy on that, do CSD tags effectively reset the 6 month clock for G13? Per common sense and WP:NOTBURO, I'd favour speedy delete per WP:CSD#G13. Otherwise, soft delete per nom and C.Fred so WP:REFUND can apply. A reasonable approach. Doug Mehus T·C 23:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall noticing it was at the six month mark. To be honest, if I'd come across it with the G13 tag, I might've done the deletion, though the policy doesn't strictly allow for it. That said, given that G13 can be undone by anyone for any reason, once it's been declined, I don't believe it's appropriate to re-add it (and really, I'd say it's inappropriate to re-add any speedy deletion tag removed by an admin or anyone else acting in good faith, except perhaps G10 or G12). Wily D 06:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It really does not matter now if the page is tagged G13 or not. It's at MFD and I doubt any admin would now G13 it without first looking at this MFD. Someone can close the MFD as G13 whether or not the article is tagged.

As for the strict interpretation of the G13 wording, I see that this wording has come up before. In Nov 2016 G13 read "excluding bot edits". There was an RFC in August 2017 Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_65 about G13 and following it wording was added excluding tagging [1] even though the RFC close did not mention it. The "and maintenance actions such as tagging" was removed by user:PrussianOwl in Aug 2018 as not having consensus [2] and about a year ago user:Legacypac introduced the "have not been edited by a human in six months" rewording [3]. I'm inclined to think that after a year of uncontested existence the "and maintenance actions such as tagging" should have been considered consensus even though the RFC close did not mention it, but that removal wan't contested either. I don't think that tagging a draft should reset the G13 clock, but I guess we will have to open a discussion if we want the wording loosened. Meters (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WilyD Thanks for the reply...yeah, it wasn't at G13 at the time it was tagged, but was wondering, since it is now, if we can exclude the previous deletion tag and tag it as G13? That was my thinking. Nevertheless, this should close as delete shortly anyhoo. I was just wondering what the interpretation was for the future. Doug Mehus T·C 15:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meters "(...) but I guess we will have to open a discussion if we want the wording loosened." <--- Oof, that sounds kind of like a bureaucracy, though.

Looks like a duck to me Doug Mehus T·C 15:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been quite a bit of reverting over changes to the wording of G13, including to this particular part of G13. I don't think a BOLD change is the way to go. Meters (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meters True. Doug Mehus T·C 18:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only advice I can give is to let go of you attachment to when probably hopeless but largely innocuous drafts get deleted, it doesn't matter. Outside of probably those falling under G10 or G12, there's no particular hurry. Wily D 05:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree fully with the above, with few exceptions the exact time of deletion isn't that important. While saying that, I feel like this should be speedy-able, but the CSD criteria are supposed to be construed narrowly so I don't see this as a newbie admin mistake, just a close adherence to a strict interpretation of policy. I do think in this situation there's some room for IAR, and I don't think that would cause any waves so long as the admins who did so were willing to immediately revert their own deletions upon request if challenged, which I'm sure would very rarely be the case. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/أبو السعد 22

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 G2. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/أبو السعد 22

Not an RfA DannyS712 (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G6, housekeeping, would save us all some time here. ——SN 54129 07:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete per G6 or G2 --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I won't say G6 because I haven't yet seen a good explanation of G6, even though I use it on redirects to neverland. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No useful content. Glades12 (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 15, 2020

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Toy portals

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: userspace without. There's a clear policy-based consensus, even if a raw head-count is divided. Deletion rationales are mistake the piece for an attack on small-topic portal maintainers (it's the opposite), and/or are WP:AADD fallacies (WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:LOUSYTITLE, WP:EASYTARGET). There's wide userspace leeway, if it's somehow Wikipedia-related and doesn't violate policies or incite disruption. One delete is self-contradictory, subjectively wanting deletion yet also suggesting the essay be improved. The last delete just does as the essay does: makes a personal argument for how portal deletion should change. The piece isn't really project-space material, however; it's near-unanimous that it conflicts with general MfD consensus/practice on micro-topical portals (= objection to this as a Wikipedia essay versus a user one). Only one comment suggested keeping a redir, but without a reason. The author does reference it frequently at XfDs, so a redir is contraindicated. This should not be draftified, since it's internal stuff, not encyclopedia development. Update: Userspaced to User talk:Robert McClenon/Toy portals along with talk page. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Wikipedia:Toy portals

I don't thing this essay enjoys enough support to be a Wikipedia-space essay. I've (obviously) no objection to this being in user space. But it looks like one person's opinion and one that doesn't seem likely to have significant support. Hobit (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not really care whether this essay is moved to User space. I am not entirely sure why the nominator has selected this essay to suggest that it be moved, and sort of wonder whether this will start a campaign of essay-moving, which at least will not be as unpleasant as the portals that this essay is about. I will point out that this essay was misunderstood. It was thought that I was saying that toy portals should be deleted, which is not what this essay said, or what my MFD statements said. I wrote this essay to support a Neutral position on certain well-maintained almost unused portals that I thought were the maintainer's toy portals. There is a saying that the difference between men and boys is the price of their toys, and that may also apply to women and girls. (I was once tasked by a manager to select a $5000 toy for the big boys and big girls who were my co-workers.) If a big boy wants to play with a toy portal, that is fine as long as they don't litter. Those portals were moved to project space. If this is considered a toy essay to be moved to user space, I will accept the judgment of the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userify. Despite suggestions, the author is not a party to the current ArbCom case, but this essay illustrates one of its themes: the denigration of editors who work on portals as children in a playground. Even in User: space, I would request one clarification: the introduction and the sentence The portal guidelines say... refer to a failed proposal rather than to any actual guidelines. Certes (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy (preferably with redirect). This is relatively controversial, only represents the viewpoints of one editor and has mainly just been used by the same editor to explain their positions in XFDs. (The links to the essay are evidence of the latter.) It can stay in userspace until it gets more support by others. Glades12 (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Draftify (either is fine; prefer draftify as a preferable place for the community to work on this community essay). I get the spirit behind this essay, but it's fledgling right now. It's not a fully developed essay. Doug Mehus T·C 18:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I oppose moving this to draft space. I haven't seen any community involvement in this essay, and the place for one-user essays in user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Robert McClenon: Fair enough. I have no issue with userifying, if that's the result at close. --Doug Mehus T·C 01:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will restate, first, that I was not denigrating the editors who play with toy portals, but was saying that they can be allowed their toys as long as they maintain them.

Second, the attitude problem that is illustrated is a defensiveness by the creators and defenders of portals, because they interpreted this essay as criticizing toy portals.

Third, this nomination illustrates more generally that the advocates of portals cannot provide a plausible argument for portals, because their reasons for wanting portals are mystical. I did understand the reason for the portals in question, which is that they were toy portals, and toy portals are fun, and harmless if well-maintained.

