Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Train2104 (talk | contribs) at 03:04, 11 May 2018 (Adding Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Account Verification. (TW). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

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

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

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 Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 0 6 17 104 127
TfD 0 0 1 0 1
MfD 0 0 0 0 1
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 9 17 26
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

Archived discussions

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

Current discussions

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

May 11, 2018

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Account Verification
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 . Discussion about transwiki or rename can be on the talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Account Verification

Wikipedia:Account Verification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page is not about account verification on Wikipedia, but rather on MediaWiki systems in general. It does not belong in projectspace. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but rename to Wikipedia:MediaWiki account verification. About MediaWiki systems in general. Relevant to the project, so it is allowed in projectspace. By a user obviously interested in Account verification, and so of course his project contributions on the topic should be welcomed. The notion that WikiMedia backend is the province only of staff should be rejected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you clarify your final statement? I'm not quite sure what you mean there. I'm not seeing anything in this page about Wikimedia or staff? FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY [u+1F602] 08:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is Wikipedia a MediaWiki system? If so, this is relevant. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to mediawiki.org: This is not Wikipedia-specific, really. Most of this is about MediaWiki installations in general, and the Wikipedia-specific stuff is already covered by this I think. FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY [u+1F602] 09:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per those above. No opposition to transwiki. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:22, 16 May 2018 (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:Cheezcaake3/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 . Killiondude (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cheezcaake3/sandbox

User:Cheezcaake3/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another one of those Survivor/Drag Race/America's Best Whatever. I'm letting this run instead of deleting it on the spot on the off-chance that the creator explains how this might serve an encyclopedic goal. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • This user appears to be interested in nothing but drag racing shows. That's OK.
His edit history shows 61.1% edits to mainspace, 38.9% edits to userspace, which sounds OK.
The last three months would be the issue. The fraction of userspace edits, all look to be this sort of webhosting of mainspace related dragrace stuff, are: March 67%; April 95%; May 98%.
You could try asking him? However, this user doesn't do talk or usertalk. Some valuable editors are like this, and it is OK. It means we may have to decide without his explanation.
Drmies has warned him about vandalism, User_talk:Cheezcaake3#August_2017. Is there more to the history? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a sandbox, and has not been submitted to AFC. Users are allowed to do nearly anything with sandboxes except be disruptive or submit them to AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the user can expalain how this will be incorporated in an article. We are not a webhost for material that will not be used on wiki. Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. no conceivable encyclopedic purpose. Users are not allowed to do "nearly anything" with sandboxes, because we are not a web host. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a webhost. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we are not a free webhost for fantasy games. — xaosflux Talk 13:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. As has been said above, we are not a free host for content that has no conceivable value to the encyclopedia. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:13, 17 May 2018 (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.

May 10, 2018

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Noble Party of Minnesota
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 . Ping for SALT if recreated. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Noble Party of Minnesota

Draft:Noble Party of Minnesota (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Please salt the draft and article title Noble Party of Minnesota. The party was a non-notable party and there is no way to allow the draft creator (also had the same name to the party creator, Theron Preston Washington) to improve it to pass GNG. No google result. Matthew_hk tc 10:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk tc 10:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk tc 10:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user's edit history suggests nonsense, and digging persuades me that it is only probably nonsense. Can someone comment on he author's deleted contributions? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Digging the google search result of the arrest of "Theron Preston Washington" and Minneapolis mayoral election, 2017, he is a "politician" that get zero vote, the party did "existed" but it just very not notable and the user just use wikipedia as a webhost. Matthew_hk tc 07:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was leaning to agreeing to delete, except that I am also worried by yourself? Why are you asking for a never-created title to be salted? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was recreated, and the user keep on asking why it was deleted, which indicate he will recreate the draft. Also once he got enough edit count, he can "recreate" the article or move the draft to article namespace. Matthew_hk tc 10:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t completely understand, but is sounds like it needs deletion for some set of reasons. Preemptive Salting is usually not granted, you may have to watch the redlink. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2018 (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.

