Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

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	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	1	24	25
TfD	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	8
FfD	0	0	0
RfD	0	65	65
AfD	0	1	1

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

Archived discussions

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

Current discussions

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

April 7, 2017

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jackfilm

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jackfilm

Useless content. B1 l T l C Brynda1231, Do Not Steal. 14:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now that we are here, but per WP:DENY, better to just quietly blank trolls' trails. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2017 (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:Ghana Wikipedians' notice board

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

The result of the discussion was: Redirect. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ghana Wikipedians' notice board

Orphaned noticeboard that never got off the ground. – Train2104 (t • c) 05:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archive, or redirect, but do not delete. Deleting failed ideas dooms future editors to repeat the mistakes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2017 (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:Ashley Argota! (a+s)

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ashley Argota! (a+s)

Stale user draft/copy of Ashley Argota that hasn't been edited since 2009. The current content at Ashley Argota was created before this user page. Steel1943 (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No need to keep a stale user draft/copy of existing article. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2017 (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 Internex stupid

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: Adjust. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Internex stupid

WP:UBX guidelines: "Avoid negative verb phrases which can be potentially divisive, such as: dislikes, despises, hates, loathes" AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename/reword per nom. Template name and text does potentially fall under what the nominator has said. However, renamed & redone the template could possibly be acceptable and users would probably use it as it does channel a popular belief of Windows Operating System users towards the built-in Internet Explorer web browser. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reword. Easily fixed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2017 (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 Skype hate

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 reword. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Skype hate

WP:UBX guidelines: "Avoid negative verb phrases which can be potentially divisive, such as: dislikes, despises, hates, loathes" AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reword "hate" to a less emotional criticism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2017 (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 WLM hate

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User WLM hate

WP:UBX guidelines: "Avoid negative verb phrases which can be potentially divisive, such as: dislikes, despises, hates, loathes" AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for three reasons: the WP:UBX violation per nom, the fact that Windows Live Messenger ceased operations in 2013, and the fact that this userbox doesn't pertain to editing and should've been migrated years ago. – voidxor 04:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because of the WP:UBX violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliot321 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but easily corrected. Keep as edited. Rename to Template:User WLM unsatisfactory. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2017 (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:Long-term abuse/Asilah 1981

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. Article was speedily deleted by Nyttend at 01:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC). Mz7 (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Asilah 1981

LTA case page for a nonexistent user, description is that of a dispute and not abuse – Train2104 (t • c) 05:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since the page in question has been deleted, could an administrator please close this discussion? I would (to help out) but I don't know if I am allowed or 100% sure how. Thanks! Mz7 Kurykh --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 6, 2017

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wolfrimbaud2010/Peter Kearns

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wolfrimbaud2010/Peter Kearns

Has a nearly identical page created by a user with a nearly identical name at This Link

Since this user no longer exists it should be all right to delete, it's probable this second account is run by the same person. The page has also remained untouched for several years. Hwdirre (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:STALEDRAFT most likely applies among other things --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2017 (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:Soorebia

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Soorebia

Draft was eligible for G13 speedy deletion as it has not been edited since 6 October 2016‎, but an IP user who has never edited the draft previously, removed the db-afc template (by deleting the 'db' part). TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stale draft; detemplating by an IP is not a substantive edit. Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Request was denied, it appears unlikely that anything can be done to fix the issues regarding external reliable sources. South Nashua (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The IP was a school vandal, and likely came across the page through RC, when the speedy edit popped up. Not a reason to keep a pretty clearly abandoned draft. TimothyJosephWood 13:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: What do you mean by RC? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor, Special:RecentChanges. Since it hadn't been edited in months, and the IP edit occurred one minute after the template was added, there's really no other explanation than that the vandal was browsing recent changes looking for random crap. TimothyJosephWood 11:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: Oh, okay, thank you! Yes, I do agree that when I came back to the page (refreshed it) shortly after that the tag was removed to be unusual and so looked into who did it (and that it wasnt an admin) and made the report here.

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:Osothecrew

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 Copy of Draft:ĀR RÄ NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Osothecrew

This user page is a fake article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Per this diff, this appears to be a vanity page and the same article has already been submitted and rejected for mainspace as lacking evidence of notability. General Ization ^Talk 20:24, 6 April 2017 (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:Timeshift channels

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: Userfy. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Timeshift channels

Personal preferences of an editor not to see spoilers - userfy? I'm not sure if this belongs in project space. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as this is really a very personal essay --Whpq (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, unless the author wants to rewrite it not using first person, per those above. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:15, 10 April 2017 (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:Centralized discussion/China

