Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KoshVorlon (talk | contribs) at 12:49, 19 April 2018 (Adding Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Cantor's diagonal argument/Arguments. (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.
  • 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 Feb Mar Apr May Total
CfD 0 0 19 14 33
TfD 0 0 0 2 2
MfD 0 0 0 0 2
FfD 0 0 2 2 4
RfD 0 0 24 45 69
AfD 0 0 0 7 7

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

Archived discussions

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

Current discussions

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

April 19, 2018

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Cantor's diagonal argument/Arguments
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 . Consensus indicates that although unorthodox, it serves an encyclopedic purpose and should be kept. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Cantor's diagonal argument/Arguments

Talk:Cantor's diagonal argument/Arguments (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Runs afoul of WP:NOTFREESPEECH. This page was being used as a forum, and Wikipedia's not a forum at all. Requesting deletion on this page ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 12:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment; I asked about this at WP:AN#Talk:Cantor's diagonal argument/Arguments since I also agree that it's not really suitable for Wikipedia per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTWEBHOST. However, I think Someguy1221's comment about archiving the page, perhaps by using {{historical}} or {{archived}}, might be worth discussing. The page appears to have been created back in 2008, and some of the posts may be relevant in some way to the current Cantor's diagonal argument article. However, the page shouldn't remain live if it's not deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi User:Marchjuly — reading the above makes me think you may not quite have grasped the purpose of the page, which admittedly isn't explicitly stated. So let me say it now.
      The purpose of the page is to have a place to dump crank arguments. This is a topic that attracts lots and lots of mathematical cranks. They keep discovering the same objections, think they're the first person ever to have noticed them, and post over and over again. It can make the talk page hard to use for its intended purpose, namely discussing improvements to the article.
      So we move their comments to the Arguments page and let them be, no muss no fuss. Whoever wants to can engage them there. The rest of us mostly ignore the Arguments page and enjoy the peace and quiet.
      Now, the hard-liners would say, you don't have to do that. If the cranks' arguments are not directed to improving the article, you can just remove them, and eventually block the authors if they yell loud enough. And it is true, you can do that. But it comes across as authoritarian, it uses a lot of time, and it requires summoning up your stern side that not all of us enjoy channeling. Also it can be a judgment call about whether the comments really are about improving the article (that could also apply to moving to the Arguments page, but in practice the authors mostly seem to accept that, whereas they wouldn't if you just blanked them), so you get into meta-arguments which are even further removed from the purpose of the talk page.
      This page is a harm-reduction strategy. It really does seem to work, mostly, and I can't see the harm. So I think it's a very clear case of IAR. --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe I get the idea for the page; I just don't think there needs to be such a page, at least not any longer. This page is giving people a forum to post their theories, objections, or whatever else they want related to the Cantor's diagonal argument that really don't have anything to do with improving the Wikipedia article. Mathematical cranks don't need such a forum and instead of catering to them, people should be telling them that is not what Wikipedia is about. The page may have some historical value making archiving it more appropriate than deletion, but the page no longer needs to be live. If this makes me sound "authoritarian" or "stern", then so be it. It's not Wikipedia's job to provide a venue for others to spout off; so, if they post content inappropriate for an article talk page, they can be politely advised that such a thing is not allowed. If they continue to do so even after being warned, they should be treated like any other disruptive editor who doesn't listen. If you feel this page is so necessary to give these cranks a place to post, then there are now plenty of alternatives to Wikipedia available. You can recreate the page there and direct people there for their theorectical discussions, rants, personal musings about the argument. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really am not that interested in whether they find a place to debate it or not. I just want to keep them off the talk page (and the reference desk), without having to engage in unpleasantness. I don't see what skin it is off your nose. --Trovatore (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a summary of content that has appeared on the talk page in the past that can serve as a sort of FAQ for future arguments against the diagonal argument when they appear on the talk page. It is not essentially different in nature from archives of talk pages, just more convenient. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A FAQ? That page is loaded with OR on it, sorry, that can in no way serve as a faq. ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 16:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean a mainspace FAQ, I mean a resource for the talk page. It is in talkspace, so OR doesn't apply. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Take a look at WP:OR, in the box This page in a nutshell. It's saying that all material in Wikipedia needs to be attributable to an RS. Note the "all material" part of it. I think OR does apply on talk pages as well. ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 17:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of WP:OR says "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research", which means that it is a policy that applies to mainspace (See WP:COFAQ for a discussion of the differences between articles and pages). It does not talk about arguments on pages outside mainspace. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Paul August ☎ 00:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There's a few pages like this around the place. I don't think they contribute much to improving the associated article. They are forums. However I do think they are helpful in presenting a friendlier face to people with a bee in their bonnet who might otherwise start thinking of Wikipedia as a place they should oppose. We can explain that the article has to be the way it is because that is what reliable sources say and that's how Wikipedia works, and maybe try explaining the problem with what they say though that is rarely successful. I'm not sure that deleting will improve the encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is an IAR case I think for it, helping directing discussion to somewhere where it can be handled better etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Archive - Many of the arguments are fringe, but the fact that they have been made over and over again may prove useful in the future if disruptive editing of the article has to go to WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. Whether the crummy arguments against the validity of the proof should be mentioned and dismissed in the article is another question, not being considered here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Archive would just mean to mark as closed discussion, I guess. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing the page to further discussion would defeat the purpose. Please see my explanation in response to Marchjuly (my post of 19:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)). --Trovatore (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NOTAFORUM (like most of WP:NOT) is mostly about article space. This page implements a working harm-reduction strategy. If you don't want to see it, take it off your watchlist; problem solved. --Trovatore (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Trovatore. Paul August ☎ 00:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but refactor. Per Trovatore's stated rationale for the page and objections to archiving, it seems to me that a kind of compromise could be reached where "crank" arguments can still be moved to the subpage and responded to there, but after some appropriate amount of time the resulting discussion threads could be removed and replaced by summaries of the main objections raised and brief refutations of them (these summaries could be accompanied by links to the diffs that removed the original discussion threads, to facilitate interested parties in finding them later, if desired). In this way, over time, the page could develop into a compact list of common objections and refutations rather than a (historical) wall-of-text discussion forum. (Easier said than done, I know.) I hope people understand what I'm trying to describe here. Perhaps I could ty to begin that process on the page itself, so others could see what I'm suggesting and possibly continue it. - dcljr (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have any huge objection to that, but I don't really understand the point. It seems like a lot of effort to clean up something that doesn't really need to be cleaned up. Why not just ignore it? --Trovatore (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a talkpage supplement. I'm convinced it has a use. Interested editors can police it by closing discussions or ignoring them. Legacypac (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Disruptive deletion proposal by the now banned User KoshVorlon. Having such an 'harm reduction strategy' is a great thing in areas where cranks are otherwise time consuming to contain. Pldx1 (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, though I obviously disagree with the nomination, I see no reason to think it was intended disruptively. --Trovatore (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, "disruptive proposal" doesn't means "proposed with a proven intent to disrupt". Indeed, most of what happens in the Internet is not caused by a conspiracy of some kind. It remains that suppressing an "harm reduction tool" would result into more harm: the usual rule of signs, maybe... Pldx1 (talk) 07:39, 26 April 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:Blob Blobbed
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 . G12 - copyvios Primefac (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blob Blobbed