Fourth, if this essay is so poorly understood, go ahead and userfy it.

Fifth, I am not a party to the ArbCom case for two reasons. First, no one named me in their opening statement. The parties are the editors who were named in opening statements. Second, I didn't insult the defenders of portals, since I simply couldn't understand their mystical reasons.

Sixth, am I being encouraged to go through other little-viewed essays on deletion and propose via MFD that they also be userfied?

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I was not denigrating the editors who play with toy portals, but was saying that they can be allowed their toys as long as they maintain them" is massively condescending. I've no idea why you feel the need to be condescending. It doesn't help anything. Hobit (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a condescending, divisive, relatively controversial essay that appears to only represent the viewpoints of one editor. In my opinion, this isn't what Wikipedia is for and we shouldn't be encouraging users to have essays like these. Even if this is userfied, it would fall under WP:POLEMIC concerns regarding what editors can and can not have for userpages. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline on user pages disallows "[v]ery divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing". I don't think that applies here. Glades12 (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my opinion this targets editors more than it explains encyclopedia editing. There is no net benefit of keeping this essay around as it can always be moved to a word document and resubmitted at a later date with the issues removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not WP:CIVIL and per WP:POLEMIC. This is not about portals dealing with toys, but rather "toys" in line with the condescending "playground" rhetoric discussed at the portal case currently before ArbCom.—Bagumba (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I understand the concept of "toy portal", but unlike the author I consider that this type of portal is not good for wikipedia. Anyway, I don't see any sense in this individually essay. The author @Robert McClenon: can develop this concept in more complete essays like WP:PWP and WP:DexPor.Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Disagreeing with an essay is not by itself reason for deletion, it does appear to be a limited viewpoint written in a very negative tone, which is cause for userfication. It is related to encyclopedia editing and not direct enough an attack to qualify as an out-and-out Polemic. Suggest the author do a re-titling to something more neutral like "Pocket Portal" and remove the condescending and negative tone, the essay is unlikely to be influential otherwise. If this does stay in project-space anyone here will be able to do that if they so choose. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see that User:Guilherme Burn at least understands the context of the essay, which is apparently more than can be said for its more vocal opponents. Having taken part in the portal deletion discussions, I see that GB knows that I was not condemning toy portals but defending them, and so was !voting Neutral on User:Bermicourt's narrow-focus portals. I also see that some of the opponents of this portal either did not read the user page guidelines in saying that this essay is a polemic or cannot comprehend English, and the good-faith explanation is that they used a dictionary rather than reading the guideline. The rule against polemics in user space has to do with statements that have very little to do with Wikipedia, and this is entirely about Wikipedia. I was saying before the current ArbCom case was accepted that the advocates of portals must have some mystical attachment to them, and the bizarre comments here confirm that. I trust that the closer will sort out policy-based reasons to Keep, Userfy, Delete, or whatever from comments that indicate that some of the editors are using a dictionary rather than reading the guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I accept that Robert McClenon may not have intended the term 'toy portal' to be derisive; this is inevitably how most readers will see it and in this contentious area we should be seeking to use words that will encourage cooperation rather than those likely to inflame. Moreover, if we start labelling portals as 'toys' it follows that they ought to be deleted as pages designed merely for the amusement of the author have no place in an encyclopaedia. In which case they will fail on other more serious criteria that any new portal guidelines will no doubt contain. Bermicourt (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy; a bit divisive and derisive but still it is a more inclusionist opinion than heaps. The best scenario IMO is if Robert McClenon rewrites it to make it a bit less derisive. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 14, 2020

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bryan.Wade

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Votes are all over the place, and the page in question has been further moved behind a soft redirect, a change with unclear consequences on people's arguments in general (although some editors do specifically acknowledge this change and account for it). Some editors recommended following up with warnings and/or ANI for underlying behavioral issues. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bryan.Wade

WP:NOTWEBHOST. Page itself is misleading, and user apparently edits only to maintain the page - only edits in the last 7+ years are to this page, which was previously deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has been covered in the past. The awards are not official. There is no rules about people using these unofficial awards. Stop messing with people's user pages, regarding fake awards. Bryan.Wade (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Bryan.Wade Per Wikipedia:Service awards#Vanguard Editor (or Grand Gom, the Highest Togneme of the Encyclopedia), there is both a tenure and edit requirement. Do you have 16 years of service and 132,000 edits? If you repeatedly re-add the removed awards, my understanding is that you can be taken to WP:DR or WP:ANI, which have varying levels of authority to deal with contraventions to policy. I don't support deleting your user page, but I do support Jayjg's good faith removal of your awards, to which you're not duly authorized to display. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The page here is quite clear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Service_awards "These awards are unofficial – displaying the wrong one carries no penalty (except possible disapproval from other editors)" Bryan.Wade (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bryan.Wade Okay, fair enough, but the nom of this MfD could still, potentially, take this to a behavioural forum. For the record, I strongly disapprove of your displaying the highest level of award, at least not without some obvious and prominent notation that it is in satire and that you are, not, otherwise eligible to display the award. I also would strongly support a trouting. Doug Mehus T·C 18:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record here, there is establish precedent for the deletion of this page, which is discussed in another thread. Deleting the page would be overturning the establish consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Bryan.Wade/Bryan.Wade I would also say that the awards page literally says the following "displaying the wrong one carries no penalty". And that either this precendent that is established by the page should be followed, or the page should be clarified. If there are indeed official awards, then the page should say that. Bryan.Wade (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bryan.Wade For the record, and Robert McClenon can correct me if I'm wrong, but that MfD, which I appreciate you bringing to light late (this should've been disclosed sooner) was for a subpage of your userpage. So, there is no established consensus that your primary userpage should display these awards, and be kept. Moreover, consensus can change so, even if there were, which there isn't, this can change at any time. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to change my page back being a redirect to my other page, if you think that this would make it consistent with the previously established consensus. Bryan.Wade (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that on the following conditions that the subpage display, in bold faced and large font your disclaimer that these awards are those that you like but have not earned; that it be a soft redirect wherein the user is not automatically redirected to the subpage; and that you demonstrate that you are committed to editing Wikipedia outside of your userpage. --Doug Mehus T·C 20:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (was ~~Keep~~) I see no WP:NOTWEBHOST violation here. If the editor is misusing the awards in contravention of guidelines, then they should be removed. If the editor repeatedly engages in putting them back on his userpage, then there other avenues for that. S Marshall, this calls for your expertise and rational common sense here. Therefore, while I can't support deletion, in consideration of Bryan.Wade's subsequent replies and Robert McClenon's comment, I therefore recommend that the awards to which Bryan.Wade notes he likes but has not been awarded be:
Keep per Moonythedwarf below, because WP:NOTWEBHOST is misapplied here, and because MfD is for content not conduct, and rename User:Bryan.Wade/Bryan.Wade to User:Bryan.Wade/Wikipedia award templates I like per SmokeyJoe below (note to closer: SmokeyJoe appears to have changed his !vote from "delete" up top, but didn't strikethrough the first !vote, or alternatively, has !voted "rename" under the stipulations listed otherwise his earlier "delete" !vote stands). As to whether the subject editor is a single-purpose account or just an editor in extended semi-retirement who got pinged when his userpage was blanked, I'm not going to express an opinion on taking this to the appropriate conduct forum. However, know that this !vote and rationale is made with the caveat that the editor not revert to previous iterations post-close. In short, it is made with tremendous amounts of good faith and I am extending this rope to Bryan.Wade. He is welcome to do with said WP:ROPE as he pleases. Weak deleted^[1] per WP:IAR, the previous MfD identified by Bryan.Wade, and WP:CONTENTFORK as an existing subpage Moved to a subpage of Bryan.Wade's primary userpage already exists (credit to SpicyMilkBoy for identifying this). This seems like the best alternative to deletion that, without leaving the redirect, would force Bryan.Wade's userpage to have to undergo pending review again that a deletion would also do, which is what Jayjg is seeking, and, at the same time, would allow Bryan.Wade to still display the awards he apparently only likes, which assuming good faith, he says with this recent edit. I also strongly support a trouting of Bryan.Wade's talkpage at consensus close. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ MfD is not a conduct forum. It is a content forum.