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/China

These discussions happen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China. Creating subpages of CENT (though done before) doesn't seem appropriate. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ - the matter is the naming of subpages related to PROC and/or ROC. Well, the primary pages, China and Taiwan, are no longer part of the goal, so the issue is struck out. BTW, I typed "Taiwan" to search for discussions in WikiProject China. I don't see recent discussions about the naming disputes. I see very old ones, but they occurred before the 2012 moves. How would WikiProject China or WT:WikiProject Taiwan handle this? I'm surprised by the MFD nomination. What about the project talk page, which has full of comments? --George Ho (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I tried "People's Republic" but found just invitations to other venues where individual discussions occurred. Same for "PRC", "PROC", "Republic of China", and "ROC". --George Ho (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the naming issue has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China-related articles. Past proposals may have failed, such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)/Taiwan. George Ho (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first things I noticed entering Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China is the PRC flag, the portal link and the sentence "This page is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia." Clearly this is a place for PRC topics. The discussion concerns Taiwan as well, so it doesn't belong there. Szqecs (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

support deletion. There is no meaningful content on the main page, while the talk page just consists of flawed proposals and questions and very limited discussion. Most importantly there are already venues for these discussions. In particular there are the existing policy pages, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China-related articles and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) that already cover this ground. Any changes to these policies should be discussed on their talk pages, any other related topics on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a continuation of the various attempts at circumventing the results of the moves of China and Taiwan to their respective current titles. Number 5 7 11:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like just another way of reopening recent discussions about renaming of articles (most of which have been closed with clear consensus). --T*U (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to a different location if the title is problematic. As misguided as this may be, we typically do not delete good-faith discussions. Instead, if there is an issue with the discussion, it should be closed with a note explaining why. Mz7 (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or per Mz7, move to somewhere) - After endless RMs and attempted proposals to update guidelines, how else can we discuss the matter? Yes, "China" and "Taiwan" are frequently used names, yet the attempts to implement consistency on subtopics have been proven controversial. The RM closure of Talk:Politics of China#Requested move 11 December 2016 was discussed. Since the closures of Talk:National Emblem of the People's Republic of China and Talk:Civil Service of the People's Republic of China, I felt that central discussion is needed before another RM happens. As for the "central discussion" subpage, of course the page was disorganized. So was the Macedonia one when it began. If other venues are unsuitable for the China/Taiwan issue, give this page a few weeks more, so the page can improve. --George Ho (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC); "move" emphasized. 07:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Update: User:Szqecs/Naming conventions (China and Taiwan) is created as proposed guideline. I wonder whether the project talk page can move into User talk:Szqecs/Naming conventions (China and Taiwan).~~ George Ho (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC); edited, 15:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC); fully struck, 15:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user namespace is not a suitable place for public discussions. This discussion can be moved to Wikiproject East Asia, but personally I don't see the problem with it being here. Szqecs (talk)

@George Ho: Please remove that link. I do not wish people to edit that user subpage. Szqecs (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Strike or remove the whole thing please. Thanks. Szqecs (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep disclaimer, for some reasion I was invited by hand to participate in the discussions, though I have yet not done so. I feel they should be kept, as they are well marked, and are not circumventing anything. They can be moved over to the main project page or deleted later. L3X1 (distant write) 21:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, appears to be a somewhat dishonest attempt to circumvent the consensus in the recently closed RMs. If this RfC were to go ahead it would presumably overrule the consensus at Talk:National Emblem of the People's Republic of China, where it was determined to use the long title, as opposed to just "China". This was done based on reasons relating directly to the article, and it was a properly conducted RM. It seems like some POV pushers here should WP:DROPTHESTICK, instead of forum-shopping to achieve their goals. Laurdecl ^talk 03:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurdecl: FYI, I created this page but I did not participate in the RM you speak of, nor do I wish to. As the title says, this is a centralized discussion, which takes into account results of individual discussions. Also, this is not an RfC yet. Funny how you assume what would be the outcome before it even started. Szqecs (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm sorry for assuming so. It still seems to me like an attempt to circumvent the recent RMs and the difference established in the names, i.e.: "Flag of China" and "National Emblem of the PRC". Isn't the point of this page to determine which titles to use, and bring them into consistency? Laurdecl ^talk 22:25, 13 April 2017 (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:Sun Kids G

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sun Kids G

Various socks have over the years objected to me removing the programme list from Chutti TV so instead of risk getting blocked they instead save this (and other similar) articles to userpages, Although they're edited here and there they're never really improved upon and said edits never get added to the actual article because they'd be reverted so personally I believe for this case this should be deleted,

Usually I wouldn't have an issue with redirecting or tagging with the blank userpage template however socks have before reverted the redirects as well as reverted the blank userpage templates and then the userpages get deleted so as I say in this case I believe deletion is the best way, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 15:24, 6 April 2017 (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:Competence is not required (2nd nomination)

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete by RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Competence is not required