User:Blob Blobbed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Qualifies for deletion per WP:NOTWEBHOST. North America1000 12:34, 19 April 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.

April 18, 2018

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy Deleted (G4) by RHaworth . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 15:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Meena Lalit

Draft:Meena Lalit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deleted by discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Aisenberg a year ago and three more times since. Now submitted and declined 3 times over a few days. Time to delete this topic as a time waster Legacypac (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion for resubmissions as long as the saccharine encouragement to edit and resubmit message is plastered on top. The repeated scapegoating of newcomers for the flaws of AfC is not ok. Remove the stupid template and add {{tl:NSFW}}. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as G4, but wrong AFD, real one was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meena Lalit. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to User:SmokeyJoe - It isn't newcomers who tendentiously resubmit deleted articles. Most tendentious resubmissions like this one involve sockpuppetry, and I think that the scapegoating of sockpuppeteers is more OK than dumping on reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The resubmissions of this article were block evasion by IPs after the original author was blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nom linked the wrong AfD, and didn’t mention socking. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The nominator made a mistake. I corrected it. Maybe the nominator didn't think that the IPs who resubmitted were socks. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's gone bye-bye. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously pasted in the wrong link - opps! thanks for catching that. Legacypac (talk) 02:35, 19 April 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:Casa De San Miguel Montessori School
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 . Woulda been deleted with the mainspace version if it'd been retargeted already. Since most comments support retargeting, I'll go one step further and delete on the basis of the AfD result. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Casa De San Miguel Montessori School

Draft:Casa De San Miguel Montessori School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See also

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

This is a copy of an already existing article, Casa De San Miguel Montessori School. Dan arndt (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy retarget to the mainspace version which has been nominated for deletion. No reason to have two discussions. Legacypac (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Redirect (don’t mfd when there is coverage in mainspace, redirect instead). Delete (CSD#G8) if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casa De San Miguel Montessori School ends as “delete”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is also an identical draft in a sandbox, which also should be either redirected or G8d depending on the outcome of the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for User:Legacypac and anyone else. Speedy retarget appears to mean bundling these MFD discussions with the AFD. Can MFD discussions be bundled with AFD? If so, rebundle. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • since the page exists in mainspace we can just redirect it (a better term than retarget) If the mainspace version gets deleted this one gets deleted as a dependant page. There is no point having two or three discussions and AfD is a more senior discussion board. I suppose we could have draftified the mainspace version and bundled it here but draftifying something to immediately MfD it is pointless. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes. I don't think that draftifying a mainspace version and then MFD'ing it is a good idea. Draftifying is an alternative to article deletion. Besides, the article couldn't be draftified to its usual title because there was already a draft. If an author is bound and determined to force a page into article space, then just apply article space criteria. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 18 April 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.