Comment Bryan.Wade is eligible to display the Registered Editor service award and, with another ~15 edits or so, will be eligible to display the Novice Editor service award, per his edit counts. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Dmehus, it's one thing to display misleading material on one's user page. It's quite another to edit Wikipedia solely for the purpose of maintaining that page. A perusal of Bryan.Wade's edits shows that that is essentially all he has done here since 2009. Moreover, his userpage has been contentious; a number of other editors have blanked it, and argued with him about it, and it was even deleted in 2012. I suggest that the user page does not help Wikipedia build an encyclopedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jayjg But this sounds more like it's suited for a behaviour forum to which to take Bryan.Wade, for community censure and/or sanctions. My concern is that seems like an attempt to do an end run around that by having his userpage be subjected to pending review again. I'm not completely opposed to that, but I don't know how effective it will be considering the user could re-create his userpage in compliance with the guidelines, and have it reviewed by a pending reviewer. I think WP:DR, WP:ANI, and/or the WP:VP are the appropriate venue here. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep While I greatly disaprove of him showing those awards without earning them, ~~it is not grounds for delating his page.~~as far as I know its not a webhost violation to only edit that page and show templates on it, hes not using it to host anything that is not Wikipedian related. I would close this if I felt bold enough to, but if someone else wants to, plese do. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- LakesideMiners I have not proposed deleting the userpage on those grounds. Please review my deletion rationale, and my other comment above. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jayjg, Edited my commment. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete because this is not a conduct forum. I don't know if User:Dmehus is suggesting DRN when they mention DR, but this is not an article content dispute and should not go to WP:DRN. It is primarily a conduct dispute, but we are not in a conduct forum. As a paradoxical matter of assuming good faith, I assume that the editor is deliberately lying, because, if they are telling the truth about multiple accounts, they should be blocked for sockpuppetry for illegitimate multiple accounts, but making things up like Baron Munchausen is not blockable. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, I meant WP:DR, for Dispute Resolution. DR is always my preferred 1st avenue before going to WP:ANI and I wish it was a requirement for editors, for most editor conduct other than blatant sockpuppetry or threatening behaviour, to use DR. You and your team, which appears to need more DR volunteers, do good work over at DR. Would DR be an appropriate venue in this case, between the nom and Bryan.Wade, who appears to be engaging in "stolen wiki valor"? Doug Mehus T·C 16:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dmehus - Dispute Resolution isn't a forum, but a procedure that includes multiple fora including the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. DRN, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, is for article content disputes, and this isn't an article content dispute. Unfortunately, Dispute Resolution in general doesn't include a way of dealing with conduct disputes that is between discussion and WP:ANI. At this point, in my opinion, discussion has been attempted and has failed, in that the subject editor has restored the questionable awards. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon Thanks for clarifying the purpose of DR. It's too bad it had no real powers (short of blocking) to compel adherence to mediated outcomes as I think a lot of conduct disputes need not go to WP:ANI. Perhaps we need a volunteer-run Binding Arbitration mechanism? I'm not sure how a BA could be compelled, either the parties could agree to enter into BA, or WP:ANI could be engaged only for the purposes of swiftly punting to Binding Arbitration? Anyway, I'm disappointed by the subject editor's inclusion of the awards on his userpage, though I'm not sure under what policy-based rationale we can delete his userpage, which is why I suggested moving to a subpage of his userpage (see explanatory comments above). I think that would serve the purposes of a community sanction. Doug Mehus T·C 17:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dmehus - DRN has no real powers, because it doesn't have the power of blocking. The only content forum that has real powers is Request for Comments, where the result after a formal closure is a consensus, and editing against the consensus is considered disruptive editing and is subject to blocking. There have been frequent proposals for some sort of enhanced dispute resolution, every few months. I personally have no idea that I consider feasible, but am willing to review ideas. I suggest that we take the discussion of any sort of enhanced dispute resolution to Village Pump Idea Lab. Our options here are to delete the dishonest awards, and they are dishonest, not merely questionable, or to allow them, or to require that they be moved (your idea), or to go to WP:ANI. My own thinking at this point is that the least problematic course is to go to WP:ANI to make the case that User:Bryan.Wade is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia and can be indefinitely blocked, but that is only my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you, User:Dmehus, for causing me to write out my thoughts and come to a conclusion that differs from what I had originally written. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon I'd, potentially, be a supportive of an indefinite block, which is not permanent, of Bryan.Wade for the reason(s) cited above and assuming the proponent can make a substantive case, but I still can't support a "delete" here as this really is a conduct issue and the editor, when challenged, simply reverts previous edits. Doug Mehus T·C 18:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:IAR: This is not a place to handle conduct, but the page is indeed misleading, and all the user has ever done is maintain it, signifying they're probably WP:NOTHERE and are a WP:SPA. Conduct should be brought to WP:ANI or another appropriate notice board. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I am not really concerned about the fact that the service awards are fake. It's all made up and the points don't matter. However, all this user has done since 2011 is edit their userpage and complain about others interfering with their userpage. Given that the userpage has nothing to do with their actual activities on Wikipedia, that makes it a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST in my view. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SpicyMilkBoy: I don't see a WP:NOTWEBHOST violation here. If there were, this could be speedily deleted, as I understand it. However, while not opposed completely to an WP:IAR "delete" here, I think we have to consider my move proposal to a subpage of Bryan.Wade's userpage, without leaving a redirect, which serves the purpose of the nom's nomination. Bryan.Wade may well be an single-purpose account, which I think is the stronger argument, but as has been articulated, MfD is for content issues (not conduct). So, if this is a "delete," it's an WP:IAR delete, unless someone can cite an appropriate policy-based deletion rationale. Doug Mehus T·C 18:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He already has a subpage where he displays these awards - this apparently hasn't stopped him from displaying them on his user page as well. If you want an IAR argument, how about this - the drama generated by this userpage outweighs the benefits of letting it stay. Looking at his talk page history [4] it's nearly all concerns about his userpage, MFD notices, ANI notices... SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SpicyMilkBoy, thanks. I've changed my !vote. I still think this is a conduct issue, though, and there are avenues for that. I've cited the previous MfD, WP:CONTENTFORK, and WP:IAR as my weak delete reasons. -DM
Procedural Comment Pinging the previous participants in this MfD: Jayjg, SmokeyJoe, Bryan.Wade, LakesideMiners, Robert McClenon, Moonythedwarf, and SpicyMilkBoy in light of the subject's updating his userpage to a soft redirect to the subpage and to prominently stating in large and bold text that the awards listed are those which we admires but has, crucially, not earned. Doug Mehus T·C 22:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but take the creator's case to an appropriate notice board, as they seem to be a WP:SPA, that only maintains their userpage. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename User:Bryan.Wade/Bryan.Wade to User:Bryan.Wade/Wikipedia award templates I like, to remove all possibility of it being misleading, and advise the user it post a short self description on their userpage, the soft redirect to non-applicable awards is not ok. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe Even better. Now I have to change my !vote again. Doug Mehus T·C 22:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to User:Bryan.Wade/Wikipedia award templates I like. Doug is quite convincing below, and I will extend good faith here. I think this thread probably served as warning enough to Bryan. Combined with his generally amicable behavior, letting the page be kept but renamed seems an acceptable WP:ATD. Regrettably, delete An SPA editing chiefly their userpage in a manner that doesn't build the encyclopedia? Sounds like textbook WP:NOTWEBHOST to me (The focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration). Or we could go for the WP:IAR version: we do not suffer trolls or technicalities, or any such nonsense. Keeping the incorrect templates around is causing drama, and is not constructive. Lets take a look at [5] this recent revision of the page, which notes that "The awards below reflect the combined edit history and edit time of multiple accounts." That is patently false (unless we have a legendary sock on our hands). The bottom line here is that at the moment, Bryan.Wade is borderline WP:SPA on their userpage. I think deletion here will remove the temptation to be a userpage SPA. They can then recreate it with more appropriate content. I also think that we should give a friendly note to Bryan about SPA, and the issues with his account. I don't think a trip to ANI is necessary, a kind warning will do. There has been enough bureaucracy here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear here, because I am not sure if you were aware, the page in question does not show any awards anymore. Bryan.Wade (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But now its just a redirect to a page...that has all of the awards, so I'm afraid I don't see the difference. It being a soft redirect makes no difference. In that case, perhaps User:Bryan.Wade/Bryan.Wade should be the real target of deletion here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah yeah, I hate to be “that guy”, well in my case “that girl” but regrettably my take is an immediate delete as I don’t see the user showing any real efforts none whatsoever in building an encyclopedia. The sheer time put into non imperative trivialities such as displaying service awards not qualified for is borderline annoying. Maybe he/she could do better work outside the encyclopedia like maybe create their own website & design meticulously as they deem fit.Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek and Celestina007, I'm not defending Bryan.Wade's original edits, but if we're to assume good faith that he has realized the error in singularly displaying these awards, falsely, on his userpage (even though, notionally, there does seem to be precedent to taking no action), should we not be considering alternatives to deletion like that proposed by myself and expanded on by SmokeyJoe? That is, renaming the subpage, without a redirect, and including a brief biographical statement of the editor or a statement of his status on his userpage? Instead of a soft redirect, he could simply update to include a brief sentence or two about himself or state whether he is semi-retired, retired, on wikibreak, or what have you. From there, he could include one or more links to his subpage(s), including that renamed subpage that would now be at User:Bryan.Wade/Wikipedia award templates I like. I concur with a friendly warning on his user talkpage and that it probably isn't necessary take it to WP:ANI as there appears to be an effort on his part to make amends—which is what we want. CaptainEek, one could interpret WP:NOTWEBHOST in that way, I suppose, but I think that sets a bit of a dangerous precedent/"slippery slope" in terms of being even more restrictive of our userpages. If it's going to be a delete, WP:IAR is the way to go here. However, given what's transpired, unless I'm assuming too much good faith, I see no reason for deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 16:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus: Considering just how many years this editor has been around almost exclusively maintaining their userpage, I'd think they'd know by now that they made an error. The age of the account brings this, in my eyes, firmly into "I know I'm causing problems and don't care" territory. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moonythedwarf But given his efforts to make amends and looking at the fact he hasn't edited for ten years, it seems like he had notifications enabled when someone edited his userpage. When Jayjg edited his userpage to remove the "stolen wiki valor" in a bold move, he got an e-mail notification that brought him back here. There's no evidence that he routinely edited only his userpage every year for ten years, so it's an unfair leap to make that it's a single-purpose account. I see an undeclared extended wikibreak, semi-retirement, or even retirement here. The editor realized his mistake, realized his argument for maintaining the awards was very weak, and so I really don't see a reason for deleting here. If, however, he reverts to claiming he's received these awards, then I will begin to lose the tremendous amount of good faith and we may need to consider other options. Otherwise, let's leave well enough alone and not bludgeon the guy, especially if the subsequent changes recommended by SmokeyJoe are implemented. Doug Mehus T·C 18:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - ~~I am satisfied that this dispute is being resolved.~~ Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Dmehus:, @LakesideMiners:, @Robert McClenon: etc. Bryan.Wade is now claiming that he wants to keep the page because they are awards he likes. However, after the previous dustups over this he claimed "The awards below reflect the combined edit history of multiple accounts.", and he left this on the userpage for over six years. He's also tried this "hide it in a subpage" trick before. I find it difficult to take what Bryan.Wade says at face value, and in particular do not see how any of this nonsense (and allowing these pages) contributes to creating an encyclopedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My comment I made was based on Policy alone, I do want the page removed, but based on how the policy looks, I feel like hes not violating any policy. Please only ping me if you are responding to a comment I have made or if you think its something I should see. Thank You. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 20:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to User:Jayjg - I'm still going to stay neutral, although I am no longer satisfied that the dispute is being resolved. When User:Bryan.Wade says that the awards reflect multiple accounts, the good-faith explanation is, paradoxically, that the user is lying. (If they are telling the truth, who are they? If they believe that they are telling the truth, they are insane, and Wikipedia is not therapy.. There is no Wikipedia policy against this particular stupid lie that no one will believe.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  @Jayjg:, I've seen that diff to which you refer, several times, from six years ago. However, I see no evidence whatsoever that Bryan.Wade has reverted to old ways. As I've said above, this is a ROPE extension to Bryan. I'm sure you, Jayjg, et al., will have his userpage on your "Watchlist" and can duly bring the issue to WP:ANI, to WP:MFD, and elsewhere if he ultimately uses said ROPE to hang himself. As Robert McClenon and others have said, this is being resolved. Let's maintain cardinal rule numero uno: assume good faith and let this close out as appropriately recommended—renaming the questionable subpage without leaving a redirect, leaving the awards off the main userpage, and closer issuing friendly warning via Bryan's talkpage. Doug Mehus T·C 21:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless, personally, I think this whole dispute amounts to userpage policing. As Bryan.Wade noted initially, incorrect display of user awards are, strictly speaking, just guidelines. A case could made that continuing to police the same user's userpage amounts to badgering and that the self-appointed userpage "police officer" is, in fact, not building an encyclopedia. Frankly, enough digital ink has been spilled on this. ~~Let's move on!~~ Doug Mehus T·C 21:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This was appropriate userspace policing. The user was misleading the community with the content on his userpage. Now, he has a misleading usersubpage. The title matters. MfD serves well in policing these matters. The user can acknowledge the feedback and comply, or we should delete the pages. It is not time to move on; this discussion requires closing, and enacting the determined consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  SmokeyJoe Okay, fair enough. I withdraw the part of my comment which you reacted to. I completely agree that it's time for closure, which I requested earlier today. Doug Mehus T·C 01:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have struck my statement that I am satisfied that this controversy is being resolved. I don't know if it is being resolved. I do know that closure of this MFD should be one step toward resolving it. I no longer want to try to figure out what comes next. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I like how these awards look, as well. Maybe I do not choose to display them on my own user page, but that's simply my own mishegoss. If someone here does choose to display them, then that is their own mishegoss as well; no more than that. I say we let this editor stay here. it's a free country (and a free website), right? thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Meh. A little obnoxious maybe, but hurts no one and nothing and violates none of our rules. There's no consensus that these sorts of awards shouldn't be displayed undeservingly. Find consensus for that, and we can go ahead and remove them (still doesn't mean the history needs to be deleted). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites, Not obnoxious. I personally find it annoying that Bryan.Wade originally chose to display these unearned wiki awards, but at the same time, he rightly noted that there was no policy decision prohibiting him from displaying the "stolen wiki valor." So that's why I, somewhat reluctantly, supported keep here. It's harmless. And, at the end of the day, despite all of that, I managed to get him to move them to a subpage with the soft redirect on his userpage. It was a win-win-win for everyone. So, just so you know, I'm not a total deletionist. ;) Doug Mehus T·C 23:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or I suppose move to User:Bryan.Wade/Wikipedia award templates I like. I'm invoking WP:Asshole John rule. I've mulled this over for about 24 hours, and in the end cannot agree that it's harmless. It involves WP:WIKILAWYER and WP:GAMING and WP:BUREAUCRACY and WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOTRPG and WP:CIR and WP:ENC and various other interrelating things: this stuff isn't conducive to collaborating on an encyclopedia, it's intentionally or negligently disruptive (if minor) interference/distraction. The point of these antics can be interpreted as being just to say "nanny-nanny-boo-boo, you can't stop me, because there's not quite a rule against this, so I'm going to irritate the community you until you make one to force me to stop." (Why else are we here talking about this? Why would a legit editor not just stop?) It's not why we're here, and we should not entertain b.s. like this, for reasons explained at WP:DONTFEED and related pages. In short, it is not required that we go have an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Service awards to come to a conclusion to add an instruction to the page to not use awards you don't qualify for, this is already inherent in their nature, and we already know what the outcome of such an RfC would be. It's a WP:Common sense matter. While MfD is not a disciplinary venue, and this does have a behavior element to it, so do many things that come up here and get deleted (cf. some presently-concurrent MfDs against a troll-glorification pseudo-cabal page, and a necrophilia-advocacy userbox). We have better things to do that permit users (I won't call them editors) who are just here to try to get a rise out of people. Show them the door, and start by deleting their "advertising". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not going to offer a !vote as I consider myself to be somewhat involved; I answered Bryan.Wade's question regarding whether there was any consequence to displaying service awards which had not been earned. When I answered, I was unaware of the full context of the question. I believe the intent of the statement displaying the wrong one carries no penalty (except possible disapproval from other editors) is in regards to displaying a singular service award which has not been earned. Had I been aware of the full context, I would have been much more clear in my response. I would advise Bryan.Wade that he could link directly to the images rather than transcluding all those templates, but such a display that was created could definitely be misleading. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 02:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:TRIPKO