Wikipedia:Argument from authority is also germane to this discussion. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't essays and neither deserve to like in the Wikipedia namespace. ~~This isn't an essay and doesn't deserve to live in the Wikipedia namespace.~~ Chris Troutman (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. Utterly uninsightful, devoid of context, just a one-off reaction of one user venting (in a very oblique way) his frustration with a discussion that didn't go his way. No prospects of either of these becoming a useful point of reference for multiple editors, as project-space essays ought to be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you don't think it's funny either... Siuenti ~~Sienti~~ (씨유엔티) 16:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. They are at best quips (or rather failed attempts), not essays. The first half of the first one seemingly disagrees with WP:COMPETENCE, but in fact basically says the same thing that WP:COMPETENCE does (that you should understand you are not infallible), the rest is either silly or just a quote that does not justify a separate essay.—J. M. (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Currently what is supposed to happen when you come up against an argument based on a particular editor's authority? Siuenti ~~Sienti~~ (씨유엔티) 19:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both An essay in project space should reflect community procedures or plausibly explain (with a view supported by a significant minority) why some exceptions from standard procedures should be made. However, these pages have no useful advice or humor. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is the community procedure when a discussion comes to a halt because of an argument from authority? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 08:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuiq: so currently, I believe when editors reach an impasse regarding statements of fact based on their own authority, the procedure is go somewhere else and ~~canvas~~ solicit third party opinions. I think it would be a better idea to look for evidence for or against that statement before you have to go ask Jimbo or someone. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 12:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my suggested procedure when a discussion breaks down due to an argument from authority on the part of someone who, falsely, believes he is competent on the issue, another editor would say to him "argument from authority doesn't count, what we do around here is look at evidence." and they might gently trout the editor with my "competence is not required" thing. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 15:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that makes any sense at all.—J. M. (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example, someone says " X is impossible" and I say "are you sure, would mind double checking" and they say "no I'm not going to double check, I'm positive". I would like to be able to require evidence instead of going canvassing. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 16:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still does not make any sense. Wikipedia simply requires verifiability. But please let's not discuss these things here. Both "essays" are uninsightful and obviously based on a lack of understanding. I would suggest trying to learn and understand the principles of Wikipedia instead of writing useless essays. If you are unsure about certain things, there are places where you can ask questions (like the teahouse or the help desk). But not here please.—J. M. (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely a lack of understanding here. I suggest that a statement isn't verifiable. They don't bother to verify it because they are sure they are right. What do I do next? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did understand what you were saying (but please read my previous reply, the answer is there). Please let's stop the discussion, it doesn't belong here.—J. M. (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the answer to "what do I do next if someone refuses to verify something" is what? go to the tea desk? help desk? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how sure J. M. is that I should go away... Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I look at WP:Essay it seems that essays might be deleted if they are found to be problematic. That would seem to imply that it is problematic and possibly even disruptive to remind people they are not infallible and that arguments from authority don't count for much around here, so maybe we could get some evidence or policies instead. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 14:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both - People, it's a humor essay... RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that they are not essays at all. What does Wikipedia:Argument from authority say? There is no thought in it (and no humor either), it simply does not say anything. It's practically empty, devoid of content (and judging from the author's comments here, I think it is safe to say that they will never contain anything meaningful).—J. M. (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will redo my keep to just keep the Competence is not required essay. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't it say to you "In wikipedia we don't rely on arguments from authority"? and isn't it kind of funny that an argument from authority is being used to refute arguments from authority? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it needs to have the humor tag. I would support the keep of both if both had the humor tag. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged for humor and put a note to explain why I think it's funny, opinions clearly differ. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per RileyBugz .....covered by WP:ESSAYPAGES.--Moxy (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone can write an essay, but it can and should be deleted if it has no humor and no useful advice, but instead suggests that a very widely supported principle (WP:CIR) should be undermined. See WT:Verifiability#Just in mainspace? for some background on the second proposed essay. That discussion shows that the aim is to prevent people posting comments unless accompanied with reliable sources that verify the content of the comment. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um no, the aim is to prevent decisions being made based on assertions from authority when the asserter's belief in their own infallibility is so great that they believe no supporting evidence and/or policy need be provided when challenged. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 07:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - To double check, I asked @Johnuniq: whether he still believed the statement above but his response was kinda ambiguous. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Not essays. Not humorous. Just begging to be repurposed as bogus policies with the false cover of being in Wikipedia namespace. Cabayi (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of 'bogus policies' do you think they might be repurposed as? One intention is to promote the use of actual policies in cases where they are not felt to be relevant. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NCIR, no vote on Argument from Authority. If someone wants to recommend making WP:CIR a guideline, they're free to go for it, but right now it's just an essay (... and I doubt a page that cautions against its own invocation would pass muster). This idea that Wikipedia:Competence is not required is committing some kind of dangerous blasphemy is pretty funny. No one "follows" CIR. There's no block template that says "You were blocked for a lack of competence." It's sure as heck not a pillar. At best it's a cut and paste of some other policies (hey WP:DISRUPT, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND how y'all doing?) with a little trivial commentary. As to the actual essay, yes it could certainly use some expansion, but as Moxy cited, WP:ESSAYPAGES.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or userfy. Brevity is the soul of wit. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock. J. M. (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, brevity does not equal wit. Keeping an essay (or more exactly a page, as it's not an essay) just because it's brief is a rather weak argument. I can't se anything witty in either of the "essays".—J. M. (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly see the strength of "delete per WP:I dont think it's funny" Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on Wikipedia:Competence is not required per Moxy. Delete Wikipedia:Argument from authority. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went from keep and neutral to neutral and delete respectively above. I find Wikipedia:Competence is not required funny, but it isn't a parallel to Wikipedia:Competence is required. I also didn't realize that these were created quite so recently. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both The Wikipedia is not knowyourmeme.com, and is not for stuff-I-made-up-in-a-moment one liners. Insightful and well thought-out wiki-essays that address project themes and topics are always welcome; these are not. ValarianB (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think advising people to avoid certain logical fallacies is a relevant theme and/or topic. Also I think these are useful ~~essays~~ with which to counter said fallacies. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 16:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't see why I need to demonstrate "insight" to say that arguments from personal authority aren't worth much on Wikipedia, when I can just quote a fracken authority on the matter. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 16:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:ESSAY: "The purpose of an essay is to aid or comment on the encyclopedia but not on any unrelated causes". You're not really aiding or even commenting on anything. ValarianB (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not commenting on arguments from authority? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 17:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does it help if I spell it out? (the implication being: an argument based on a Wikipedian's personal authority has very little value, while a verifiable third-party authority's opinion would count for a lot more) Siuenti (씨유엔티) 17:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these essays offer cogent, intelligent, or insightful commentary. Does it help if I spell that out? ValarianB (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a "no". Siuenti (씨유엔티) 17:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy - Per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK I found Wikipedia:Editors will sometimes be wrong so these things are more-or-less redundant even if slightly more amusing IMO. I'll keep them in my user space if you wouldn't mind. I suggest it might be good to link to Wikipedia:Editors will sometimes be wrong from WP:Competence is required. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:21, 10 April 2017 (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 talk:Fanfiction2010

