Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:MFD)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

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 this page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion include:

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Education Program:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
  • Files 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[edit]

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}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
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.
  • Proposed deletion is an option for non-controversial deletions of books (in both User: and Book: namespaces).

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

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.

Edit PageName:

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
If the nomination is for a userbox, please put <noinclude></noinclude> tags around the {{mfd}}, as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.


if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.


if you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page.
  • 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
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.
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
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:MFDWarning|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 Portal, please make a note of your nomination here and consider using the portal guidelines in your nomination.
  • 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[edit]

XFD backlog
  Jan Feb Mar Apr TOTAL
CfD 0 51 84 0 135
TfD 0 0 37 0 37
MfD 0 0 6 0 6
FfD 0 7 26 0 33
AfD 0 0 89 0 89

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

Archived discussions[edit]

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

Current discussions[edit]

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 1, 2020[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation (2nd nomination)[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

MfD is regularly overwhelmed by AfC articles that reviewers get tired of and/or are too lazy to properly handle on their own. Thus, it would seem prudent to just fully do away with the AfC process to prevent more unneccesary MfDs. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review[edit]

Wikipedia:Deletion review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Deletion Review is normally used as a method of re-litigating Articles for Deletion. Rather than having a separate forum that is meant to be to correct closer errors, we should split the functions of this noticeboard into two processes. First, all AFDs should be given a tentative close and then Relisted to permit re-litigation. Second, any real questions about closures can go, like questions about closures of RFCs, to WP:AN. Third, the ArbCom should impose discretionary sanctions on deletion discussions, permitting the topic-banning of editors who nominate too many articles for deletion. (Yes, that is a third process. Getting the count right can be done when re-litigating.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

March 31, 2020[edit]


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

Resubmitted five times without improvement. Is not about to satisfy geographic notability, at least not with the current editor repeatedly submitting it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Redirect, with prejudice, to Shopian district. Newcomers should be advised to add material to existing articles, not create new thin orphans. If Aglar is an important village in the Shopian district, sure the Shopian district article should cover it? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

TimedText:Doctor Who theme[edit]

TimedText:Doctor Who theme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

No subtitles either in current version or previous versions. Instrumental song, as such no need for an TimedText page. Snaevar (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


TimedText:Gradual (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

No subtitles either in current version or previous versions. Instrumental song, as such no need for an TimedText page. Snaevar (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

TimedText:Doctor Who theme[edit]

TimedText:Doctor Who theme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

No subtitles either in current version or previous versions. Instrumental song, as such no need for an TimedText page. Snaevar (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


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

Not blatant enough for a G11 deletion, but this is advertising enough in nature for a MfD. JavaHurricane 11:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. Already processed by AfC. Probably notable. A newcomers overdone draft. It can be fixed. WP:BITE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep It's quite promotional, but it was just declined for the first time today, so the editor has not had time to fix any of the issues. The subject is possibly notable, or at least not obviously non-notable, which is more than can be said for many drafts at AfC. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as per User:SmokeyJoe and User:SpicyMilkBoy. As noted, has real tone issues, but they would warrant draftification if it were in article space. The question here is whether there is the possibility that this can be worked into a reasonable article draft. It can./ Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would move this to draft space with her name, except that would gum up MFD, and the instructions, for that reason, explicitly say not to move it. So the closer can move it when keeping it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Harrison Kay[edit]

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

Another article which I do not know how best o deal with. Since it's a registered editor, perhaps it should be moved to his user page. DGG ( talk ) 10:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. Previously, I would tag this G11. Non-encyclopedic, promotes the subject and his twitter account. If in userspace, I would tag U5. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete G11, per SmokeyJoe. This is just an excuse to link to his tiktok page. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is not G11 or U5, not quite. But it is Delete. It isn't always clear to me whether some of the editors here actually are saying that items should be speedily deleted (and so shouldn't have come here), or that only speedy deletions should be dealt with, or if they really mean almost speedy. This is almost speedy. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Joseph Daniel Sanchez[edit]