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. RL0919 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:TRIPKO

This draft probably qualifies for G11. However, speedy deletion should be reserved for cases where there is no question, and there is a slight possibility that it might be possible to clean this draft up (to leave very little), a deletion discussion seems in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotion only citing company material. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Promotional only and re-submitted multiple times without much improvement. Eagleash (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it qualifies for WP:CSD#G11, then I'd be supportive of nom tagging as speedy delete. However, I get the nom's thinking that that should be reserved for the most egregious examples. Thus, per WP:NODEADLINES, I'd just say, why not wait for a WP:CSD#G13? Draft: namespace isn't indexed by Google. So, call it a Weak Keep (1st choice) or Speedy Delete as G11, if nom decides to go that route. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely copy-pasted from the website. No attempt to rewrite it to neutral format. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising sourced entirely to company's webpage and social media, repeatedly resubmitted. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Pank

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Book:Pank

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of these books and pseudo-books are useless, being the work of an author who did nothing but create a mess of books and pseudo-books. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some of these books and pseudo-books are duplicates of each other. They are all the only work of an editor who came in Nov 2014, created these books and pseudo-books, whether as a test, to sell, or for some other reason, and departed in Mar 2015 with no other contributions to the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. Per nom; no need to keep any of this. Britishfinance (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Per nom and Britishfinance. These are just collections of links to existing articles. I thought that was the idea of the Portal: namespace. Original books should go to Wikibooks, in my opinion, and the English Wikipedia Book: namespace should be deleted as woefully under-utilized and unmaintained. This namespace seems like it has the potential for unnoticed vandalism, policy violations, and spammy links. I think we should have a substantive discussion on the Book: namespace for that reason. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I concur with User:Dmehus that we should have a substantive discussion on the book space. They seem to be no more useful than portals, except that it does not appear (at least not yet to me) that there is a mystical argument for Books. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 13, 2020