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Fanfiction2010

Wikipedia is not a web host. User has been previously warned and blocked for this behaviour. Now they are using their user talk pag for this purpose. If talk page deletion is not appropriate, then redacting the versions used for web hosting could be done. Whpq (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2017 (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:Johnmlondon/Tanner Street Park

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnmlondon/Tanner Street Park

Abandoned empty draft. The editor made no other extant edits. – Fayenatic London 08:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unedited since late 2012 and only contains part of the default article wizard text, a reiteration of the title, and a location. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. No content aside from default text and article title/location. Appears abandoned. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2017 (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:Anita Dey Nuttall

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anita Dey Nuttall

Draft not edited in over 6 months, making it eligible for a WP:G13 speedy, which has been declined by an IP editor (their only action on Wikipedia) Exemplo347 (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Was eligible for G13 and should not have been declined by unrelated IP editor. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2017 (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:Paris/Sandbox

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Paris/Sandbox

Oddly located stale draft of Paris. – Train2104 (t • c) 05:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge per nominator. It is stale as it has not been edited in nearly 2 years (since 23 May 2015‎ - excluding bot edits, nomination, and removal of a dead image link). Merge might potentially work. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2017 (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:Anin seoul/Mindfulness and learning

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anin seoul/Mindfulness and learning

WP:STALEDRAFT with no content other than re-stating the title in the body of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unedited since mid 2014 and only contains part of the default article wizard text and a reiteration of the title. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Godsy. Draft has not been edited (aside from nomination of course) since 28 August 2014 and contains no content aside from default/template content and reiteration of page title. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2017 (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:Macreadyy/Aléczandér Neuvmánt

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Macreadyy/Aléczandér Neuvmánt

WP:STALEDRAFT that has not been edited since August 2013‎, about a non-notable subject. Google search only returns two Wikipedia category pages and a Wikipedia mirror for the subject. Virtually certain to never become an article, and Wikipedia is not a web host. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator comment. Non-notable abandoned draft. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2017 (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:Alwaysremember/sandbox/

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alwaysremember/sandbox/

Qualifies for deletion per WP:NOTESSAY. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Does appear to qualify for WP:NOTESSAY. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2017 (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:Alfukas/Investavimo inžinerija

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alfukas/Investavimo inžinerija

WP:STALEDRAFT that has not been edited since August 2014‎. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Draft has not been edited (aside from nomination of course) since 24 August 2014‎. Not reason for deletion vote but also noting the obvious that it is not written in English, rather Lithuanian. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2017 (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 No Labels

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

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn here (WP:WITHDRAWN). (non-admin closure) — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 11:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User No Labels

WP:UBX guidelines: "Avoid negative verb phrases which can be potentially divisive, such as: dislikes, despises, hates, loathes" AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - copying part of my rationale from a similar MfD here: Semantics is not a blunt tool, and the guideline says "avoid" rather than "do not use" because context is everything (hence "potentially divisive"). To say that you hate labels is not directed against any other person, and so it's not in fact divisive. --bonadea contributions talk 14:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The word "hate" in this context isn't being used against a group of people or a person. Also, I like this userbox, it's a statement against stereotypes and putting labels on people which are bad things. I see nothing wrong with this userbox. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to withdraw the nomination; you bring up valid points and I've changed my mind on the nomination. AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2017 (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 nomsn

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

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn here (WP:WITHDRAWN). (non-admin closure) — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User nomsn

WP:UBX guidelines: "Avoid negative verb phrases which can be potentially divisive, such as: dislikes, despises, hates, loathes" AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - copying part of my rationale from similar MfDs here: Semantics is not a blunt tool, and the guideline says "avoid" rather than "do not use" because context is everything (hence "potentially divisive"). A userbox that expresses heart-felt frustration with a particular technical tool doesn't appear divisive to me, at all. If it had expressed dislike of other users of the tool it would have been a different thing, but it doesn't. --bonadea contributions talk 14:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to withdraw the nomination; you bring up valid points and I've changed my mind on the nomination. AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 5, 2017