May 9, 2018

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

The result of the discussion was: Move to userpage . at User:SeosiWrestling/Southside Wrestling Entertainment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:SeosiWrestling

User:SeosiWrestling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAKEARTICLE. User page is not an alternate to article space for hosting non-notable topics See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southside Wrestling Entertainment. Whpq (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't look that bad are userspace material, but it should not be the user's main userpage, and User:SeosiWrestling/sandbox looks like it is used for NOTWEBHOSTing. It isn't obvious where to draw the line for users who edit sport articles and reality TV show articles, and are using userspace to track the same. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In view of the previous AFD, this appears to be an attempt to get around the AFD. (Attempts to use drafts to get around AFDs are common, but should be stopped.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is an acceptable way to get around an afd, which is to make a userspace draft and improve it. All this need is to be moved to a user subpage. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:48, 18 May 2018 (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 reasons for using wikis in my teaching
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 . to User:Seitmaganbet.s/The reasons for using wikis in my teaching ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The reasons for using wikis in my teaching

Draft:The reasons for using wikis in my teaching (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:NOT. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. A userpage, not an article draft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete straight up. This was started in mainspace! Then ChrissyMAD sent it to Draftspace which is also not suitable. It should have been CSD'd. This is the creator's only edit and they are gone. I gope they don't teach what they know about wikipedia to their students because puting this in mainspace was not good. If we userfy it and they happen to return they will not ne able to find it anyway. Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to User:Seitmaganbet.s/The reasons for using wikis in my teaching and leave a note on the creator's talk page stating this action has been taken. Such a page is allowed per WP:UPYES; no need to delete something reasonable that was merely mistakenly misplaced. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Not totally worthless information. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - The action by User:Chrissymad in draftifying was a reasonable action on something that did not belong in article space. The alternative would be to AFD it and sort it out there. As it is, we are sorting it out at MFD, and user space is okay. There is no guarantee that a one-edit editor is gone. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really matter? The intent was to remove it from main space where it didn't belong. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this case,it would have been better to userfy. True, mainspace is the main priority. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2018 (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:How to produce hydrogen from H2O
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:How to produce hydrogen from H2O

Draft:How to produce hydrogen from H2O (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:NOTHOWTO. Previously declined as such. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as NOTHOWTO, and because it should have been G13 except that a minor edit was made. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2018 (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:How To get a 6th Grade Girl To Notice you (by a sixth grade girl)!
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 . Killiondude (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:How To get a 6th Grade Girl To Notice you (by a sixth grade girl)!

Draft:How To get a 6th Grade Girl To Notice you (by a sixth grade girl)! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:NOTHOWTO. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kindly do not ping me again if you are only doing so to troll/needle. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize. My question was not entirely in jest, although I certainly understand why it was intepreted as such. To rephrase the question in more serious and general terms, is it considered appropriate for a user to rescue content that has no value and which he has no intention of giving value for sentimental reasons? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the reason I pinged you is that I figured if you objected, so will basically everyone else. I wasn't entirely needling you (although I'm sure my smart-ass self did get some satisfaction out of that aspect of it). Again, I apologize. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. My opinion would be that if you are keeping it just because you like the text, it's hard to interpret that as being in any way related to Wikipedia, editing, experimentation, etc. If, on the other hand, you wanted to keep it as an educational example of what not to do, as source text to experiment with wikimarkup/style/formatting, if you wanted to make an elaborate newbie-welcoming gesture of keeping literally a handful of words in order to engage with the user, if you found it in any way useful to your own editing, etc. then, since you're the only one who would ever see it in your userspace (unless you link to it, and unless someone is looking for old userspace drafts), I would have no problem assuming good faith and no objection to you moving it there (without redirect). In other words, if the content isn't actively harmful (copyvio, promo, attack, etc.), and if you can explain it in a way that's connected to your engagement with Wikipedia and/or the community, then I would see no upside to suggesting you not do so. The bureaucratic fact of a particular interpretation of a particular policy, when enforcement has no real improvement to the project beyond the fact of enforcement and, to the contrary, may discourage an active user's engagement with the project, is not in anybody's best interest. Of course, if it became a pattern, or if your userspace became a library of gradeschool pick-up strategies, then it would merit some more specific attention as the community's supply of AGF has limits. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, I wouldn't have a problem with you userfying it. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Useless, but the editor hasn't yet done anything with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After a few days of sobering up, I've concluded I really don't have any need or use for this, as cute as I find it to be. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The question to ask is: will the encyclopedia see benefit in the long run if this draft were kept? The answer is no. Mz7 (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2018 (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:How To Use Your Kindle
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:How To Use Your Kindle

Draft:How To Use Your Kindle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:NOTHOWTO Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dlete. Blatantly not related to Wikipedia's goals, and there's nothing worth saving here. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - While Wikipedia is not a how-to guide applies, I would prefer to wait until the editor submits crud before doing the crud-cleaning. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy. Not an article draft, doesn’t belong in draftspace. Not sure it belongs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2018 (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.