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Earth Needs New Management

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Earth Needs New Management

It's some kind of creative work/manifesto post, not content that belongs on Wikipedia. Author: consider putting this on a blog or something like that. creffett (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soapboxing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTWEBHOST, would be speedied G11 if submitted. No chance of being a legit article. Sent COI notice as well. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per soapboxing so concisely and eloquently put by Robert McClenon. I'm supportive of the deleting administrator, on request of the original author, e-mailing the deleted draft to the original author to take elsewhere (i.e., to his or her blog). --Doug Mehus T·C 18:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTAWEBHOST and WP:SOAPBOX.N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 10:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 2

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. Factoring in the author request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 2

An editor was archiving all discussion on talk page, even though article only had a few discussions at the time. Per WP:ARCHIVE, we archive to avoid bulk on the Talk page, which was not a particular problem here. Additionally, the Talk page is set up for automatic archiving, which manual archiving can interfere with when it creates a new page. I have restored the discussions to the article's talk page. None of the involved discussions are antiques, all have been added to within the past 6 months. Now this Archive 2 page should be deleted, so the automated archiving can continue to do its job. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as a currently unnecessary archive. Talk:Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous is currently (after the reopening of two discussions) only about 25 kilobytes long, which is far below the length where archiving would be needed (roughly 75 kb per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#When to archive pages). Glades12 (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Weak delete (see below for why I changed my vote) as archive creator. The main issue is that the first archive is getting too long; it’s over 100k long and covers well over a decade of discussion, so, IMHO, it’s time to rotate the archive. Anyway, getting in an edit war over archiving talk page discussion when the last discussion was updated over two months ago probably deserves a trout or to be put in WP:BJAODN; I find it quite silly. Should I point out that an admin appears to not support the deletion of that archive? Defendingaa (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While archive sizes over 100K are common, the maxarchivesize setting on the automated system can be adjusted, and deleting this page would allow the system to continue to function properly. Your derision for someone daring to stand in the way of whatever whim you had is neither appreciated nor helpful. Admin did not say that page should not be deleted, just said that it was not clear-and-non-controversial enough to be handled by the speedy deletion process. --Nat Gertler (talk)

You assertion that I have a “derision for someone daring to stand in the way of whatever whim” is inaccurate. Let’s look at the edit history here. You started off by reverting my first go at archiving the page. In the interest of compromise, after the speedy nomination for this page was removed, I archive all discussion expect the discussion we had a few months ago. Instead of accepting the compromise, you reverted my change again and opened up this discussion. I am sorry for my exasperation with these edits, but it really stretches WP:AGF when another editor reverts my changes twice in under 24 hours; that is a pattern of disruptive editing. I am trying my best to compromise with you on an issue which, quite bluntly, should not result in there being an edit war. It’s a silly issue. So, let me directly ask you this: Are you OK with the maximum archive size being reduced in half to 125? Or is this going to result in another revert of my edit from you? Defendingaa (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my vote to delete, as a way of reaching out to User:NatGertler with an Olive Branch. I have voiced my frustrations, and am now willing to move beyond this confrontation. I am hoping that we can be more cooperative moving forward. And, if any admin with username change permissions sees this, please let me change my username because my current username results in bad faith assumptions from other editors which is not helpful for the Wikipedia. Defendingaa (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the admin opposes deletion altogether, just that he doesn't consider speedy deletion the best process for a case like this. I bet pinging him will clear things up on that issue. Glades12 (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't have any particular opinion on how archiving should be done. But, given someone argued for keep here, it seems I was correct in supposing it wound not uncontroversial, and thus not eligible for speedy deletion under G6. Wily D 15:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doug Mehus T·C 23:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sebby Frazer

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. Personally I think I'd side with the neutral voters, but given only one full keep, two weak keeps, and several deletes I think we have a clear consensus to delete. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sebby Frazer

We have no way of knowing whether utterly non-notable unreferenced blps of this sort are not privacy violations. I do not think it advisable to keep them for 6 months. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Google search brings nothing about this. Frazer has 23 subscribers; YouTubers with over 10 million do not have a Wikipedia page. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - It's a draft, and an autobiography. It doesn't need deleting yet. It would need rejecting if submitted. We don't always need to delete useless autobios. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:DGG is wrong about the scope of WP:CSD#G11. This is well within scope and intent of CSD#G11. This page exists only to promote the YouTube channel of the title name. Google it, and you get his channel as top hit. It's a unique name, chosen for this promotional advantage of easy googling. There is no content that can be reused in any way for acceptable content, not least because it is unsourced, and there is no reason to think it is close to be being notable and worthy of attempts to reuse. Therefore, G11, and so tagged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the tag. Speedy presumes clear agreement by anyone who understands the practices here, so a good faith challenged speedy removes the speedy, no matter how wrong the challenge might be. There are hundreds of my clear speedys that I've had to take to XfD because someone objected. Speedy is the one place at WP where the argument, "I don't think so" is decisive.

I did consider G11 for this article, but G11 currently says "Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. " That does not mean it can not be deleted as mainly or significantly promotional, whatever the consensus might be to decide where to draw the line, but it does mean it can't be done by speedy. I'd love to find a speedy criterion to use for drafts like these, but there's never been consensus on any. S

If we want to change G11 to include promotional intent, we need to consider if promotional intent is intent to tell us about something so we might want to watch it or so we admire the subject, or, at hte very least, so the subject's friends will admire him. If we define promotional that broadly, we will soon find oursleves with no articles at all DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG, you appear to be correct with regards to the 3rd sentence of the text of WP:CSD#G11. See WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. Remove "Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOLE, no shot of it ever becoming an article given that there are no news articles about the person. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News articles aren't the only reliable sources (I see your point though). Glades12 (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral to Weak Keep per Robert McClenon. Deleting something within a few days of being created seems kind of BITEy to the creating editor. As written, nothing would be lost by deleting. At the same time, it's appropriately in Draft: namespace. I see no compelling arguments to deletion and just wait for six months and speedy delete per WP:CSD#G13. If further editing is done to this article that makes it a clear and unambiguous promotion for a non-notable YouTube "celebrity," then speedy delete per G11. But, as written, it's not there yet. Being in the draft space, Google won't index it, so per WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO and good common sense, I think we can appropriately extend WP:CHEAP to apply to a single-sentence stub draft article. Doug Mehus T·C 23:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my comments on WT:CSD. This does not currently demonstrate notability, it may never do so. But draft space should allow time and opportunity to understand how Wikipedia works, and for the creator and any other interested editor to demonstrate notability by citing proper sources. This is not promotional in any sense we need to be concerned with. If This person is found to be notable, a valid article would still drive some traffic to the person's web presence. That is fine, as long as the article is neutral and serves an informational purpose as well. I would decline a G11 on this in an instant, by the way. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for now Highly unlikely to ever become an article but cheap to retain for now, if it's turned into out-and-out promo it can be G11'd if not G13 will eventually take care of this. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the "keep" votes acknowledge that this draft will never become a viable article, so there is no point in waiting 6 months. Sure, it would be simpler to just let the 6 months pass and then tag it with G13. But now that it is nominated, just complete the process and delete it. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P199, respectfully, WP:GNG does not have one iota of influence into Draft: namespace. It's a plausible article that was edited recently; there's no reason to be BITEy by deleting it. Just wait for G13; there's no rush, and there's no reason to suggest this is an WP:IAR "delete." Doug Mehus T·C 19:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we would to any other useless cruft. We should be BITEy here; no real prospective editor would write an article as terrible as this. They are evidently only here to promote themselves (still promotion in effect despite the encyclopedic tone), I believe that we should have a tough stance on this. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User BNP