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Richard0612/Userbox Archive/Dislike Meat

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy keep . Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Richard0612/Userbox Archive/Dislike Meat

WP:UBX guidelines: "Avoid negative verb phrases which can be potentially divisive, such as: dislikes, despises, hates, loathes" AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In existence since 2006 and transcluded to over 20 userpages. I boldly slightly aldjusted the wording. Side note: part of User:Richard0612/Userbox Archive. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - semantics is not a blunt tool, and the guideline says "avoid" rather than "do not use" because context is everything (hence "potentially divisive"). "Dislikes [ethnic group of people]" would be offensive but "Dislikes [deadly disease]" would be uncontroversially acceptable. "I dislike meat" is only divisive if I also say "...and everybody who likes meat is stupid", which is not in any way implied in the userbox, even without Godsy's change. --bonadea contributions talk 06:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how this could be divisive, especially with Godsy's changes --The Wrong Tea (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to withdraw the nomination; you bring up valid points and I've changed my mind on the nomination. AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2017 (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:AK1940/Secret Space Program

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:AK1940/Secret Space Program

WP:STALEDRAFT with no content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unedited since mid 2015 and lacking any content besides the structure provided by the article wizard.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Godsy. Draft appears stale since it has not been edited since 25 July 2015‎ (aside from nomination of course), page also just contains the template content associated with creating an article video the article wizard. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2017 (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:Luisrafael7/40

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Luisrafael7/40

Wikipedia is not a web host for fantasy Survivor games. All of the user subpages appear to be related to running fan versions of Survivor from http://brantsteele.net/ and are not "tests" as the names of the many subpages would imply. Not U5 eligible due to other contributions. Whpq (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 4, 2017

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Craignix/technocrane

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

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Craignix/technocrane

WP:STALEDRAFT. Unedited since 2012. Mr. Guye (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Draft is most likely stale as it has not been edited since 2 April 2012‎. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2017 (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:Elena Makarova

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

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Elena Makarova

WP:STALEDRAFT. It's now been over a year since the creator edited this page. Mr. Guye (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as page has not been edited by the creator since 21 March 2016. However, it has been edited on 12 December 2016‎ by another party postponing its G13 deletion. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 3, 2017

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tigress of Cachtiche

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tigress of Cachtiche

Vanity page to surprise the kids involved in a non-notable new high school play; violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. Orange Mike | Talk 01:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:NOTWEBHOST. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely not notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This note makes it pretty clear that this is more of using Wikipedia as a web host rather than the makings of an article. -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments, including PMC. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, via PMC and Whpq's "note" The garmine ^(talk) 13:34, 7 April 2017 (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:William Hunter artist

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:William Hunter artist

Inadequately sourced drafts that were both created almost a year ago, but apart from a bit of routine maintenance (by me) a few weeks later, have never been edited by anybody since. As always, draftspace is not a free holding tank where articles get to stay indefinitely without regard to notability or sourcing issues -- if a draft hasn't been worked on in a year but isn't able to be moved into mainspace, then it just can't be kept anymore. Bearcat (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2017 (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:Aron Wright

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: closed . Draft has been moved to mainspace. Mainspace article can be AfD'd if necessary, draft is just a redirect now so MfD closed without action. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Aron Wright

Stale draft that hasn't been edited by anybody since May 26 of last year, and has neither the notability per WP:NMUSIC nor the sourceability per WP:GNG needed to graduate to mainspace — and there's a modest but visible advertorial skew here (since when, frex, do songs exude their themes, at least outside of PR bumf?) As always, draftspace is not an "alternative mainspace" where articles about topics that would never survive an AFD are entitled to stick around permanently without ever submitting to notability or sourcing issues — if a draft hasn't been worked on for almost a year and can't be moved, there are no grounds for keeping it anymore. Note that mainspace Aron Wright is about a different person. Bearcat (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator of the draft has edited it since the nomination so not sure. Bearcat --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The draft has now been moved to main space, so this should no longer be the correct venue to discuss it? --Pgallert (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - could have been G13'd prior to the recent activity, but since it now sits in mainspace, it should probably go through AfD. At the very least, the now malformed MfD template on the article should either be corrected or removed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:19, 7 April 2017 (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:Eniko Parrish

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

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Eniko Parrish

Stale draft whose substance hasn't been edited in just short of a full year; the only edits that have ever actually taken place since April 2016 have been WP:ROUTINE maintenance and typo corrections. A very nearly identical article was copied and pasted into mainspace around the same time and got deleted at AFD, but draftspace is not a permanent holding tank for deleted articles to stick around anyway without getting improved at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, draft main content has not been edited since 23 August 2016 (aside from typos as mentioned above)‎. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 2, 2017