April 17, 2018

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:East Carolina University student riots
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:Democratic Backsliding/East Carolina University student riots as a compromise between keep and delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:East Carolina University student riots

Draft:East Carolina University student riots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost as good as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Excellence (Black Excellence) from the same user. Alexis Jazz (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete is that percise enough? There should be a speedy for these Legacypac (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - User:Jjjjjjdddddd was right to move this to draft space, and it is harmless and useless in draft space as it now is, but it might become useful if the author expands it to two paragraphs with references to articles in newspapers. This was a case of nominating something useless too quickly from draft space. I have been criticized for very quick CSD tagging of crud in article space, but article space is the purpose of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: I first thought Black Excellence was also in draft, but I was wrong. Still, this article (now moved to draft) was created a week ago and seems to have been pretty much abandoned. Had it been created with some sort of bare minimum or expanded to that within a few days, I would be with you 100%. But at this level, I can write several drafts per minute.
A notable war involving Germany occured during the early 1940s and late 1930s (decade). It ended in 1945.
A notable protest movement originating in the African-American community was formed in 2013. In 2017 there was an art exhibition.
A notable TV show with puppet sketches has been on the air since 1969 (year). Mitt Romney tried to kill the bird.
Nobody wants that. Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:24, 25 April 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:Zachery Dan Batson
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Zachery Dan Batson

Draft:Zachery Dan Batson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bobherry Talk Edits 01:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As the nom couldn't be arsed to write anything I was going to speedy keep and move the draft to the creators userbox .... Until I saw the creator was called "Zdbatson98" ..... Obvious self promo. –Davey2010Talk 02:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This almost qualifies for WP:G10, but not quite. I've deleted all the negative statements. What's left is kind of gibberish, but it was pretty much gibberish before I got there too. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete that is G10 and zero potential. Legacypac (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not sure it's gibberish, it's like a Facebook entry. But it's certainly unsuitable. KJP1 (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - essentially this is a personal autobiography (refer WP:AUTO), no evidence that this article/ subject will ever be notable. Dan arndt (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just Another autobiography that has had to be redacted and never had any substantive content. Thanks to the developer of the NSFW template. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 06:37, 24 April 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.

April 16, 2018

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Slovenia/Things you can do
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 . This MfD doesn't have sufficient consensus to archive, delete, or redirect the whole Portal, but I think it's reasonable to delete based on SmokeyJoe's argument that it may be out-of-date and not reflecting recent information. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Slovenia/Things you can do

Portal:Slovenia/Things you can do (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A todo list that has not been updated in close to 4 years. To the extent these jobs still need doing, this page is evidently an ineffective way to get attention. Legacypac (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I agree that the portal content are not being updated, I wonder why nominating this subpage for deletion while the whole portal namespace is getting discussed for deletion? I'd wait for the outcome of that first. Tone 22:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because the whole namespace may not be deleted and we need to start somewhere and drive some precident. Legacypac (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archive the whole WikiProject by redirection to the parent article, Slovenia. Deletion is not appropriate because there is a non-trivial history, including features that may be reused in another (likely automated) form. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still believe that it is better to wait for the outcome of the general discussion instead of focusing on a single tiny subpage ;) --Tone 11:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The general discussion has a very long way to go, I believe it will not end up with deletions but some form of archiving, and a redirect is easily reversed. The general discussion may never end, and it can’t lock in the current state. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useless but harmless. Is there any reason why we need to keep Portal space (and the other weird 5-dimensional spaces) free of old harmless but useless stuff? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Out of date, not reflecting recent advances, and distracting readers and editors from the much more important mainspace articles, these are no “harmless”. Small harm admittedly, but not harmless. I have for some years advocated shutting down most of the portals as a net negative. There are ideas for replacing them with automated content navigation, but that is compatible with and even advantaged by archiving portals. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 18 April 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.

April 15, 2018

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sara Dalton
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) 03:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sara Dalton

User:Sara Dalton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User space being used as a WP:FAKEARTICLE. See Draft:Sara Dalton and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sara Dalton. Whpq (talk) 22:57, 15 April 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:Mandya Gowda
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) 03:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mandya Gowda

Draft:Mandya Gowda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The English part of this draft is partly about a person and partly about a political party or group. The non-English part appears to be a political statement of the sort that is not encyclopedic.

This draft will never be put into a form where it can be considered for article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that this draft should be deleted (not speedy deleted) on the basis of it being drafted without any suitable sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is speculative and subjective to argue “This draft will never be ...”, and over-confrontational. A better argument for deletion I think is “The current content is entirely based on unsuitable sources”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTAWEBHOST or G11 or just plain useless. Take your pick. Legacypac (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not English, NOTAWEBHOST, and not notable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should've been speedied along with the English one. The user is blocked anyway. It can never be turned to anything meaningful. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:56, 16 April 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:Sara Dalton
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) 03:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sara Dalton

Draft:Sara Dalton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Sara Dalton has requsted a restore on Draft:Sara Dalton, a page sourced to her own blog and facebook pages. The only reference is a short smashwords page which says "Smashwords Interviews are created by the profiled author, publisher or reader.". I'm bringing this self promotional effort to MfD since letting the page go G13 did not keep it deleted. Legacypac (talk) 04:52, 15 April 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.

April 14, 2018

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User WikiProject Amiga
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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Amiga/Userbox over redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User WikiProject Amiga

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

Userbox for long defunct Wikiproject. Since the project is gone the userbox is misleading. Only used on 6 pages. Legacypac (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Information_on_the_process#Userboxes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to discuss, Alls it needs is to be moved over and this closed. –Davey2010Talk 21:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the proposed target is a redirect to this template - and it is not needed or properly used. I'm happy to remove it from the 6 places it's still used. Legacypac (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename suffixed by year of creation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC). The move target is just a redirect. Overwrite the redirect. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 16 April 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:Sufyan Iqbal
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. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sufyan Iqbal

Draft:Sufyan Iqbal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A completely unsourced autobiography. This has been declined 4 times in 3 days and the author has made no attempt to address the issues raised. There is no sourcing at all to indicate Notability and no indication that it meets Wikipedia:NPOL. Tagging for deletion. KJP1 (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this kind of rapid resubmitting without addressing reviewer comments is a valid reason for deletion Seraphim System (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much as I hate to delete so early, especially on an active draft, I have to agree with User:Seraphim System; Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjjjjdddddd (talk • contribs)
  • Delete clearly self promotion and no credable claim of significance. Legacypac (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - user has no intention of improving the draft. But they will probably be back as soon as the account is auto confirmed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Repeated resubmission of an autobiography. Not useful. I will comment that the two possible sanctions for tendentious resubmission are deletion and blocks, and deletion is less unfriendly. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promotion. The only source being the subject’s personal website makes the page G11 eligible. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obvious self promotion is obvious. –Davey2010Talk 23:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsourced self promotion. KylieTastic (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly doesn’t comply with WP:NPOL. Dan arndt (talk) 11:29, 17 April 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:Wikipedia Hate and Love
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) 22:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Wikipedia Hate and Love

Draft:Wikipedia Hate and Love (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nonstarter as article, probably vandal/obvious NOTHERE contributor (see User:FlyingPoo, the author). Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy to User:FlyingPoo/Wikipedia Hate and Love. Is clearly project commentary, is suitable as a user essay. Looks like an alternative account, but no sign of SOCK violation. No reason to delete as a user essay. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pointy draftspace Wikipedia essay writing under an undisclosed throw away account is trolling? Ok, delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page is a joke and such trolling should be removed without wasting too much time (see Special:Contributions/FlyingPoo). Wikipedia should not be a place where someone can post random thoughts which then cannot be deleted. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . Blatant trolling. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Do not feed the monster under the bed. It is a troll. (If there is a creature under the bed that can appropriately be fed, it isn't a monster but a pet.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Should've been speedied ..... This was created by "FlyingPoo" ..... Needs no further explanation. –Davey2010Talk 23:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - garbage. KJP1 (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete poo needs to go Legacypac (talk) 05:54, 18 April 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:Akhilendra Sahu
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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Akhilendra Sahu