Draft:Joseph Daniel Sanchez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

I am uncertain of what to do with drafts such as this. we have no way of knowing whether the BLP information is correct,,and it seems unfair to the naïve contributor to keep them here. DGG ( talk ) 09:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I think best to ignore. In draftspace, never submitted, no one will read it, it will do no harm before being deleted by the G13 process. A speedy deletion criteria to cover it would do more harm through false positives. A discussion at mfd costs more than possible harm in doing nothing. G13 suffices. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, no reason to keep BLP information of obviously non-notable minors around for 6 months. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - The CSD criterion would be a criterion about minors, but would need to be worded so as not to cover actual child stars, et cetera. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Villages in the Brooke Benefice, England[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Villages in the Brooke Benefice, England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Far too narrow a scope, and no activity since creation[1] three months ago, on 1 January 2020.

This is a WikiProject for five small rural villages in the English county of Norfolk, with a total population of only ~2,500: Mundham, Thwaite St Mary, Brooke, Norfolk, Kirstead, and Seething. There is no article on the Brooke Benefice, and no mention of it in any of the five village articles. it gets a list entry at Diocese of Norwich#Deanery_of_Depwade, but not even a namecheck anywhere else on en.wp: a wiki-search for "Brooke Benefice" returns no hits at all.

It is theoretically possible that such a project could be viable if there was:

  1. a team of local historians keen to collaborate on this extremely niche topic;
  2. plenty of reliable, secondary sources to allow many topics to pass WP:GNG

But both of those features are rare. In this case, I don't know whether the sources exist, but it is clear that the editors do not exist. Wikipedia:WikiProject Villages in the Brooke Benefice, England has been edited only by its creator and by drive-by editors fixing categories etc. Its talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Villages in the Brooke Benefice, England is a redlink, and Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:WikiProject Villages in the Brooke Benefice, England shwos only 18 links, all the results of edits by the project's creator User:Erik Sergeant. This seems to be a one-editor project ... and as noted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, "Single-editor projects tend to have short lives."

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide offers the bolded advice; A WikiProject is fundamentally a social construct: its success depends on its ability to function as a cohesive group of editors working towards a common goal. One editor may be a wonderfully `productive person, but is not a group.

Meanwhile, the broader-scope Wikipedia:WikiProject East Anglia is at best semi-active. There is no need to crate a new collaboration space when the existing one is almost unused. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

March 30, 2020[edit]

Draft:Moist Vagina[edit]

Draft:Moist Vagina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:MV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft has been submitted three times within 48 hours with no material improvement. The single was found to be not notable twelve years ago. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moist Vagina. It is still not notable. There is no reason to expect that this draft is likely to be accepted as an article in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete Training wheels are off for this editor. He should be fully aware by now the expectation of song notability per a myriad of QAs and rundowns on policy. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete this draft and Draft:MV about the same single, which was created by the same user, after this MfD was opened. I agree with Robert McClenon and Sulfurboy: this is not likely to become notable, and the recreations are disruptive. --bonadea contributions talk 09:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - The addition of another version of the draft is gaming of article titles. A formal warning by the closer is requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Sulfurboy, (talk)Robert McClenon (talk) and bonadea. I have requested that both drafts get deleted. They have both since been deleted and are no more. I’ll be keeping my training wheels on because I’m done with Wikipedia for a while. Beatleswillneverdie, (talk)

Wikipedia:Village projects[edit]

Wikipedia:Village projects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

This hasn't been updated since its creation, apart from a drive-by tag. Catgirllover4ever (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete - It says it is in the process of development, but apparently that doesn't happen. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Villages. Archive by redirection. Things like this are fully fixed like this without need for an MfD discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ASCII art conversion tool[edit]

Wikipedia:ASCII art conversion tool (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

This does not belong in projectspace. Catgirllover4ever (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete, and I'd normally be the last person to say this for a page from 2002. I can't find any evidence that this page has any historical interest. It was created in the main namespace as ASCII art conversion tool (linked from the ASCII art page), before being moved to the Wikipedia namespace by The Anome at 08:24, 5 March 2003 (UTC). I've checked their contribs around the time, both undeleted and deleted, along with those listed in the May 2003 database dump, and I can't find any other edits related to the move. There's already a copy at Everything2, so we won't be losing anything by deleting this page. Graham87 09:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is ancient history, Wikipedia is not a software repository, and many tools like this exist. -- The Anome (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete or Userfy - If the maintainer wants it in user space, then it can be moved rather than deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

March 28, 2020[edit]

Draft:Random deleting in Wikipedia[edit]

Draft:Random deleting in Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

No need to keep this draft. Pretty obviously WP:NOT violations. JavaHurricane 15:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete - He was a bit angry after I reverted some of his edits (which he referred to as "deleting"). Then he created this. --MrClog (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Randomly delete. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • It would be a reasonable user_essay. If the user gets unblocked, userfy it if he asks. The fact that he put a user opinion in a new draft page says that newcomers don't understand stuff. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Agreed with SmokeyJoe: If the editor is ever unblocked, userfication on request, or re-creation in userspace, would be fine. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, but not randomly, because suckpoppetry is not random. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Randomly delete. per Newyorkbrad's random but very convincing sock argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Rajiv Ranjan[edit]

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

I came across this purported draft of an article, but it is IMO unequivocally just an un-notable person writing about himself, there is no chance or prayer of this ever passing notability guides. Evidence presented... 1) user has self-declared conflict-of-interest at User:Sat-cusat, showing the subject of the article and the Wiki user are one and the same. 2) Self-uploaded image of subject was deleted here. 3) User uploaded image of signature to Commons Wikipedia here, where it has been nominated for deletion. Summation, this is clear-cut self-promotion. Maybe it was done in good-faith, but as it is clearly a self-promoted subject of no notability, it should not remain even in Draft-form. Thank you for your consideration. Zaathras (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment, ping for @Sat-cusat: the creator, and @Fastily: who deleted the image and warned the user against using the Wiki as a blog or web-service. Zaathras (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom - The author's argument at Files for Deletion for keeping the image is a case where a self-promoter makes the case against himself. But this is a content forum (so that we are discussing the draft and not the editor). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NOTCV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • please hold on delete action. I understand, this article has very less coverage of passing notability compliance as of now but Can you please permit to keep it in draftspace as soon or later, it will get sufficient publicity and will have more references from reliable sources added to it. Thanks!!--Sat-cusat (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but there's nothing in this bio of an everyday IT guy that suggests he (and by "he" I mean "you", since this is clearly self-promotional) is just around the corner from international stardom. Or regional or even local stardom, for that matter. Zaathras (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

March 27, 2020[edit]

Draft:It's arj[edit]

Draft:It's arj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Seems to be AUTOBIOG; Self-Promotion: YouTube Channel (?); nn per NBIO; No COI disclosed Flori4nKT A L K 19:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:The Walt Disney Company[edit]

Draft:The Walt Disney Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Useless content fork that was a draft a while ago, why, I don't know. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete Draftspace is intended for the creation of new articles and this subject already has a very prominent page. Also looks like the draft is just a copy of the existing article. If the user wanted to test tweaks or edits to the page then it belongs in the sandbox. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a category displaying all drafts tagged for AFC review that have the same name as articles. A few editors, including myself, review the drafts in this category. If the draft is the same as the article, I redirect the draft to the article. If they are both about the same subject but some of the content is different, I tag the draft to be merged into the article. This is a case where the draft appears to be the same as the article. I would redirect the draft to the article, but the MFD tag instructions say not to do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sometimes a draft has the same name as an article because there are people with the same name. In that case the draft usually needs to be disambiguated. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sometimes a draft has the same name as a redirect because the title redirects to a parent article, such as the song redirects to the album or the album redirects to the band. These submissions require judgment and are often controversial. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

March 26, 2020[edit]


Wikipedia:BJAONDN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

This seems to be a revival of the deleted BJAODN pages. I'm relatively new here, but from what I understand, there are GFDL/CC-BY-SA problems, as well as concerns that these types of pages may encourage vandalism. Catgirllover4ever (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete I declined a request for speedy deletion of this page on the basis of previous deletions by discussion. Too unclear whether this is a duplicate of previous pages or not. However, I support its deletion and suggest the name be salted as well. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. The main reason for the deletion of BJAODN was that it encouraged vandalism. This page is specifically restricted to content that for various reasons was not deleted (e.g. edit summaries, talk page comments, project-space content), so there's no content here that would encourage the vandalism of articles. (There was one section that was BJAODN material, i.e. reverted mainspace vandalism, which I deleted.) In addition, all content is properly linked for attribution purposes, so I don't think anything is a copyright violation. (If there are copyright problems, fixing them should be trivial due to the page's small size.) TL;DR: the arguments for deleting BJAODN do not apply here. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete what seems to be a random collection of silly diffs. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Per pythoncoder. --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 22:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
    • User:Puddleglum2.0, I wish you could explain [{U|pythoncoder}}'s rationale, since I cannot follow it at all (and so obviously I cannot understand yours either). Drmies (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
      • @Drmies: I believe what s/he is trying to say is that this page does not encourage vandalism because none of it is deleted, and that all.of the content is properly attributed, so to clean up copyvio problems would be easy due also to this pages small size. I personally don't find this page entertaining; like you I think it's just silly diffs, but I also know that others may find it funny and there aren't any real problems with it. Thats how I interpret the rationale anyway, hope this helps. =) also, here's another ping to Pythoncoder, I don't think yours went through. Cheers, --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 23:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Equine Info Exchange[edit]

Draft:Equine Info Exchange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

I'm not sure if this is promotional enough for G11, but it is certainly promotional enough for me to take this to MfD. Article is apparently written by the founder of the subject, and is largely what the company wants to say about itself, as noted by Sulfurboy in the previous decline. JavaHurricane 03:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

March 25, 2020[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Backpacking/Navigation[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Backpacking/Navigation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

This is an unused, legacy template in Wikipedia:WikiProject space. Its intended purpose has been replaced by other tools on the main page of the project. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - I am not entirely sure what this is, but I don't think that we need it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

March 24, 2020[edit]

Talk:Chuck E. Cheese/FAQ[edit]

Talk:Chuck E. Cheese/FAQ (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

It has stood completely blank since 2009. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 03:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete - Abandoned for eleven years by editor who has been gone for three years. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:British Raj/FAQ[edit]

Talk:British Raj/FAQ (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Has stood in an incomplete state since 2009. Three of the four answers are blank. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 03:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Dylan V-K[edit]

Draft:Dylan V-K (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Repeatedly resubmitted and declined draft. A google search shows porn sites and similarly not-notable-proving websites. I dream of horses (talk) (contribs) Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page 01:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Neutral - Doesn't need deleting immediately after rejection. This sort of thing is what Rejection was developed for. Delete it if the submitter attempts to resubmit it after Rejection. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Aubrey Kate[edit]

I made this draft a while ago. Other users / people edited it as well, even though they stopped later on a year now. As the time went by, i do not want to be associated with this draft or page anymore. Please delete this draft off wikipedia, or just remove my username off the page. I do not want to be known for making this article. Thank you. The page should get removed for not being too notable. It got denied six times now, and still there's nothing to really in my opinion to improve the draft, and the other reason it should get removed, is because i just do not want association with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolePoz (talkcontribs) 17:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete as not making any progress toward an article and as requested by originator. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

March 17, 2020[edit]

User:Lasonchang/Tom Akeya[edit]

User:Lasonchang/Tom Akeya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

no evidence of notability in his own right--the article , and almost all the references, is mainly about the general subject of Inuit ivory carving. DGG ( talk ) 09:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a page Tom Akeya, why delete the user space version and not the one in mainspace? They both use the exact same sources. Vexations (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect the user space page and the sandbox to Tom Akeya for now. The article in article space can be tagged for Articles for Deletion for notability. If the article is kept, the redirects to the article are all right. If the article is deleted, any redirects can be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete only because it's a copy of the user's sandbox. Keep that sandbox. Notability is explicitly not a reason to delete someone's sandbox/userspace. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect to Tom Akeya. Why would one start applying notability concerns to userspace subpages? A bio that focuses on Inuit ivory carving is not a reason to delete.
These pages were created in association with Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of California, Riverside/Native American Art History (Winter_2020). Instructor user:Nstrathman.
Concerns include: WP:BITE; Do real world courses that ask students to writhe Wikipedia articles benefit the project?; Is the instructor a sufficiently experienced Wikipedian? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
a air number of real world courses have had students write poorly chosen articles, or supervised them inadequately; At least one or two seem to have chosen to specialize in fields where we were unlikely to accept article. And one, a few years ago, was deliberately organized to promote a political bias., But I had not checked to see if there was actually a main space article--drafts duplicating main space articles have gotten more and more common, so I want to see what can be rescued here., I may not have investigated this one adequately DGG ( talk ) 10:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Maybe by hanging out at MfD too much, I have a biased view of the problems newcomers have with writing new articles, but from hanging out at MfD and seeing many of these things come through, I am repeatedly inspired to say: Newcomers should not be trying to writ new articles, or new drafts, they should first find their Wikipedian feet by editing existing mainspace articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
and editing them in a substantial way, not just making the minimum number of trivial edits to be autoconfirmed. DGG ( talk ) 08:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The policy against biting the newcomers is not really applicable here. Courses that ask students to write Wikipedia articles are almost always contrary to the interests of the encyclopedia. The students should not be bitten, but the instructors should not be treated as newcomers. Even if the instructors are newcomers, the instructors should not be treated gently. Courses in which students are expected to submit articles to Wikipedia are a threat to the quality of the encyclopedia. I have been asked if I will accept a draft anyway so that a student passes a course, and we are not here to assist a student in passing a course that has misguided criteria. I am not commenting on this particular course, but on course assignments involving Wikipedia in general, which are a plague that threatens the quality of the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe I agree that new editors should not learn about Wikipedia by writing new articles, but most of the crud that we see at MFD is not due to editors trying to learn about Wikipedia by doing, but to editors trying to use Wikipedia for various sorts of self-promotion with varying degrees of cluelessness or cluefulness. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

March 23, 2020[edit]

Draft:Bonga (producer)[edit]

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

Draft declined twice for non-notable music producer. Article was also added to article space, probably by paid editor, and was deleted from article space as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonga (singer and producer). No immediate likelihood of being worked on except by conflict of interest editors. Closer of AFD recommends MFD of draft, as per . Robert McClenon (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Kerrie Wilson[edit]

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

Abandoned draft by editor who has not edited in ten months. Only edit within six months by User:KylieTastic was formatting, not substantive. G13 was declined by User:Liz because of tweaking, which was correct because CSD is meant to be rigid and questionable cases can come to MFD. Draft:Kerrie Wilson (2) is waiting to be renamed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Swap the page histories if it is preferable to have the other page on this title. Draft:Kerrie Wilson (2) should become a redirect anyway, and there is no need to keep this page history from public view. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Okay. McClenon mobile (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


User:Trevorteusc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Wikipedia is not a webhost. — JJMC89(T·C) 00:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Severely wind back the userpage. Although he used to make some contributions, this userpage is out of proportion to reasonable leeway. The user doesn’t even pretend to be an ongoing contributor, but is glossing up his userpage. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is the sort of page for which the guideline against fake articles was developed, which says that "Less blatant cases are routinely deleted at MFD", so we should routinely delete this. This is not quite promotional enough to be G11, but all promotional content is discouraged. This pushes the limits of what can be in userspace, and we do not need to allow inactive editors to promote themselves. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - To me, this is a clearcut case, and would qualify for speedy deletion under U5, Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. It's been up for years and should be axed. Jusdafax (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under U5 and G11. -- JavaHurricane 08:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    • U5 doesn’t apply because he has a history of contributions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Oh. Thanks for letting me know. It's still a violation of WP:NOT, especially NOTWEBHOST (the policy, not the CSD criteria), so it should still be deleted. -- JavaHurricane 17:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

March 22, 2020[edit]

User:Dj Sayandweep SDB/sandbox[edit]

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

Ego-trip autobio with no substance Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - Doesn't need deleting at this time, but doesn't need to exist. No worse than a lot of draft crud. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can we G11 this? I feel that this is a promotional page written by the subject, so we could send this to G11. -- JavaHurricane 04:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

March 19, 2020[edit]

Draft:Alannah Yip[edit]

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

this seems to be intended as a personal website, and there's no reason for it to wait 6 months. The sooner we remove non-encyclopedic content the better. (there is also of course the possibility that this was written by a friend, and then there's a problem with not knowing to what extent it may be a privacy violation,) DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete as promotion, and the set of entirely unsuitable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - I don't really like rag-picking in draft space to find trash to say that it needs deleting. I would be neutral except for the possibility that there may be a privacy/BLP violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Obviously we have different approaches, & there's nothing wrong with that, but why do you think "rag-picking in draft space" is wrong, or is it just that you prefer something else? I find it goes very quickly indeed, and helps the feeling that there is an overwhelming workload. And even if you personally don't want to do it, what should you be reluctant to delete if I do the work? Every draft submission that is about a person is a possible BLP problem, unless there;'s actually some reference. We don't want to delete all unreferenced drafts, because people may need a time to add to them and show the importance, but why shouldn't we delete the ones that are hopeless? DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I think "rag-picking in draft space" is wrong because it is a misuse of resources, if it means bringing shiploads of worthless WP:AfC product to MfD. Is DGG rag-picking? I think no, I think DGG is exploring, testing consensus, possibly with a view to developing a CSD criterion for these things. DGG is not just any any editor trying to show process awareness by feeding busywork into the processes, as sometimes happens here. I am watching DGG’s nominations with interest, in agreement that there should be a better way to do these things, but there is a shortage of good ideas on the table. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I am trying to develop a consensus. I need to test and think, and I want to encourage people to test and think also. I agree with SmokeyJoe that I shouldn't do this by overloading the process, so I'm bringing only a very few ones here, often when a speedy nomination of mine was declined. As from my first year here, I try to simultaneously optimize for keeping & improving potential articles, and rapidly removing hopeless junk; between assisting new editors who don't know what do to, and removing the ones who intend to evade or defy our basic rules. So I'd encourage people to comment on the particular qualities of what I bring here. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Until this WT:CSD discussion, I would have tagged Draft:Alannah Yip WP:CSD#G11, as it is promotional, has a preponderance of unsuitable sources (not independent, not reliable, not suitable for basing Wikipedia content) that the Wikipedia page is actually serving to promote, and there is no material in it based on suitable sources. While I argued that G11 was always for blatant promotion, it has apparently come to be accepted that it is only for blatantly POV promotion, that G11 is blind to native advertising. I think this is absurd. All modern promotion is tending to native advertising, informationals, concealed product placement. If G11 does not include this, then a new criterion is needed. Previous pushes for A11 and A7 to apply in draftspace were defeated with statements that people are under-using G11. We now have something to talk about. This crosses into WP:UPE, undeclared paid editing, for which the community cannot agree that it is a reason for deletion, see here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Article looks empty at the moment, just a bunch of section headers. Has not been submitted. Does this person have a chance of meeting sports notability for her field? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]