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Avi Ben Ezra

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Avi Ben Ezra

Draft which was declined in December 2016 for being too advertorialized. It was then resubmitted again the very next day with no significant changes being made, and immediately rejected on that basis, following which it was resubmitted in February of this year for its third kick at the can. But while this time the creator reworded some parts of the article and replaced some references with others, they still failed to actually address the substance of the reasons why it was declined the first two times: the article's advertorial slant hasn't been substantively toned down, and the referencing is still too strongly dependent on business directories and primary sources, and not enough on reliable source coverage about him. In addition, there's a likely conflict of interest, as the creator's username is "Snatchapp" and one of the subject's businesses is a smartphone app called Snatchbot. There's no point in keeping this anymore if it's just going to keep getting resubmitted again and again without properly addressing the reasons why it hasn't been getting approved. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2017 (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:Gemma Calvert

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 . Deleted as G6 by User:Orangemike. (non-admin closure) – Train2104 (t • c) 19:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gemma Calvert

Draft of an article that exists in mainspace. ProgrammingGeek^talktome 19:40, 2 April 2017 (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:George W. Parker

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

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:George W. Parker

Completely unsourced draft about a person with no demonstrated claim of notability, who's connected to a walled garden of other draft articles that have already been deleted as likely WP:HOAXes. This was mentioned for possible deletion in the earlier Josh M. Parker discussion, but did not actually get deleted as a result -- so I'm listing it for its own discussion now. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while I have been informed previously, drafts are not eligible to notability issues, however, others this one is connected to being deleted as likely hoaxes, that seems reasonable for nomination. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2017 (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:Anna Weigel/sandbox/How to Become a Successful Student for Life

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

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anna Weigel/sandbox/How to Become a Successful Student for Life

Qualifies for deletion per WP:NOTESSAY. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 2 April 2017 (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:Andrewjherald/Blue Rapping Ghost

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

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrewjherald/Blue Rapping Ghost

WP:STALEDRAFT about a non-notable topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, draft does appear stale as it has not been edited in 5 years as of today (since 6 April 2012; of course, aside from nomination). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2017 (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:Alwinb1993/Orental james bodden dilbert

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

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alwinb1993/Orental james bodden dilbert

Appears to qualify for deletion per WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does have webhost issues. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2017 (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:Alvic26/Enter your new article name here

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

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alvic26/Enter your new article name here

WP:STALEDRAFT about a non-notable subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, stale draft. Has not been edited in 5 years as of yesterday (since 5 April 2012). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2017 (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:Abmediaarts/sandbox/Bob "Shob" Oblob

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

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abmediaarts/sandbox/Bob "Shob" Oblob

A WP:STALEDRAFT about a non-notable subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, draft has not been edited since 7 June 2015‎. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2017 (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:Avaamo

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Avaamo

This article appears to be an advertisement for the subject. The article does not show notability, does not have good solid references or citations. CatSleepingOnTheKeyboard 03:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Yup definitely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I agree that this is weak as written, and I would have rejected it as not good enough yet if I were actually doing an AFC review on it, we don't immediately rush new AFC drafts out the door just because they're not ready for an articlespace promotion right off the bat — we have to give the creators a chance to at least try to improve the article, and that's especially true of a draft which still has an active "review waiting" template on it. It's true that this draft does need further improvement before it could actually get the mainspace bump, but neither its tone nor its sourcing are so egregiously awful that kiboshing it right away would be the appropriate solution. Rather, the submitter should be given time and feedback to try to improve it — except in highly rarefied cases of extremely problematic content (a standard which hasn't been met here), an AFC draft only becomes eligible for deletion if (a) it's still in sorry shape six months after creation, or (b) the creator is being highly tendentious about it, such as resubmitting it eight or nine or ten times without even trying to address the reviewers' concerns at all. Neither of those are true here yet, however. No prejudice against renomination in August if this is still in sorry shape, but this does not yet meet any of the conditions that would allow it to get deleted now. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply because its policy! Although the subject of this article has potential to claim significance (as it is still within the start-up phase of a company and is yet to meet notability IRL), right now it is simply WP:TOOSOON. The reason it is bound to gain coverage and have articles in newspapers is because it has gained funding from Venture Capitalists or has announced new features & their launches (which is simply notoriety) - but not yet meaningfully contributed towards any significant act to pass the WP:CORPDEPTH. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a deletion criterion in draftspace — because draftspace is meant for submissions by new editors who aren't actually familiar with how Wikipedia works and what we require, it is entirely possible for a topic to be more notable than the draft actually shows in its current form. Unless a page has extreme content problems, significantly worse than any of the problems here, we delete drafts only for abandonment or tendentiousness, not for simply being inadequate at the time of its first AFC review. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Honestly, I'm actually all for the existence of such articles; just that I saw this discussion going on for this particular 'subject', thought to share my 2 cents; I suppose since I'm relatively a new user myself, I may have taken notability and verifiability over reviewing drafts a bit too seriously.
I do however agree with your initial assessment too i.e. these are indeed just drafts and deserve more open intervention and not (or should not?) be deleted - just that in this case, its a bit too speculative; WP:TOOSOON. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat and WP:NMFD. Some of the references are not unreasonable. I don't find the tone to be promotional either.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:26, 10 April 2017 (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:129 Emerald Hill Road

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:129 Emerald Hill Road

This subject is not notable. In order for a demolished house to be notable, there needs to be published history about something that happened at the house, or the site needs to be a historic landmark. Then of course, there would have to be publications that document this. CatSleepingOnTheKeyboard 03:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep for now, no prejudice against renomination in the future. Draftspace pages are not necessarily rushed out the door right away for being inadequate; the whole point of draftspace is that creators are given time and feedback to at least try to get it up to articlespace standards. This is not a promotable draft right now, obviously, but it is possible that a stronger notability claim, and the reliable sources needed to support it, may exist — so it should be given a reasonable chance to develop, and then relisted for deletion if it's still not adequate by the fall. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Williamsburg Independent Film Festival, inc.