Draft:Akhilendra Sahu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nothing notable about the person as of now. Probably, nothing notable about the person would occur in near future as well. Dial911 (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably, but unless you can make a G11 case, this stuff should be rejected and left for G13. Probably not notable, but possibly notable. The submissions violates WP:NMFD, the nominator has made no valid rationale for deletion, Speedy keep. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:NMFD prevents us from deletign junk that can't be speedied we need to overturn NMFD. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Instead, AfC and its reviewers need to learn how to REJECT in plain English. Have you read the message templated on the draft. This is not mixed messages, this is totally stuffed up communication. MfDing of the consequences does nothing to address the root of the problem. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I rejected the draft first. Then I thought this draft is almost G11 and never gonna get to pass through AfC. Also, I was not sure if concerning administrator would be convinced for G11 or not. Thus, I proposed it for MfD so that editors can decide. Dial911 (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dial911, you thought this was almost G11, so brought it to MfD. That’s ok, even great, except your nomination included no G11 language, but instead went straight to the forbidden WP:NMFD. Notability concerns alone, like your rationale, and not for bringing to MfD. Promotion is. Yes, it looks G11 eligible to me. YouTube is promotion, and there are zero suitable sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe we agree the templates need changing. Most of us don't have the right tools to change them. That is not the AfC reviewer's fault. Dumping on the AfC volunteers will not force an Admin to edot the templates. Oh and Delete cause Dial911 is perfectly correct to seek deletion - taht is a strong message to the submitter to get with the program and not submit unacceptable content. They went through the Article Wizard which contains all kinds of cautions not to submit non-notable content. Not our fault they ignored all the instructions. Legacypac (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AfC reviewers are capable of stripping the stupid saccharine worded encouragement to edit and resubmit, and replace them with Template:NSFW, for example. Better to do that than to bring them to MfD where the nominations are not welcome. WP:DENY. All the many reasons mentioned in support of the NMFD RfC (I know you don’t care for the opposing rationales to yours, but you should stop denying their existence). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This would be a clear A7 at NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - It would be good if we could apply the A criteria to Submitted drafts. It doesn't say that we can. Is there consensus that we should apply them as MFD criteria?
  • 'Comment - Has anyone asked whether there is a conflict of interest? I, personally, am willing to delete COI drafts because I think COI drafts are bad for Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:SmokeyJoe - Some of the AFC reviewers are getting tired of being dumped on for what we can't do, Reject the drafts dirtily. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don’t respect the supporting of obviously broken processes. Reviewers could remove the stupid templates. Editors nominating something that reviewers tag with encouragement to improve and resubmit is a contradiction. Dial911 Should read WP:NMFD and ensure a minimum standard for his nomination rationales. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]
SmokeyJoe, I have read WP:NMFD in the past. What I did was the best of my judgement at that point of time as per WP:COMMONSENSE and/or WP:IAR. My emphasis on this draft being utterly crap and non-notable is what creating a fuss here. I should have played with my words while nominating this for deletion. Dial911 (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is surely not demonstrated by this draft as it stands. It may never be, but then again it may be in time -- particularly for Indian sources there may be quite a lot out there which does not show up in a superficial search. In any case, lack of notability is not currently a valid reason to delete a draft, as per WP:NMFD. Nor should it be, as deleting such drafts would prevent the eventual discovery of sources in those cases where the subject is in fact notable. I am amazed by the crystal balls some editors must posses, to be so sure that no source could possibly exist. I can't be sure, so I say such drafts should be kept. They do no harm, and we need a better way to educate those who submit such drafts. Deleting will not teach them, it will simply frustrate and/or enrage them -- I have seen it too many times. There are better ways. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:55, 14 April 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/Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEYOU
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 . Taking into account the comments about the new version, it appears the consensus is still to delete. I am willing to restore to userspace if DESiegel wants to take ownership of it and host it, but consensus is that it doesn't belong in WP space. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEYOU

Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEYOU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Short Essay rarely seen by people insulting Bobherry Talk Edits 03:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy as a disputed single author essay, to User:Basket of Puppies/IDONTLIKEYOU. Actual deletion of project related essays is a socially dangerous thing to do and must not be done lightly, even for blocked users, even for trivial comments. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page is a misguided complaint against others who presumably were telling the author that their actions at Wikipedia were unhelpful. As a user page, it fails WP:NOTWEBHOST as it has no useful content. Wikipedia should not be a place where someone can post their random thoughts as an essay which then cannot be deleted. Johnuniq (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The references to editors is clearly a reference to Wikipedia editors, it is clearly project related, not random, and therefore not a NOTWEBHOST violation. It may be a misguided complaint, but that argument is not helped by following false statements. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a misuse of Wikipedia space. Don't userfy as the creator could have done that and clearly did not want it in their userspace. Legacypac (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion doesn’t save space.. Many Wikipedians put their POVs into project space essays and see them userfied. It is common behaviour. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say anything about saving space. Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC) No, you didn’t, struck, sorry. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I wouldn't call it an essay, rather a trite commonplace with nothing of value to userfy. KJP1 (talk) 05:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vandalismn. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to WP:VAND "Vandalism" is editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages.... This policy also says that Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. I don't think this qualifies. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whatever this is, it isn't an essay and is only intended to insult people, which isn't here. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Having read the revised essay, I feel that I have been involved in a reverse bait-and-switch con game by a respected editor. The revised essay is completely unlike the original essay, and switching essays at this point seems to disrupt the MFD process to make a point. Trout. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry that you feel that way, Robert McClenon. I would note that almost all of the original wording is still present, the changes were almost all added wording. Specifically pronouins were replaceds, and 2 additional paragraphs added. See this diff I didn't think I had createsd something compeltely different, merely expressed better and more fuly what I read in the original. Also note that the Guide to deletion says You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period. Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones). While that speaks of articles, i had always supposed that changes to deal with concerns during a deletion discussion were appropriate at MfD as well.
    I can agree with Robert. WP:POINT Bobherry Talk Edits 15:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy as per SmokeyJoe. A not unreasonable comment on the feelings engendered by wiki-dispute, although not sufficiently developed to be a full-blown essay at this point. It is said above that Don't userfy as the creator could have done that and clearly did not want it in their userspace. How do we know that the user was even aware of this option? How is that "clear"? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right - user knows how to set up a Project space "essay" with all caps shortcut but missed the existence of Userspace. How could I be so slow. Legacypac (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isa at least possible that was done by imitation, quite likely imitation of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT which is often quoted at users who are thought persistently disruptive. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I may try to expand on and improve on this right now, in fact. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now Keep. I have significantly expanded this. to the point where I don't think there can be any serious question that it is a valid, project-related essay. As it now stands it belongs in project space just as much as many other essays, in my view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobherry, SmokeyJoe, Johnuniq, Legacypac, KJP1, Kudpung, and Robert McClenon: I urge you all to read the edited essay and reconsider your various comments above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So start over and vote on the validity/userfulness of your new essay? Legacypac (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t care for this essay, and I really dislike its title for style reasons, but I guess it is now a multi-author essay and for that reason may be allowed in project space. However, as one of the two authors is blocked, I recommend userfying for User:DES. Delete the project space titles and shortcuts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) This thing is a bad idea from top to bottom. Would you be happy if I typed WP:IDONTLIKEYOU on your talk or in any discussion? Seems to me that using this will lead to MORE not LESS conflict. Legacypac (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is not an OK project space title. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete .... IMHO it does nothing but add fuel to a fire ..... Get rid. –Davey2010Talk 23:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User essays may be moved categorically into the Wikipedia namespace and this category if they are frequently referenced, as evidenced by becoming an evolving expression of multiple editors. Wikipedia essays may be moved into userspace (or deleted) if they are found to be unhelpful or to contradict a settled point of policy. That said, I do not believe that this essay is a helpful contribution in any way, whichever namespace it goes into. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is astonishing that anyone could think Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEYOU was desirable—the page should be deleted because it is the opposite of community standards. Use WP:FOC or similar to tell people to talk about content, not contributors. There is no WP:DONTFOCUS to put the contrary case, and there should be no WP:IDONTLIKEYOU. Johnuniq (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DESiegel - As requested above, I've read the revised version and don't think it any more helpful or useful than the first version. KJP1 (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with KJP1 above. Bobherry Talk Edits 16:22, 15 April 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.

April 13, 2018

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sonu1024/draft
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) 22:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sonu1024/draft

User:Sonu1024/draft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Substandard sourcing, mainspace article already existed and deleted twice, but some time ago. —PaleoNeonate – 21:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This illustrates why drafts should be moved to real titles as drafts, in this case Draft:Ryan Amon, which will show that Ryan Amon was deleted twice. However, I don't see why we are in such a hurry to clear drafts out of user space or draft space unless they become a nuisance, so:
  • Neutral Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This draft interestingly attempted to get indexed under "Ryan Amon" by using DISPLAYTITLE and _INDEX_. The attempt to change the title likely failed (and displayed a warning), but the page was indexed. I have removed the explicit indexing, if it remains unindexed then the draft appears more legitimate. Otherwise, this is an obvious attempt to spam Wikipedia and have an article show up in search engines. —PaleoNeonate – 23:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In view of the history which appears to be trying to game the system for Search Engine Pessimization. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 15 April 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:JOAN (room scheduler)
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 for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:JOAN (room scheduler)