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: move to User:Alan McBrazil Burger/Userboxes/BNP. A raw vote count has this as 2 editors for deletion, 3 editors for keep (one keep-arguing editor did not make an actual bolded vote), and 3 for moving to userspace. As the pro-move edits were all at the end of the discussion and are something of a medium point between keep and delete, I'm opting to conclude this discussion with that action rather than closing as no consensus. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User BNP

WP:POLEMIC. Adam9007 (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not violate WP:POLEMIC.

Is the intention to forbid userboxes declaring support for disreputable parties? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such userboxes are already practically forbidden, per WP:NONAZIS (which, although an essay, has widespread support). If User:Mender/Userboxes/BritishNationalism is a white supremacist userbox, then this certainly is. I dare anyone who has had such a userbox on their userpage and had has had sanctions (formal or informal) enacted against them for it to tell me that such userboxes aren't polemical (I should know, because it's happened to me, though not with this particular userbox). Adam9007 (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I have been watching MfD for a long time, and selective deletion of userboxes is not routine. You may have an argument, but your nomination statement is inadequate. If it violates POLEMIC, say how. What I see is a userbox pointing to a legal political party. The British National Party contains many instances of the text "nazi", but it does not say in simple terms that this is a nazi party. I am inclined to disagree with your nomination, largely because Userbox MfDs is not the right forum to decide the boundary lines for Wikipedian's acceptable political affiliations. I am more inclined to support the user's self-declaration of sharing this party's POV, meaning that as long as the user displays this userbox, they must consider themselves to have a COI on all related articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To expand the question of User:SmokeyJoe, either we should forbid all partisan userboxes, or we should forbid userboxes for politically incorrect parties. Which is it? If a good argument can be advanced as to which is being argued and why, I may change this to a Weak Keep or a Neutral. (Looking across the Atlantic, I personally think that the Labour Party and the Conservative Party are also behaving disreputably, but that Britons have a right to support disreputable political parties.) Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No evidence of being polemical, violent or genocidal or anything. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close wrong forum TfD is that way (1st choice). Those above are correct that there is no WP:POLEMIC violation here and though I disagree deleting userboxes for blocked users, since it's apparently used by a single editor, deleting after substituting and orphaning the existing (and very minimal) transclusions as this is similar to what we did for the under-utilized Template:Bagel of Zion, as I believe that's the normal process. Pinging Trialpears and Pppery here as they are active at TfD. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wrong forum TfD is that way (1st choice) Userboxes go to MfD, not TfD. Adam9007 (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam9007 Where does it say that? Doug Mehus T·C 00:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus:WP:TFD Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside. Adam9007 (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that still seems odd as, what constitutes a userbox? We send service awards and barnstars to TfD, but technically, they're the same as a userbox. --Doug Mehus T·C 00:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine it's exactly what WP:USERBOX says. Adam9007 (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its only transclusion on a User base page is by a blocked user. Merits arguments aside, it's simply unused. --Bsherr (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting templates for being unused is very frustrating when you have reason to look at page histories. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe Can you clarify what you mean here, or are wanting to say? Your argument sounds intriguing, and I'd like to understand it better. Doug Mehus T·C 00:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think userboxes should be deleted for not being used, if they have been used on past versions of userpages. Someone may have blanked their userpage with {{Wikibreak}} or similar. When they return and unblank, they should be able to do so without discovering userbox templates deleted for not being used. Also, when attempting to understand the edits of a user long ago, it is useful to look at their userpage from that time. Deleting once-used, but now no longer used templates is an action deleting and damaging the historical record. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to User:Alan McBrazil Burger/Userboxes/BNP, without leaving a redirect, and update the transclusion links on the various userbox directory pages, per SmokeyJoe above. Though it's only used by a user, currently a banned user, and we could substitute and delete, on principal here, I don't think we should delete and userifying this would be a perfectly acceptable alternative to deletion. Failing that, call it a Weak Keep as a second choice. Doug Mehus T·C 14:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userspace (without redirect, but fixing the transclusion) per Dmehus's and SmokeyJoe's arguments. Userfying is our most common approach (like, thousands of instances, albeit mostly a long time ago) to userboxes that do not belong in "Template:" or other namespaces. Can even move it to User:Alan McBrazil Burger/BNP, since there isn't any User:Alan McBrazil Burger/Userboxes/ tree into which to fit this. Users create personal, single-use templates in their userspaces all the time, and MfD has never considered this a problem. Content-wise, WP is open to far-right editors just as much as to far-left ones, and to authoritarians as much as to antiauthoritarians, as long as their viewpoint isn't being injected into articles or used as a WP:BATTLEGROUND/WP:ADVOCACY disruption pattern. I say this as a strong antiauthoritarian and former professional civil liberties activist, who finds the BNP respulsive, BTW. This is a very different case from the other concurrent MfD about userboxes advocating necrophilia and zoophilia, which are clearly there just to rile people. BNP is a legit political party, and WP is tolerant of political-party identifiers as userboxes. They actually do serve a collaboration and encyclopedia-building purpose (even if only by accident), in wearing one's political bias on one's sleeve. The same can't be said for userboxes that are just about what weird stuff one supposedly likes to orgasm over. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per above. Userspace is suitable for userboxes not directly connected to project purposes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AdorableRuffian/Userboxes/BritishNationalParty (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. RL0919 (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:AdorableRuffian/Userboxes/BritishNationalParty

WP:POLEMIC. Adam9007 (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not violate WP:POLEMIC.