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

The result of the discussion was: keep . (non-admin closure) – Train2104 (t • c) 19:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Williamsburg Independent Film Festival, inc.

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stale and abandoned draft that has no improvements so far to become an article. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 02:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Many mentions in mainspace. There are no time limits, but this will in time be improved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a stale or abandoned draft; prior to nomination it had been most recently submitted in January, and the creator resubmitted it again since the nomination, while a draft is not deletable as "stale or abandoned" until six months after the last time it was edited. Is it good enough to get approved yet? No. But it's neither "abandoned" yet, nor does it fit any of the highly rarefied conditions that would allow it to get speedied earlier than six months. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above 'keep' comments. Draft is not stale/abandoned at this time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2017 (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:Michael Palomino

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: Blanked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michael Palomino

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User page includes biography, link spam and extensive conspiracy theories. WP:UP#GOALS, WP:UP#PROMO and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Similar page was already deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Michael.palomino-at-gmx.ch. This account appears to be inactive but the user is editing the page from their other account (Michael.palomino-at-gmx.ch). —DIYeditor (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User has just now created a new page at the previously deleted User:Michael.palomino-at-gmx.ch. May need administrator intervention. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but reduce. The page includes elements of a reasonable userpage for a contributor. It is excessive though. Suggest forbidding all external links, except for the one to facebook, and one email address. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:09, 2 April 2017 (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:WikiProject Core Ontology Engineering

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

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Core Ontology Engineering

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another project which never really existed. Page created in 2015, but the only edits to either the main page or the talk page are by the creator, User:BenXY, who has made a total of 42 edits in exactly 3 years (all but 11 of them to this project).
The only incoming links are procedural listings. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty hopeless, but not completely hopeless. Could be resumed, non-zero probability. Redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science, the WikiProject that claims the article Ontology engineering to be important. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 30, 2017

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of state routes in New York

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of state routes in New York

The page already exists at List of state routes in New York and therefore does not need to also exist as a near-duplicate draft. TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was created as a mockup of a different way to do the same thing, but as I recall, nobody wanted to move forward after the mockup was put together. –Fredddie ™ 01:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the long-term goal to shift to a standardized table format as exemplified the draft's usage of some standard templates, this draft won't be needed long term. Imzadi 1979 → 01:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That standardized format is defined at WP:USRD/STDS/L and used by several FLs like List of Interstate Highways in Michigan, List of U.S. Highways in Michigan, List of County-Designated Highways in Michigan and List of Interstate Highways in Texas, so I'd leave the draft alone for the moment until the remainder of the tables within it are converted over and the result is moved to the list in mainspace. Imzadi 1979 → 01:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to use DraftSpace for mocking up articles, but when done, blank, or redirect, or apply {{db-g7}} if it was just you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful draft for redoing the list to standards. Dough4872 14:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DEADLINE. V C 23:46, 6 April 2017 (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:Vandalism Information

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: RESULT. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Vandalism Information

This is nothing but a transclusion of the (itself fairly pointless) {{Vandalism information}} template. Given that it's fully-protected it will never be added to, since no admin is ever going to have a use for it and the non-admins have all the information about vandalism they could possibly ask for at WP:Vandalism. (If the intention is for this to become some kind of real-time scoreboard for which vandals are most active, I assume I don't need to explain why that's a Really Bad Idea.) ‑ Iridescent 18:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No idea why the full protection request was accepted, nor do I see the purpose for this page. If someone feels this template should be even more publicized, have a discussion to include it on WP:Vandalism. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This really serves no purpose. Deli nk (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 19:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC) ended today on 3 August 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.

March 30, 2017

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Ishita Vyas

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 the talk page for the block message. Delete the sandbox as unsourced BLP. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ishita Vyas

This is not a Wikipedia page but a user talk page. Possible naivete of a new user. Rahul Bott (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move subset to user sandbox. This is very obviously draft material expanding on Ishita Vyas. The user name is problematic but can be fixed. The draft material is not in good shape, and currently unsuitable for merge into the main article, but that's what sandboxes are for. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced this by {{uw-ublock-famous}} for now. If someone wants to move this to a sandbox page, and post a message to this user to let them know of its existence, that would be fine with me. -- The Anome (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have copied that material to the user's sandbox and left a note. -- Whpq (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A good solution at this point is a history split. Move everything before this version to User:Ishita Vyas/sandbox (deleting what is currently there per G6), leaving what remains at User talk:Ishita Vyas. A cut and paste move isn't preferable attribution-wise. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 29, 2017

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Soham

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

The result of the discussion was: has already been speedied . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Soham

Old, declined RFA. Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not 100% sure (why I am not !voting this), but aren't old RfAs kept for record keeping purposes? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2017 (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:Ombudsmen Committee/OmbComOpenTasks