Draft:JOAN (room scheduler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This has been resubmitted five times with no significant improvement. Obviously non-notable piece of software. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close. Resubmissions can’t be criticised as long as the reviewers keep declining with the saccharine encouragement to improve and resubmit. They are following instructions at face value. Not obviously non-notable, and the question fails WP:NMFD. There is a problem. Mfd is not the answer. The answer is to firmly “Reject” the draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - After each decline, I see the addition of more references. This appears to be a good faith effort to follow the instructions noted in the decline as noted by SmokeyJoe. -- Whpq (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its spam. The refs are press release based or otherwise unreliable. User has been told clearly the refs are not good ones. I've tagged G11. We HAVE to have a way to get unsuitable drafts out of the system. MfD covers Drafts and is the appropriate venue to discuss deletion. Legacypac (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a spectrum of spam. These was more on the side of factual, reliably sourceable, not based on only unsuitable sources, and could have had a future merged into another topic. Where was the user told about sources? You really must stop with CSD overreach, it seriously weakens the argument that reviewers can be trusted to tag under broad criteria responsibly. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad speedy Factual in form. I will be asking RHaworth to restore this. If restored, keep as per SmokeyJoe, and Whpq. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, and I also appealed on his talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good speedy. Yes the submitters are told about sources in declines and in the supplied links in the AfC template. This is run of the mill software. DES is an Admin so why ask to restore it - just put your reputaion on the line, restore and mainspace so someone can send it AfD. If you are not prepared to mainspace it don't vote to keep. Draftspace is a place to develop actual paes for mainspace not a holdimg pen of non-notable topics and spam. Legacypac (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. With two editors asserting a bad speedy, it is definitely worth a discussion and not thus speediable. You should take more care with wikipolitics, your gross lack of caution with the letter of speedy criteria rightfully causes others to be loath to expand the speedy criteria. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have undone the speedy after the discussion on RHaworth,'s talk page. Legacypac, I didn't simply undo the deletion because the relevant policy strongly advises discussion with the deleting admin first, to avoid any chance of a wheel-war. This is a case where I adhere to Process is important. I think it is also important in doing speedy deletions strictly by the letter of the criteria. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Keep s above (where it was not bolded). Factual in form, possibly sourcable to mainspace standards, although not there yet. May never be ready for mainspace, may be made so. It is said above that We HAVE to have a way to get unsuitable drafts out of the system. Why? A rejection need not take long if things are as bad as is claimed. And it is always posible that a valid article may be fashioned after multiple submissions. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several Admins have concluded this is SPAM. The Keep voters don't want it in mainspace. Process wonkery for the sake of targeting me is not ok. Legacypac (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not correct to say that The Keep voters don't want it in mainspace. I at least, and i think the other editors who opined "keep" , want it in mainspace, if and only if it is first improved to make it suitable for mainspace. I also want this draft to be given the chance for those improvements to be made. I also do not want this or any page to be deleted in ways not justified by the deletion policy. To say "if you want it kept you must think it is ready for mainspace" is a false conclusion. It ignores the fact that many drafts, including this one, are not bad enough to justify deletion, but are not yet ready for mainspace, and may never be. Still they might be made so, and no one can be sue which ones will. Legacypac says Several Admins have concluded this is SPAM. as if that settled the matter. Others, admins and experienced editors, have concluded otherwise. When experienced editors honestly disagree on such a matter, it is not a clearcut issue, and "When in doubt don't delete" probably applies. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Legacypac you are not being targeted here, certainly not by me. But an agenda which you have espoused, that every draft must be quickly promoted to mainspace or equally quickly deleted, and any gut feeling that a draft is unlikely to be promoted is grounds to delete it, that agenda I for one strongly oppose. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Legacypac - I concur with User:DESiegel on this point. - You appear to have an agenda that I consider hazardous to the quality of article space, and it is article space that is outward-facing to the world. Maybe you would like to abolish draft space because it has crud in it, but draft space is one of Wikipedia's dustbins. I think that I disagree with DES about what sorts of crud need deleting from draft space, but you seem to be on a tear to push everything out of draft space either into article space (and I think that questionable stuff can stay in draft) or down into a bit bucket. In the absence of a guideline about deletion of drafts, I say to delete a draft if it will never make it into article space. This one will probably not make it into article space (which is not the same thing). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. It's clearly spam, and wouldn't survive in the article space. But aside from annoying AfC reviewers, it's pretty harmless, and will likely end up being killed off by G13. -FASTILY 08:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yuck - Neutral - Some things should be left alone to die of old age. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To several of you - don't put words in my mouth. Legacypac (talk) 09:08, 18 April 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:Barawa Flag
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Barawa Flag

Draft:Barawa Flag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:State seal of Lower Shebelle.jpg Alexis Jazz (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - In the absence of references, this is probably a bad joke. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 15 April 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.

April 12, 2018

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Plague (Future Punk Band)
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 . Closing has been submitted as an CSD. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Talk Edits 15:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Plague (Future Punk Band)

User:The Plague (Future Punk Band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User page being used as a WP:FAKEARTICLE Whpq (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 12 April 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/Portal:Portal (3rd nomination)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep . Consensus is that it's harmless, no apparent opposition to moving it to another namespace. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Portal

Portal:Portal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is a current RfC to eliminate all portals. Even most of the supporters of portal state they want reform and to prune the least useful portals. Portal:Portal is a collection of random things with some association to the word portal. It makes a poor navigation tool because it is by design not comprehensive, and there is no recognizable topic here. I see an article about a guy named Portal, stuff about sci fi, a photo of stonehenge. It's all over the place. This should be deleted and all links removed. Portal dab page is the correct way to provide our readers with links to get to the topic they are seeking. Yes it is tagged as humorous, but its not that funny. Legacypac (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considure a Move to Wikipedia:Portal:Portals (satire). We don’t want anyone actually being confused, which is entirely foreseeable with the current location. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While looking at portals this one jumped out as a really dumb idea for a portal. I actually was confused because I only spotted the little humor tag after I wrote up the nom. Legacypac (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On further though, I thing the move is more than justified. Humour belongs in WP or user space, not Portal space. Humour is great, but it should not mislead at the title level. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support a speedy move. Good solution, but stillnprefer delete. Legacypac (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most of the nomination doesn't reflect the fact it's intended as satire and it was enough to make me smile. Hut 8.5 21:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't allow jokes in reader facing pages. Legacypac (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy for it to be moved to some other namespace. Hut 8.5 21:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move Good joke page, it would suck to have it be deleted. If it doesn't work in the Portal: section, at least move it somewhere else. Proposal: Wikipedia: Portal: Portal exoplanetaryscience (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Harmless humor page. Move it to Wikipedia namespace. North America1000 09:53, 19 April 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.
  • Post close, I boldly moved the page as I proposed, and G6 tagged the residual redirect. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • To fix, there are 15 erroneous incoming links from mainspace, and 7 from Portal space. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't hear about this until I got 39 move notifications in five seconds (earlier redirect creator was informed instead), but the move to Wikipedia:Portal:Portal is fine with me. I doubt it caused more than momentary confusion, but the name is a minor part of the humour, and {{portal}} stopped linking to it by default in 2012 anyway. May gain irony if it ends up as one of the few remaining portals after the RfC. GreenReaper (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Noorul Ali khan
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: G6'd . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Noorul Ali khan

Draft:Noorul Ali khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per WP:NOTWEBHOST; not clear what exact subject the author even wants to write about so this can't be useful as a draft. Jasper Deng (talk) 09:34, 12 April 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

April 10, 2018

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

The result of the discussion was: keep . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Greenwich Music School

Draft:Greenwich Music School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Newly founded music school submitted to AfC. Nothing notable here. Would be A7'd immediately if accepted, no reason to keep a draft hanging around for 6 months. Legacypac (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep draft was only created yesterday, I suggest we give the creator a chance to demonstrate notability before giving it up as a lost cause. Hut 8.5 17:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So let them waste their time and reviewer time trying to prove notability on a new music school, that is just like thousands of others in towns everywhere? Submission to AfC is a request to mainspace it and a representation it is ready for mainspace. If kept I will move it to mainspace for NPR to deal with, then I will put on my NPR hat and immediately seek speedy deletion. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're dealing with a newbie with no prior editing history, they almost certainly weren't aware of the notability guidelines when they wrote the draft. Given that it isn't fair to presume that they were representing that it passes all notability guidelines. If the creator reads your decline message then they will be aware of what they have to do to get the page accepted and they will be able to have a a go at it. Unless we delete the page. I doubt the subject is notable but it isn't impossible and unless you've checked every source in existence you can't be certain. Moving a draft which you admit isn't ready for mainspace to mainspace just so you can get it deleted is disruptive editing. Hut 8.5 18:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If they had placed the Draft in mainspace directly it would be immediately deleted. MfD gives them a week. Legacypac (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to impose that deadline. Hut 8.5 20:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Without a guideline saying that good-faith hopeless drafts can be deleted, and this is a good-faith hopeless draft, therefore better than much of what comes in to AFC, I see no reason to delete. I won't say that this nomination is bitey, because I don't like that guideline, but it doesn't serve a purpose, and there is no need to delete at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The invitation to improve and resubmit is not consistent with a need to delete. Incompetent processes at play, deletion will just hide the evidence. And WP:NMFD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No harm in letting G13 eventually work its course if the author can't get it up to standard. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At NPP his would be a straight WP:G11. Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually. Yes, I agree G11 eligible. The nominator’s rationale is terribly substandard though. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 14 April 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.

April 9, 2018

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

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Advertising program

Wikipedia talk:Advertising program (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Useless. Wikipedia does not build shrines to vandals, especially ones that haven't been active for 5 years. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 01:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - User:James086 said, five years ago, that this should not be deleted under G8 as an orphaned talk page because it is useful to Wikipedia. Why was this protected five years ago, was it ever useful, and is it now useful? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Robert McClenon A couple years ago some vandals modified highly used templates to suggest that Wikipedia was gonna sell advertising. At the time the G8 tag was placed, some editors were still seeing the vandalism, so they were redirected here so that they would see what was going on. Five years later, it's no longer needed. Delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - They didn't have a reason, it would appear, and they were just being pointy or putting beans up their own nose. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 10 April 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=837215395"