Is the intention to forbid userboxes declaring support for disreputable parties? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See this comment. Adam9007 (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To expand the question of User:SmokeyJoe, either we should forbid all partisan userboxes, or we should forbid userboxes for politically incorrect parties. Which is it? If a good argument can be advanced as to which is being argued and why, I may change this to a Weak Keep or a Neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. I think we're getting dangerously close to policing user spaces. Supporting right, or left, leaning political parties does not violate WP:POLEMIC. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Krzyzowiec/Userboxes/ThirdPositionist

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete. BD2412 T 02:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krzyzowiec/Userboxes/ThirdPositionist

Same reasoning as in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Italian Fascist and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Fascist. We shouldn't be giving Nazis a platform. – Frood (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - The term is sufficiently obscure that it has little polemical value. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: the Celtic cross on the userbox is a white supremacy symbol. I'm not sure how that's obscure? The sixth word in the article linked in the userbox is "neo-fascist". Also not exactly obscure if you ask me. – Frood (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Frood: I get your admirable intentions, but Robert McClenon did say, "little polemical value." That, to me, implies he's aware of the symbol, but that, on balance, it is "sufficiently obscure." As to the term "neo-fascist," that doesn't just refer to white supremacists. This could refer to various fascist political ideologies. In terms of policing infoboxes, do we also delete userboxes of those supporting Antifa or similar radical socialist groups? I think we're bordering on censorship here, and I can't support that. Perhaps we should have a discussion about including a disclaimer on userpages displaying certain infoboxes, but that's about as far as I'd want to go. --Doug Mehus T·C 00:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a precedent set for deleting userboxes that endorse fascism in the two MfDs I linked. WP:POLEMIC says that "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities" are prohibited on userpages. How the hell does something described as including "ultranationalism, racial supremacy, populism, authoritarianism, nativism, xenophobia and opposition to immigration" NOT fall under vilifying other people? – Frood (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frood My understanding is that deletion discussions are not, necessarily, precedent-setting. In order to be binding, I'd suggest a policy proposal at the Village Pump that would refine the wording to permit deletions of such userboxes in all cases. --Doug Mehus T·C 20:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Robert McClenon. I do not endorse the political ideology, but at the same time, I see no reason to mess with an editor's userboxes for the sake of maintaining good editor relations and good faith. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 12, 2020

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Office actions/Log

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 and mark as historical. BD2412 T 05:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Office actions/Log

Given that the only entry on this page has been overturned, that the WMF has committed not to issue any more project-specific bans, and that there is a complete log of office actions maintained on meta ([6], [7]), this page no longer serves any use. – bradv🍁 17:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.

This is to revisit Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by WMF Office?

This is highly significant Wikipedia history. Do not delete history. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I recognize SmokeyJoe's concern that is this a revisit of the previous MfD, but consider the following: Since that MfD, Fram's ban was vacated by ArbCom and thus the page is empty. Because, as bradv notes, WMF has "committed not to issue any more project-specific bans", I don't think this page has a future purpose to exist; any future entry would be entirely redundant to existing Meta logs. I disagree it is "highly significant Wikipedia history", as everything and more that could be found on this page, can be found at WP:FRAM; this page contains no new or unique information not found there. –Erakura^(talk) 03:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "WMF has "committed not to..." is great, but worthless if people selectively delete the records. Logs can be archived, not deleted. The fact that the log contains one tumultuous entry does not mean that this log is not important.
  I disagree with User:Primefac's blanking of the old entry. Why are Bureaucrats and Arbs trying to hide the history? Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram sort of hides the history by burial in excruciating detail. This log is the simple log of the simple fact of office action, and should be preserved for when it happens again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think some clarification is in order -- Primefac didn't remove the log entry unprompted in attempt to 'hide the history'; he likely saw my comment on Xeno's talk page. As for myself, I have no previous interaction regarding the Fram situation, but I am familiar with it. –Erakura^(talk) 04:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, meta:WMF Global Ban Policy/List shows a moderate list of WMF banned people, including some familiar names I didn't know were banned. I see I have to google offsite to find gossip on the reasons. Is the difference between that list, and this list, that this one contains only en.wiki WMF bans that were done without consulting the en.wiki ArbCom? Or is a problem with this list that it is incomplete? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. I did it for the reasons you've given; the page (much like those at WP:RESTRICT) are meant to list active sanctions, which Fram is not currently under. Primefac (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I understand SmokeyJoe's point (I even have this cool userbox about it), but I don't see what value this page serves as either a practical administrative tool or as a historical artifact. As an administrative tool, we have a more complete list of office actions on meta, making this largely redundant, and as for future use we may want to consider WP:DENY before deciding to maintain such a list. As for its value as a historical artifact, it was not created by a WMF employee, so it's not part of any official history of the Fram debacle, and it never contained any information other than a listing for Fram. It was part of that saga, but a very minor part and whose value is more in the previous MFD discussion than in the page itself; the history will be more easily remembered by the arbitration case, or the incredibly long discussion at WP:FRAM linked from the WP:CENT archive, or the two phase consultation on meta that ended with a WMF employee stating "we will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans". It's a minor artifact and a small part of larger historical period, but given how little use it does or will serve us, on balance, I'd lean delete. — Wug·a·po·des 01:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SmokeyJoe. The history preservation is important here, as a record of past log actions, and to who helped to develop this page. I'd support a weak redirect to a suitable target or to userify-ing or draft-ifying this page. I see no reason for deletion, though. Doug Mehus T·C 18:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The argument of User:SmokeyJoe has merit (which is more than the ban of Fram did). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep persuaded by SmokeyJoe, and the absolute necessity just isn't there. But I don't really see Primefac as actually trying to hide the history either. ——SN 54129 16:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Yeah, I didn't really look into that part of the argument about Primefac's reasons for blanking the page. Primefac is a fair and neutral bureaucrat with the best of intentions, which is what we would want in our bureaucrats (if admins are often symbolized as janitors with mops and buckets, are bureaucrats the janitorial supervisors?). I have no issue with blanking the page, or at least putting a notice atop the page that this page will remain a blank wikitable template due to WMF's stated plans not to employ the office actions without consensus. Doug Mehus T·C 17:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as historical. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Historical for transparency and add a link to the announcement(s) or discussion(s) where it was determined that these type of actions are not going to be used in the future. There's no need to hide this page. Additionally, there is always a chance that office actions could be resurrected in the future and the page might be reactivated. Visibility is good. Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark as historical. While I agree that most of this is covered elsewhere, I don't see how deleting it improves anything. Don't delete historical content just because you don't see a use in the present. —Kusma (t·c) 13:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 22:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC) ended today on 14 June 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

January 8, 2020

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Iconic Brands of the United States

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

The result of the discussion was: soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Book:Iconic Brands of the United States

This book has inherent WP:POV concerns, as there is no defined source of what brands are "iconic". People could easily argue that some included brands are not iconic, and some omitted brands are. (Multiple possible examples omitted for space.) I proposed moving it to the creator's user space, but received no reply. RL0919 (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Waiting a few more days for a comment from User:AntonioMartin. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Since there is no input from the book's creator, do you have any further comment? --RL0919 (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of a comment from the author, who has edited since it was nominated. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed discussions

[1] MfD is not a conduct forum. It is a content forum.

[1]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 ==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.<!-- PLEASE ADD your discussion BELOW this line, creating a new dated section where necessary. -->
+===January 20, 2020===
+{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Luístro/My Userboxes}}
 ===January 19, 2020===