May 8, 2018

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Soopaphilb/Freddie Neese
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. — xaosflux Talk 13:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soopaphilb/Freddie Neese

User:Soopaphilb/Freddie Neese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previously deleted A7 as Freddie Neese by RHaworth, then WP:REFUNDed by The Interior and then left untouched for over 7 years. I paid it the respect of being a draft & nominated it G13 as an abandoned draft which was rejected by Primefac as it wasn't tagged as an afc draft. Fair enough. So I tagged it, to which Godsy objected.

As an article it's a BLP violation. As a userspace draft, it's been abandoned for over 7 years already, and already rejected once from mainspace. Perhaps I should have gone for U5 in the first place, as a personal reminiscence hosted in userspace. Anyhow, having pinged everybody concerned, and fallen foul of sundry process ambiguities, we're at MfD for a verdict on the material rather than the process. Cabayi (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: As I explained on your talkpage: "Per WP:STALE, unfinished draft articles userspace drafts may be moved to draft namespace ... if the original author no longer wants them or appears to have stopped editing ... (the rule of thumb is to wait at least one year after both the editor who created the page and the editor whose space it is in, should they not be the same, have stopped editing). Hence, it is permissible to move User:Soopaphilb/Freddie Neese to Draft:Freddie Neese (which would make it eligible for G13 in six months). Conversely, there is no guideline justification for non-authors to apply the unsubmitted form of {{afc submission}} to userspace drafts." Why is the distinction important? Pages bearing {{afc submission}} have generally been submitted then declined (reviewed in some way) and pages in the draftspace have a higher level of visibility for at least six months. Furthermore, active editors rightly have the prerogative to retain userspace drafts not bearing {{afc submission}} indefinitely. I could list more reasons but I think that will suffice. Thus, applying {{afc submission}} to drafts within others' userspace is inappropriate. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RHaworth and Cabayi: See also Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 16#Should old user space drafts have an expiration date? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Godsy, as stated above, "we're at MfD for a verdict on the material rather than the process." Cabayi (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is a recreation of material deleted A7. It is also U5 as nothing in the page can be used in any encyclopedia article. Legacypac (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I would have deleted it if I had seen the G13 tag but apparently G13 is supposed to be restricted to draftspace. (I would like to propose G13 be extended to user drafts but getting CSD criteria changed in even small ways is difficult. Cabayi, next time - move the page to draftspace and then apply G13!) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @RHaworth: G13 only applies to userspace drafts when they have {{afc submission}} applied to them. That aside, moving the page to the draftspace would not have made it instantly eligible for speedy deletion - an additional six months with no activity would be required (else there would be no need to distinguish between userspace and draftspace drafts). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User hasn't returned to do any improvement, unlikely to do so now after seven years. The Interior (Talk) 15:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as U5 and for other reasons. Unfortunately, A7 is irrelevant. I would like to see the A criteria applied to drafts, noting that the A criteria are not lack of notability but the lack of a credible claim of significance, a far weaker test. This has no credible claim of significance. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not for being abandoned, but for its content. Neither notable nor sourced, cannot be published. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2018 (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 National ELT Accreditation Scheme
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The National ELT Accreditation Scheme

Draft:The National ELT Accreditation Scheme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft has been resubmitted eight times now without improvement or third party sources. It's basically a web page for the organizsation. DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Enough is enough. Still no independent references. Wikipedia is not a directory. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not offensively promotional. Has at least merge potential. Leaning WP:TNT, but do not restart without at least two independent sources. The eight times resubmission failure is a communication failure, fault lying at the AfC process, the draft needed a more clear and forceful rejection the first time. The first declines were correct, but they demonstrably failed to make the desired impact on the author. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I fail to understand how this is an AfC failure. What would you suggest the templates say? "Your draft sucks, don't bother re-submitting it until you can demonstrate basic competency regarding our policies"? Just get rid of it as tendentious resubmission. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to understand how everyone can't see how stupid the templating is. There's an explosion of templates with boxes and icons and text formats, the vast majority not human-written text and not useful. There is an obvious implicit message that not all the text needs to be read. Depending on the reader's guess of meaning of box indentation, the first text to be read is: "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page." The next sentence onwards is mind-numbing verbosity. Skip it a bit and you come to the big blue "Submit" box. The message is "improve and resubmit". No human correspondence involved. An on the face reading of the instructions tells the author to edit, improve, and resubmit. The templated bloat is absurd. The method of communicating comments to the author is inconsistent with standard Wikipedia style, on the wrong page, not the talk page, and in the wrong order, and overall not inviting of discussion. See my edits to the page for what I consider a big improvement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete I do not think that this article "The National ELT Accreditation Scheme" should be deleted. First of all, it has been placed in a category - "educational charities in Australia". Secondly, the entry is far more notable than the other articles on educational charities published in that category. Furthermore, the article is accompanied by more references of notability than its associate "English Australia", whose article HAS been published on Wikipedia with no references. Moreover, references have been added, removed and bettered at every edit, only to be rejected again and again. Finally, the references provided in the latest edit are extensive and do prove notability. (CamTESOL (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
CamTESOL (talk · contribs), thank you for coming here and contributing. The best thing you can do to help right here and now is to provide the 2-3 best sources for demonstrating Wikipedia-notability. These sources must: (1) be reliable; (2) be independently written and published, with respect to the topic and anyone associated; (3) comment directly on the topic, at least two sentences, revealing the opinion of the writer and not simply reporting facts, i.e. a secondary source. Do not provide less than two, or more than three. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe something easier then?
Is there any current Wikipedia article in which a mention of this organisation would be worth a mention? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2018 (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.

May 7, 2018

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Goriana/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: redirect to David A. Ansell. And for the love of fuck, draftspace or userspace dupes of mainspace articles can be redirected or histmerged without needing an MfD. I gotta start speedy closing these. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Goriana/sandbox

User:Goriana/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to David A. Ansell. Likely the source/draft for the mainspace article, but no attribution issues because the same user copied it to mainspace. P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete now that we are here but you can just blank or redirect such pages. Legacypac (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I was really thinking about blanking it, but there is very little reason to think this user will come back (inactive since 2011). I prefer cleaning house. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same, but you'll find a fairly overwhelming consensus against that here. Basically everyone but Legacypac and I. Just redirect to the article, accomplishes basically the same thing without the fuss. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as a sufficient fix the copy-paste to mainspace. Please do not delete old contributors edit history without good reason (there is no such reason here), it is unwelcoming to them on their return. Do not work on the assumption that old users do not return, they do, and the assumption is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Cleaning is good, cleaning your own house is a virtue, cleaning other's houses including disposing of their things is not, it creates far more grief than good. Redirecting is cleaning without disposing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - What is the point to deleting? For a change User:SmokeyJoe has it right. If a draft is created in a sandbox, the draft is then moved to draft space, and from there sometimes to mainspace, and the redirects are useful and left in place. Jump jump jump. (Redirects are jumps. Not to be confused with Dump dump dump.) Replacing this sandbox with a redirect is no different than what would happen if this were done in the AFC manner. Redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, Robert McClenon, you are going to insinuate that I usually have it wrong? It sounds like you want to get serious, but without saying anything with any substance. What, exactly, do you want to dispute? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I didn't mean that User:SmokeyJoe is usually wrong, but they are wrong often enough here at MFD. I would like to get serious with crud in draft space that is being pushed aggressively at mainspace, rather than dumping on other Wikipedia volunteers. Dumping on other Wikipedia volunteers is a Wikipedia way, but it isn't a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to David A. Ansell. Keeping the history visible does no harm. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously not delete - Someone writes a draft in their sandbox, copies it to mainspace, and you want to delete their sandbox? If a history merge is possible (I never quite got the hang of when it is, but as I recall it works when the content was basically the same and there aren't a bunch of other people in between the end of one article and the start of the other?) then that seems most sensible, otherwise if anyone finds the duplicate content offensive, they can just blank it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:37, 13 May 2018 (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:Malao Film
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) 21:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Malao Film

Draft:Malao Film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Declined 5 times at AfC and still not close to meeting WP:CORPDEPTH Legacypac (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as tendentious resubmission. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No valid reason given to delete. Accepting this request will do more harm than doing nothing, not that nothing is a good course of action. WP:VAGUEWAVE-ing WP:NCORP is not a deletion reason. Resubmissions are never a deletion reason when reviews replace the header with the saccharine encouragement to edit improve and resubmit with a giant blue button carrying the implicit message "you can ignore the fine text and just press this". The AfC templates cause the authors to think that the "submit" button is the method for communication. I note disapprovingly that the author has had their talk page choked with templating and not a single human message. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep vote struck because user voted !delete below. Revert this if in error. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is undisclosed paid editing a deletion reason? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:TonyBallioni thinks so, I believe, and I don't disagree with him. I supported UPE product being speediable, but the community responded with a clear "no" to that. Given that result, I wanted to quarantine the stuff, but User:TonyBallioni said "no". Is it a case-by-case deletion reason, I asked him, but he evaded the question and said, I think, that all UPE should be deleted as promotion. Where's the guideline? Even a hint in policy? I note, as I often do, that Legacypac's nomination makes absolutely no connection to anything at WP:NOT, and I don't see anything looking myself. NB. Robert McClenon mentions "undisclosed paid editing", but no one has made an allegation that it has happened here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:SmokeyJoe - Dump dump dump. After the author-editor has choked the AFC queue with repeated tendentious resubmissions, we should get dumped on for not writing kind or unkind words, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bringing AfC process failures to MfD with non-reasons for deletion deserves criticism. I do not agree that it is tendentious to follow the instructions at face value, I have looked at multiple cases, and it is an obvious conclusion that the authors think the "resubmit" button is the proper way to communicate. Nominating their draft at MfD, adding yet more confusing templates to their userpage is absolutely and most definitely the wrong thing to do. You claim, "all us reviewers are doing the same wrong thing" is not much excuse, and "we reviewers are just following the known-stupid process and using the known-stupid template" has worn through. Over and over again, AfC is sucking in newcomers, and then stuffs them around, never treats them like people, templates all over their talk pages, and you think I should just go with the flow? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not abuse of newcomers or failure to communicate, this is a business desperate to get their business on Wikipedia for exposure and link juice, our standards be damned. Perhaps they hope if they hit submit enough times someone will accept their promotion. If User:SmokeyJoe wants this page they are free to move it to mainspace themselves and defend it at the resulting AfD. Otherwise, don't vote to keep promotional pieces, likely bought and paid for, that are wasting volunteer reviewer time. Legacypac (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Collectively, big picture, AfC hurts the newcomers.
If you think this page is promotion, use the word “promotion” in your nomination. On my part, I do not agree it is promotional but think it is fine in draftspace until it gets more notice. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Join AfC - decline or accept drafts your way. Problem solved. Legacypac (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment thanks to SmokeyJoe for the ping. This article was originally created on de.wiki by an account that appears to be the official PR account of this company (this is allowed on that project, while it is not allowed on the English Wikipedia.) While I am generally opposed to native advertising, and consider most forms of commercial editing to be tantamount to that, this isn't the worst case I've seen, and I really don't see anything other than an SPA here, and not one that is particularly good at writing spam. I'm leaning delete here on NOTWEBHOST grounds, as this has been repeatedly resubmitted without any substantial changes, and from what I can tell, doesn't appear likely to have a chance of ever being an article, but I'd prefer someone who is more familiar with German look at the sourcing to see if there is any chance of this surviving in mainspace. Maybe Huon could give his thoughts? If it's spam, it should be deleted, but of the advertising and UPE we see goes, this isn't the worst example. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • TonyBallioni, I’m not sure you see the problem here. We waste a lot of time and effort on these suspected UPE product, and they are not offensively promotional, and actually clearly fail the NOTWEBHOST test as they are undoubtedly intended as contributed articles on plausibly notable topics. If there’s anything worse than the SPA author, it’s that it is clearly PR product. Is there evidence of consensus anywhere that this means deletion as opposed to AfC rejection with advice? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we have deleted things here before on grounds of no hope of ever getting to mainspace, which is an appeal to NOTWEBHOST. We are in an odd place here. It is clearly not in the interest of the encyclopedia to just have one person repeatedly resubmit an AfC draft that will never get to mainspace with no changes for over a year, but WP:NMFD tells us notability shouldn't be a primary concern. That leaves the main deletion rationale available as NOTWEBHOST: we don't exist to host content that has no chance of being an encyclopedia article, and if after a year at AfC and a week at MfD no one thinks it will ever be ready for mainspace, I think it is a fair argument. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur it's not the worst promotion which is why I did not focus on that. It's not likely to go to mainspace though which is why I focused on that amd the repeated resubmits without solving the issues. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Author is blocked and isn't about to bring this into a neutral form (but paid editors seldom bring anything to a neutral form anyway). Does some real volunteer editor want to take over this cause, or can we get rid of it? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to de:Malao_Film. That's as good as any holding pattern until en and de find a common ground for this sort of thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC). Delete per Huon. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there's not even a shred of an indication that the company is notable or that the draft could ever be turned into a valid article. The German article is blatant spam that would be speedied as G11 here, based almost entirely on their own press releases, IMDb and trivial credits listings that don't even give a single sentence of human-written content. There's nothing in the German article that would be even remotely useful for the English Wikipedia's purposes. I also tried to find German-language sources and came up empty. If better sources exist somewhere and haven't been found yet despite the draft being declined for insufficient sourcing four times so far, it would be easier to write a new draft based on those sources than to try and salvage this one. Huon (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional intent and no present hope of notability. (and apparently violate our coi rules) DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. still being worked on. Given the apparent effort to improve the article, we shouldn't say it's hopeless. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DGG: Did you mean to place this vote on a different discussion? It doesn't make sense, given this draft isn't being worked on, and you also already voted delete here. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
fwiw, when I come back to something, I sometimes think differently. But I should have noticed. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 14 May 2018 (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.

May 6, 2018

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User nodemocrat
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) 21:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User nodemocrat

Template:User nodemocrat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another useless userbox. Who is in the photo? Is it a BLP violation to post this message with the photo? Not related to the goals of Wikipedia amd divisive. Legacypac (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note @Legacypac: the image is File:Debbie Wasserman Schultz, official photo portrait, color.jpg, with a description of who it is there. — xaosflux Talk 22:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So pretty much this userbox accuses her of corruption. Lovely. Legacypac (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photo is of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as you can find by clicking on it. No BLP violations. It is a combatitively presented political view, it could be defended as an self-declaration and explanation of the user's editing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree it was somewhat combatively presented. I've removed the external links and changed "knows" to "believes". I'm aware that believes is listed as a potentially-inflammatory word at WP:UB, and would welcome any other suggestions for improvement. In the meantime, I don't believe this template is inherently offensive, and so doesn't warrant deletion. If you find specific words offensive, just be bold and fix them. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator. I'd have no objection to removing the DWS photo and replacing it with something more neutral. MB298 (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done some thinking about the BLP claims. Can't say this is rooted in policy, but here's my take on it: a public servant is the public's eye doing a service for said public, and can (and should) expect to receive feedback on their performance thereof, including allegations and criticisms regarding any aspect of their performance thereof. I don't see the reference to her to be an issue, given that it refers to substantiated and legitimate grievances regarding her conduct while in a position of power (blatant libel would be another thing entirely). In other words, if a newspaper can print it, so can we. But that's just my opinion. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The text is a user polemic. The image is a BLP attack. Toss it out either way or both. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP violation in spirit - it is using wikipedia to cast aspersions on a particular person. Also WP:POLEMIC - "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive)." This kind of userbox as Jimbo indicated has no legitimate purpose and is bad for the project. It is a negative statement rather than a positive affirmation of belief - that's the distinction that makes it not acceptable. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no BLP violations with the userbox. "BLP violation in spirit" means a fake BLP cry, see Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!". The no political polemics arguments is one I have time for, but it is a matter the great userbox war resolved by ceasefire, it should not be restarted with isolate MfD border skirmishes. Start a WP:RfC at Wikipedia talk:Userbox migration instead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think there is a difference between "I am a proud Democrat." and "Republicans are retarded!" If the guideline still says no polemics how can we ignore that? —DIYeditor (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I personally agree. This userbox doesn't say that. Combative personal opinions can be fixed by editing. Negative statements about the opposition can be reworded as positive statements about your favourite. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think we can all agree about that. By like SmokeyJoe, I would much prefer fixing perceived polemics to deleting them altogether. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even taking DWS out of this, the text remains polemic as casting aspersions on the DNC and other "establishment Democrats". Not helpful for collaboration. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:POLEMIC, i.e "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities". Image implies that DWS is part of the elite which is apparently corrupting the democratic party; as a negative unsourced statement seems like a BLP vio to me Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the whole intent of the template is combative; templates should generally be what the user is for, not against. If it were "this user supports revolution to reform the US" I suppose that would count as for, but picking an "enemy" to announce on one's userpage is not constructive. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - divisive and unhelpful for building a community around writing an encyclopedia. Richard0612 23:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While the textual content could be argued for or against, I cannot think of any valid reason per WP:IUP or WP:UNDUE why a photo of any particular individual should be allowed to be used. If an image is absolutely essential to this userbox, which is something I highly doubt, then File:US Democratic Party Logo.svg, File:Proud to be a Democrat (19081150688).jpg, File:DemDonkey.png, etc. should be used instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2018 (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:The Homosexualist/U/thugguns
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) 01:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Homosexualist/U/thugguns

User:The Homosexualist/U/thugguns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Offensive by comparing nazis and islamic terrorists to right wing people. This serves no purpose on Wikipedia - it is purely a political statement with no connection to building the encyclopdia. Legacypac (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per WP:POLEMIC. Unnecessarily divisive/provocative and unrelated to Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll quote an argument I made at User:Apollonius 1236/userboxes/Gun control Totalitarian: limiting the use of firearms to right-wing terrorists specifically is not reflective of an actual political argument … Nor does specifying "right-wing thugs" accomplish anything useful, because "left-wing" and "Islamic" terrorists also use (and presumably "love") firearms. This userbox is, in my view, an association fallacy, because it goes out of its way to associate guns with right-wing extremism when there is no logical benefit to doing so over any other tpye of extremism (or extremism in general). —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... so delete this one, but keep the one with pictures of Hitler and KKK members because that one isn't a problem for WP:POLEMIC? I'm having trouble following this logic. Regardless of the logic of its argument, in what way is this more divisive along the lines of WP:POLEMIC? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the general vagueness of this question, I'll assume you didn't read my comments on that discussion. If you have a specific question about one of my claims, I'd be more than happy to answer that. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Noting the above, two wrongs don't make a right. Get rid of them both. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the opposition is politically charged as well, thus violating neutrality. Evidence being that similar userboxes have been placed about the left-wing without the same reaction. -User:Учхљёная (talk,philosophy,edits). 04:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
the existance of left wing boxes is not an excuse. I'll nominate them for deletion too if you point them out. My nomination has nothing to do with my political views. Legacypac (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yeah per above Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the polemic nature of the sentiment which cannot help form consensus among editors. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2018 (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:NMS Rechinul
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: redirect to NMS Rechinul. Duplicates of mainspace content should be speedily redirected instead of brought here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:NMS Rechinul

Draft:NMS Rechinul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This draft should be deleted since there's an existing article about NMS Rechinul. Charbelfakhoury 14:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2018 (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.

May 4, 2018

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Apollonius 1236/userboxes/Gun control Totalitarian (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) 20:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Apollonius 1236/userboxes/Gun control Totalitarian

User:Apollonius 1236/userboxes/Gun control Totalitarian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See WP:POLEMIC. "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive)." This is comparing gun control supporters to the KKK and Hitler. See Nazi gun control argument for more context. This userbox serves no purpose other than to be divisive. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I disagree with this interpretation of it. It refers to a common argument among American conservatives and libertarians regarding gun control, which is that in order to force an oppressive regime upon a population, the members of said population must not be able to resist said regime. To that end, the keeping of firearms by large segments of a population is useful for the prevention of tyranny and, similarly, the confiscation of firearms from said population is necessary to the introduction a tyrannical government. There is nothing among the aforesaid argument saying that all people who support gun control are wannabe tyrants, and I believe it is unfair for you to read that in this userbox. As a general rule, I'm not fond of userboxes that make political arguments; I don't see how they serve the project. But I believe that there's nothing inherently offensive about this one, and so deletion of it would only be justified by deletion of all other userboxes that advance political arguments. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Compassionate727: You don't see anything offensive about comparing gun control advocates to Hitler? The infobox says "totalitarians love gun control". – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Muboshgu: I don't believe the userbox compares gun control advocates to Hitler. It says "totalitarians love gun control," which is a perfectly common and legitimate argument (see Gun politics in the United States#Security against tyranny). What you are reading out of the userbox, that "gun control is totalitarianism," is the inverse of what it says. I don't view the message as being inherently invertible, because the meanings of those two phrases are quite different, and I don't believe that it lends itself to being read as both things: there is no association fallacy here, and there was never intended to be. In other words, I believe you're reading a claim that isn't actually there. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Compassionate727: I'm not fully up on my logic, but when I see "totalitarians love gun control", I see that as the same as "gun control is totalitarianism". And when I see that on a userpage, that makes debate a lot more difficult. Don't fall victim to Godwin's law. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Divisive and offensive political expression not related to Wikipedia. It is fine to express your politics in positive terms, but comparing gun control supported to Hitler is not. Compare with Godwin's law. There has to be a line, and this is definitely over it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Looking at the previous MfD, another related MfD and WP:GUS, prior consensus holds that these types of userboxes are appropriate so long as they are in the userspace. See also Jimbo Wales on the matter. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those two MfDs were from 2008. Surely things have evolved on this site in the last ten years. Jimbo's comments were from 12 years ago, and he doesn't dictate what is and is not deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2018 (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

May 2, 2018

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sean Chiplock
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 . Primarily on G5ish grounds rather than notability; no prejudice against a good-faith editor requesting undeletion to work on this if they want to take responsibility. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sean Chiplock

Draft:Sean Chiplock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

BLP for a non-notable voice actor that has little likelihood of promotion. AdamF in MO (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04:04, 19 March 2018 TonyBallioni (talk | contribs) blocked MizukaS (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sk8erPrince)

  • Weak keep. CSD G5 is inapplicable, as the draft was created before the block. No arguments have been advanced to delete this article because notability doesn't apply to drafts (which I believe is stupid, because a draft about an unnotable topic does not and cannot serve the project, but nothing can be done about this), and I looking it over, I don't see any reason to delete it now. Just let is be swept up in G13 in six months. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: While I believe that keeping this draft is technically the correct response, I have no opposition whatsoever to deletion. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, SmokeyJoe, speedy keep doesn't apply to erroneous deletion rationales (only to nominations for deletion where the nominator isn't actually calling for deletion), so please stop suggesting it in such cases. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure if there's been an RfC to clarify, but the first SK reason includes "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection". The examples make it seem like that applies to when the nominator doesn't actually want it to be deleted, but could also be read as having no valid deletion rationale. There's also #3 about being "so erroneous", but the wording of that one makes it seem like it applies to practically nothing that isn't already covered by vandalism. Eh. (Just sharing this because I wasn't sure, after reading this). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I interpreted it as the former. That also makes more sense, as interpreting it as no valid deletion rationale opens it up to being construed, as someone must define "valid" (and certainly whoever nominated it for deletion thought the rationale was valid). If the validity is truly a problem, the discussion will likely result in a WP:SNOWBALL close. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NMFD. The nominator presented an argument, just not an applicable one. Not near erroneous enough of a case for the speedy keep criteria to apply (though the criteria are much too vaguely written). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m thinking NMFD needs to be documented at SK as SK reason. The only valid reason I see to continue discussion here is the nominators potentially implied “BLP violation”. Otherwise, there is not valid reason for deletion and a very clear RfC that says that notability alone is not a reason for deletion of a draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are welcome to propose that change, although I doubt you'll find consensus for it (I can provide you with the reasons I'd oppose it if you're interested). —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think NMFD is too broad and subjective to become a speedy keep criterion and, furthermore, I think such a consensus-seeking discussion would be more of a headache than its end result might be worth. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the only substance of the nomination is a question of notability, it should be speedy closed. The nomination contains the mention of "BLP" which invites investigation, but I see absolutely no BLP issue demanding action, the BLP stuff is sourced. There really is nothing to discuss with regard to deletion. The person has two current mentions in mainspace, there is definitely potential to merge from the draft, there is no reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the product of misconduct. It isn't G5 because the sockpuppetry wasn't yet discovered, but that doesn't mean it wasn't sockpuppetry. If a good-faith editor wants to work on it, they have seven days to request it. The nominator didn't refer to sockpuppetry, but there was sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"It isn't G5 because the sockpuppetry wasn't yet discovered, but that doesn't mean it wasn't sockpuppetry." This is a recent slightly creative interpretation against the black letter interpretation of the old G5 that is recently gaining momentum. I don't disagree with it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do. G5 exists to enforce blocks. Edits by users evading blocks can be easily reverted, pages are not so easy to delete. This fixes that. The issue here is block evasion, not sockpuppetry. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The is no question that this was sockpuppetry. Block evasion with a second undeclared account is sock puppetry. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it wasn't block evasion, that's my whole point. He was blocked for sockpuppetry after he created this page, and indeed has not edited it with any account since that block. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it wasn’t block evasion, but it was sock puppetry. To be blocked on discovery. The puppet’s userspace has no right of leeway. Delete. I support this being covered by G5. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Robert, the sockpuppery, and that there is no chance this person meets applicable notability criteria so wasting time on the draft is pointless. Legacypac (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2018 (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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=840631193"