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ombudsmen Committee/OmbComOpenTasks

Template for a failed proposal in 2008: Wikipedia:Ombudsmen Committee/proposal. Unused except as a demo on Wikipedia:Ombudsmen Committee/proposal/archive 1. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 29 March 2017 (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:Spiderman II:Spidey Strikes Back (1978)

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

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Spiderman II:Spidey Strikes Back (1978)

Contains nothing more than a broken template and the article already exists on this matter (see Spider-Man Strikes Back). TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At the time this was first started, the mainspace title existed only as a redirect to the TV series rather than a standalone article, so clearly somebody was trying to start a standalone article about the film. But they appear to have abandoned the effort, and somebody else came along and created the article in mainspace a couple of months later. So there's no need to hang onto this; quite obviously there's nothing here that would need to be merged into the main article at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I admit that if I had come across it like that, I would probably have assumed G2-viability; but this is the copper-fastened route. — O Fortuna^{velut luna...} 04:15, 6 April 2017 (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:WikiProject Christian music/Urban Contemporary Gospel music

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

The result of the discussion was: Redirect aliong with Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Southern Gospel music, Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian Metal, Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Christian music albums and Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Urban Contemporary Gospel music. If someone want's to merge material to Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music go for it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Urban Contemporary Gospel music

Inactive sub–task-force of an inactive task force of a semi-active task force that claims that the inactive task force was merged into it.

Similar situations with Wikipedia:Southern Gospel music, Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian Metal, Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Christian music albums, and others. All those inactive Christian music projects/task-forces should be considered subject to the results of this discussion as well.

Some will likely claim that it is discouraged to delete WikiProjects. But it is actually misleading to even have all these networks set up, like at Template:WikiProject Christianity and Template:WikiProject Christian music. Articles can still be added to those task forces. This is misleading and the "inactive" tag isn't enough. I would also prefer that the parameters referring to the inactive projects be redefined, deprecated, or eliminated.

Note: Just to be clear, I am not suggesting the destruction of any semi-active projects or task forces, like WP:CHRISTIANMUSIC.

In any case, I object to leaving everything as is. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this task-force is entirely inactive - I still do work in it, as do a hand-full of other editors, which included The Cross Bearer and Walter Görlitz.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that this sub-group existed. I'm not opposed to rolling into a larger group, such as the one for Christian music. I would even be willing to merge the Christian metal task force into it. Niche corners of niche genres seem odd. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion one way or the other to keep, merge, or delete this wikiproject, if it is kept then I would join the project to give it an actively contributing editor. As you can see, I have created a vast amount of articles in these genres of music, where this project will greatly utilize my expertise in the future.The Cross Bearer (talk | contribs) 20:05, 3 April 2017 (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:CORSAR

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

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:CORSAR

Five submissions in two days is getting to the point of TENDITIOUS editing. Doesn't look like there will be any further improvement, and it doesn't appear that the subject is notable at this time. Primefac (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The editing does appear to be getting to the point of TENDITIOUS editing --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The creator has also removed the MfD tags (restored) but I can't find anything source wise to support the creation of an article at this time. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Chrissymad for restoring those. I wonder why they did that......They should be warned but not sure which twinkle template would be appropriate, would it be 'removing {{afd}} templates'? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I added the draft to my watch list and will look out for further inappropriate content removal like the above. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Normally for a draft that's only a week old, I'd say keep to allow the opportunity for improvement if possible — but this many immediate resubmissions in such a short time, without properly addressing the reasons why it's getting rejected, is tendentious enough to require an immediate remedy. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2017 (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:Ajay Data (2nd nomination)

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

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ajay Data

Page already exists in mainspace. ProgrammingGeek^talktome 17:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (ProgrammingGeek). We don't need duplicate drafts of existing articles that don't add anything to the existing articles (hope that makes sense haha). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2017 (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:WikiProject Information Architecture

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep for now but mark as historical for now. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Information Architecture

A project which never got beyond the architecture phase, to actual construction.
The 2015 discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Information_Architecture is notable for the fact that half of the 17 signatories have contributions other than to that discussion or to the project page. Plenty of good intentions, but two years later it has not produced a project. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fate of WikiProject Information Architecture was discussed at the 2017 Information Architecture Summit in Vancouver (March 22-26) during an edit-a-thon session last weekend. There has been some interest in jumpstarting the effort, particularly among the conference planning committee, though admittedly not much activity since it was introduced at the 2015 summit in Minneapolis. I would appreciate a bit more time to see if the latest effort improves commitment and activity on this project. Nwhysel (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nwhysel: that's almost exactly what you said two years ago[1] in the WPCOUNCIL discussion. Except that last time you said that if didn't fly, you would restructure the project as a taskforce of Wikipedia:WikiProject Human Computer Interaction. What happened to that plan? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't recall my response in the WPCOUNCIL discussion. Would you please correct the link to that discussion so I can review? It's not a bad idea, but I'd like to run it by my team and make sure they want to keep the project separate. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwhysel (talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry. Link fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 29 March 2017 (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

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creation Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Version 1.0 Editorial Team Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and votings	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates