Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Magitroopa (talk | contribs) at 04:40, 31 October 2020 (→‎October 31, 2020: Added Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Santiago of the Seas (2)). 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 May Jun Jul Aug Total
CfD 0 0 0 42 42
TfD 0 0 1 4 5
MfD 0 0 0 0 3
FfD 0 0 0 3 3
RfD 0 0 6 75 81
AfD 0 0 0 3 3

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

Archived discussions

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

Current discussions

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

October 31, 2020

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Santiago of the Seas (2)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: redirect to Santiago of the Seas. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Santiago of the Seas (2)

Draft:Santiago of the Seas (2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Duplicate of a draft already located at Draft:Santiago of the Seas- the (2) draft is mostly a copy of the main draft, especially with the episode table. The Draft:Santiago of the Seas draft has been around since July, while the (2) is only in existence because an editor tried to go around the draft and instead headed to mainspace, with the article later moved to draftspace. There's no real need for both of these drafts, only the one actually being worked on should do. Magitroopa (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy redirect. WP:SRE. WP:ATD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This probably should be history-merged back into the original draft. I can't do history merges on my mobile but I'll take a look later today if nobody beats me to it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, this should just be deleted, maybe speedy per WP:G12. The earliest revisions were not copied from the first draft, but they were copied from a copyrighted source so they've been hidden. There's one revision where user BaldiBasicsFan copied content from the original draft to this page, but every other revision before that edit is copyvio and needs to be removed anyway if it hasn't already. I don't see the point of doing a history merge to split one revision and merge it back to another page when the original page doesn't change as a result, so the easiest fix is to delete the page entirely. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect The version without the (2) has enough going on its own, and changes to the (2) version have been merged into that one per BaldiBasicsFan. The copyvios in both sections have been revdel'ed, and if not, they should be AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. Under G6, per the result of the previous discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Real Madrid C.F. task force articles

Category:Real Madrid C.F. task force articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

The Real Madrid Task force was deleted per discussion here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Real Madrid task force. These are leftover pages and redirects that should be deleted as well:

RedPatchBoy (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close. Learn more about deletion policy. This looked irregular, but it looks kosher Never list a category at MfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never? Well I never! The nom makes sense to me since this is just procedural cleanup after a page was deleted as a result of an MfD. Perhaps the correct course of action should just be to contact the admin who closed the original MfD and get them to delete the related pages, or at least get their opinion on the matter. – PeeJay 07:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The categories need to be listed at WP:CfD, or do you mean to delete their contents (and let the then empty categories get auto-deleted for being empty WP:C1)? The MfD page needs some explanation (was it a mistake you(?) made? The WikiProjects pages, do they exactly follow the previous MfD? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not really understand this, having not participated in the previous MfD, but maybe you could ask User:Premeditated_Chaos to delete everything per the previous discussion and WP:G8? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        yeah ok, I see a lot of snow delete in the previous discussions to cleanup, probably delete all, and the categories per CSD#C1. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just put it all in MfD, since it's essentially a continuation of the last one. The Task Force main page was deleted, but some of the subpages survived. All the categories are empty with no articles. Also, since it's a mixture of miscellaneous items (categories, project pages, redirects, etc), that's why I figured MfD was better so it was all grouped together instead of creating multiple different deletion nominations. RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, clear consensus the TaskForce is not needed, so no need for these either. GiantSnowman 09:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete project pages. Procedural Close of categories, which go to CFD, which has its own procedures. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost all the categories are empty so eligible for speedy deletion, if you really don't want to use this MfD for it. And the non-empty one are parents of empty categories, so will become empty once the empty subcategories are deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


October 30, 2020

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Constantine

Draft:Constantine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

WP:NOTHOWTO. Adam9007 (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Chobber Sidhu
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. G5, G11 by Jimfbleak 2020-10-20T11:26:22. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Chobber Sidhu

Draft:Chobber Sidhu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Draft created by recently blocked sockpuppeteer User:Chobber Sidhu0, recreated by IP socks and repeatedly resubmitted without improvement, usually unchanged. Flogging this dead horse is a waste of editors' time; there's zero chance of this ever making it into an article. Captain Calm (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also Draft:Epsons Digital as related draft resubmitted. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 10:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also Draft:Espons Digital, by yet another sock of blocked User:Chobber Sidhu0. Captain Calm (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. No consensus to delete, not suffering from tendentious resubmitting necessitating delete, G13 will get it, etc etc. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:FreeState Justice

Draft:FreeState Justice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

User:Cphoffman, the creator and a major contributor to the page, is listed as the subject organization's legal director. There may still be enough neutral content that the page may be accepted after a significant copyedit. Curbon7 (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


October 29, 2020

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. No consensus to delete. Not tendentiously resubmitted. Let G13 take it out behind the woodshed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Park Hill Trojans Football

Draft:Park Hill Trojans Football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Fancruft for some obscure high-school football team; same editor has created even cruftier draft articles about individual recent seasons of this team!!!! Orange Mike | Talk 13:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


October 27, 2020

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anveshi Jain (actress)

Draft:Anveshi Jain (actress) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

redundant draft. The content already exists and Anveshi Jain and Draft:Anveshi Jain. This page not needed Coderzombie (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I had made a submission on Anveshi Jain but I did not make it. Actually I wanted to make a submission on Draft:Anveshi Jain (actress), why I found this article correct but I accidentally submitted the other name without checking it. But I want that article to be deleted and this draft published. TechToker (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TechToker is a block-evading sockpuppet. --Yamla (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that the draft was created by Rm 1309 who has been blocked for socking in the past, but not here. The person who moved the article was the sock. I'm certainly confused! Ravensfire (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. She's been in a couple of web series. The first, Gandii, was for a single episode. That won't help WP:NACTOR. Supporting roles in another web series BOSS, I couldn't find any reviews that called her out, so not much for notability. She has a supporting role in a movie, G, but there isn't anything in the film article review-wise, and didn't find any on a search [1]. The sources in the article are pretty meh, lots of announcements, not too much in depth. WP:TOOSOON for now, delete, keep the mainspace salted from all the obvious promotional activity. Ravensfire (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave as draft Web series as reviewed by Ravensfire are new roles since the 2019 AFD. WP:TOOSOON applies. A lot of the sources posted would have to be scrubbed through WP:INCINE. Keep salting. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 10:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheBuddy92/Willy on Wheels: A Case Study
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. ‑Scottywong| [communicate] || 16:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheBuddy92/Willy on Wheels: A Case Study

User:TheBuddy92/Willy on Wheels: A Case Study (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
MfDs for this page:

Delete per WP:DENY Firestar464 (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I only really kept the page because of Dcoetzee's ban from WMF, and wanted to preserve their work without having the banned user stigma attached to the article. Personally, if it runs afoul of the policy, I support the removal of both my version of the page and Dcoetzee's original. I'll remove the mention on the Wikipediholism tests where I found the shortcut to begin with. TheBuddy92 (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, I didn't expect this degree of support for the page...I just thought it was some outdated WP injoke, but turns out it's still pretty useful. Still, consensus could turn any time. TheBuddy92 (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I vote to keep now. TheBuddy92 (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


October 24, 2020

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheBigYES/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: keep. ‑Scottywong| [express] || 16:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheBigYES/sandbox

User:TheBigYES/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

This nonsense sandbox was created by a subsequently indef blocked Vandalism Only User JW 1961 Talk 18:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ST15RMwikipedia/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. ‑Scottywong| [confer] || 16:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:ST15RMwikipedia/sandbox

User:ST15RMwikipedia/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Seems to be used as an alternate history project rather than any legitimate encyclopedic purpose. I've nominated it here rather than tag it as U5 so the creator has a chance to export it elsewhere if they wish. It certainly looks to have taken a lot of work, but isn't appropriate for hosting on Wikipedia. – Teratix ₵ 13:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The User has made enough mainspace edits to make U5 non applicable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked on WP:NOT and WP:UPNOT and found nothing saying alternate history related things as something I can't have on a userspace. Unless it has been made clear by an administrator that what I am doing on my sandbox page falls under WP:UPNOT/WP:NOT and that I don't have enough edits to count me out of U5, and that article is updated to include that alternate history cannot be put on a userspace, I really do not see how it's a U5. And if Smokey is right than it shouldn't fall under U5 regardless. Thanks, User:ST15RMwikipedia 22:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy is WP:NOTWEBHOST – user pages do not serve as ... repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. See also WP:UP#GOALS – Unrelated content includes ... extensive writings ... having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project. – Teratix ₵ 00:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is precedent for U5ing alternate history stuff in userspace even where a user has a large number of productive mainspace edits. I cannot remember exactly which user(s) it was, but I can recall two instances in the last year or so. Offer the user a chance to take it elsewhere and then can it, IMO> (that's a Delete, for people who don't like reading.) -- a they/them | argue | contribs 18:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, can I remove the unwanted boxes and keep my sandbox? I have already backed them up. Thanks, User:ST15RMwikipedia 18:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lillee Jean
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) 04:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lillee Jean

Draft:Lillee Jean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Basically a fan page largely sourced to blogs and YouTube, dubious notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Use AfC processes. This draft has not even been REJECTED. MfD is not for examining weak sources or dubious notability. Come back if it is tendentiously resubmitted, or resubmitted post REJECT, or it fails something specific at WP:NOT. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Amkgp below, resubmitted without improvement. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


October 23, 2020

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. No consensus to delete. In the absence of any pressing reason for deleting stuff like this (ie it's not filled with abuse or slurs or something), we normally just let it sit, and there's no strong argument that this should be any different. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sysages/twinkleoptions.js

User:Sysages/twinkleoptions.js (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Twinkle options subpage over 1 month old for indefinitely blocked and globally locked user account, also see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sysages/Issues and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sysages/sandbox. This subpage was also only edited by the creator. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Real Madrid task force

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Real Madrid task force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

So, last week this random page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Real Madrid task force/layout/assessment) of the task force was discovered when it was vandalized and led to its deletion since it was never set up. See the deletion vote page here. Several users analyzed the task force and realized it is inactive, nor was it ever really active. It has a few pages linked to it, but it doesn't appear to have done anything ever. Several users in the deletion vote for the page deletion were in favour of just scrapping the entire task force since it wasn't active. See the above link to deletion discussion for more info . RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while setting this up, I accidentally made a mistake and this page happened. That should be deleted as well or before this per WP:SNOW. RedPatchBoy (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
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

October 22, 2020

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ‑Scottywong| [yak] || 05:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Rajesh Kumar (youtuber)

Draft:Rajesh Kumar (youtuber) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajesh Kumar (youtuber) closed as "delete" a few months back, and this draft shows the exact same lack of notability. That wouldn't matter in a draft, if it hadn't been for the fact that this person's marketing people have been spamming Wikipedia before, with different accounts. See deletion logs for Draft:FactTechz and Draft:Facttechz, for instance, not to mention Draft:FACTTECHZ (RAJESH KUMAR), which was created a couple of days ago. The creator of this draft is also the main contributor to Draft:Ashish Chanchlani, which is also at MfD for similar reasons. bonadea contributions talk 17:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday
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. No consensus to delete this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday

Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

This template is a bit of a standing joke, and possibly a dangerous one for those who won't be familiar with the background. I can't remember the last time somebody had this userbox on their page and passed RfA; indeed, several people have said that suitable admin candidates will NOT have this template on their user page. I think we should just get rid of this to stop leading misguided newbies into assuming that they can somehow use this box and actually get the tools.

I originally set up a TfD for this three years ago, inspired by this comment, but it was speedily closed as "wrong venue" and forgot about it, so maybe now is a good time to re-open the discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, out of curiosity, will you be including the half-dozen clones of this template listed at §See also in this nomination as well? Primefac (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think those are appropriate to delete, as they are individual user templates that do not have the reputation of this one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a popular userbox, and that isn't a reason to delete it. It doesn't offend anyone. I don't think anyone is hoping to "use" the box to get the tools, they are just saying they want to RfA in the future. Natureium (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – wanting to become an administrator on Wikipedia is a lofty goal. We are perpetually in need of new administrators, and it's counterproductive for us to prevent people from expressing interest, and even more counterproductive to stigmatize them for doing so. – bradv🍁 15:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's kind of my point. We do stigmatise people because of this template and it does diminish the chances someone will be asked to become an admin - although exactly by how much is up for debate. I'm not going to mention names of people who strongly endorse this view because that would be canvassing, but hopefully they will spot the debate and back this view up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we, as a collective, stimatize people for expressing interest in being an administrator someday, or for using this template. If certain people are stigmatizing them, that should probably stop. Either way, that's certainly not going to be solved by deleting this. – bradv🍁 15:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't understand why a user saying they would like to be an administrator someday is in and of itself a disqualifying argument, and otherwise don't see how deleting this popular userbox (1,258 transclusions) solves any kind of problem. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ritchie333 is absolutely right that this user box is basically a black mark against any potential admin. At the very least, the documentation should be updated to warn users of that fact. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel it may be helpful to give some practical examples of where this template is used. I randomly picked an account, User:Bassistphysicist whose user page says "I'm fourteen, I am in middle school, soon to be in high school, and I hate the simplicity of public school. I really like learning, that's why I made a Wikipedia account." and their last edit was over 14 years ago. The second example is User:Mrholybrain, who asserts to being a teenager and who last edited 12 years ago. Then there's User:Streetsabre who was looking to be a photographer for Wikipedia (Commons?) as of 31 December 2009 and who last edited 7 years ago. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And what does this prove, exactly? Because I also found a few editors who would have a real chance some day, if not already now. Abishe, Doniago, Iffy, JDDJS, to name a few. – bradv🍁 16:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I realize that more than a few people have referenced this exact template as a negative in their RFA criteria. Seriously, though, what's the harm in it? For users that are clearly a long way off, like Ritchie's examples above, it's an opportunity to provide some friendly advice and encouragement about what being an administrator really means and what it takes to get there. For users that are a lot closer to being qualified, I think this is a better alternative for expressing interest than posting at WP:ORCP, for example, which has seen many discussions about how it hurts qualified candidates more than it helps.
    Have there ever been any serious RfA candidates who have run while this userbox was on their profile? I'd think any candidates with a chance of passing would be smart enough to have removed it well before transcluding. What about any RfA fails because the candidate once had it on their userpage as a newbie? I'd hope any oppose of an otherwise qualified candidate for solely this reason would at least attract a lot of discussion and hopefully some offsetting supports. Ultimately, though, we're doing the project a disservice by discouraging users from showing the least bit of ambition. We need all the help we can get, and there should be nothing wrong with raising your hand to say you're interested in taking on additional responsibility someday. At some point, shouldn't we stop fooling ourselves that we're only interested in administrators who don't want the job? CThomas3 (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Currently, Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, which is listed as suggested reading at the RFA poll, contains the lines young or new users who have an I want to be an admin userbox may wait a very long time before they are proposed, at least until they have met the basic criteria demanded by the regular !voters. Nevertheless, the user category the box added your name to is regularly reviewed by experienced editors and admins who are actively looking for suitable candidates to nominate. If they believe you to be a potential candidate, they will contact you – probably by email, so be sure to have Wikipedia email enabled. I personally no opinion on that matter, but based on the discussion above, that prominently linked advice page seems to be giving out some bad advice. Personally, after reading that page, I have a few doubts about the wisdom of some of that advice, as I do decent compared to a lot of those points, and an RFA of mine would get somewhere in the 5-10% support range. Hog Farm Bacon 03:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep RFA sure has a lot of weird unwritten rules. I don't like that the culture of Wikipedia makes it so having this userbox puts your future RFA in jeopardy, but it is what it is. The sentiment behind that is probably part of the reason lots of editors don't wish to run the RFA gauntlet.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Detrimental to those who use it in the current climate. Maybe recreate in 5-10+ years, but currently only serves as a cruel newbie trap. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 01:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In practice this has the opposite effect to what was intended, so it is worse than useless. P-K3 (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Consider archiving, deprecating, adding documentations or warnings, but there is no justification suppressing the history of this template, or breaking past uses in old versions of userpages. This is, and has been, a very popular userbox (or is a copy of one), and I don’t see any good reason why it should be deleted. Even if a bad idea, bad ideas are not deleted but archived. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bradv. Firestar464 (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Moneytrees. Firestar464 (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I vote for admin based on merits and how they answer questions.... which is how the process should work. People who oppose an WP:RFA based on this template alone should have their opinions tossed aside. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and deprecate as well as perhaps mark as historical per SmokeyJoe. RfA is hazardous in many ways, and something that may add another hurdle because of nonsensical community taboo is perhaps unwise to keep around for the unsuspecting and innocent to be burned by; however, the history is worth preserving. The heart of the nominator is certainly in the right place in this case. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate I agree with others that it should not be deleted, but I agree with the nominator that we can do a better job making clear to newbies that this is essentially a trap. Like others, I wish that weren't the case, but it is and we should make that clear before unsuspecting candidates add the UBX. Deprecation, marking historical, or marking as humorous would all accomplish that while still keeping history. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ‑Scottywong| [chat] || 05:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ashish Chanchlani

Draft:Ashish Chanchlani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

A number of sockpuppets representing at least one UPE outfit have been promoting this individual on Wikipedia for a long time. There have been two recent AfDs determining the person's lack of Wikipedia notability (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish Chanchlani and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish A. Chanchlani) and the user who has created this draft is showing very clearly that nothing has changed since the discussion in August, and that the reason for creating the article is promotional. This is spam, and has no place in Wikipedia, not even in draftspace (especially since AfC reviewers are being badgered over it). bonadea contributions talk 14:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sorry, my error – the present draft was in fact first created by a new account ten days after the most recent AfD, but the entire content of the current version was added a few days ago by another new user, who is the one who has then requested reviews and re-reviews of the draft. --bonadea contributions talk 14:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=986328911"