Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

Administrator instructions

"WP:DFD" redirects here. For deletion of disambiguation pages, see Wikipedia:Articles for 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.

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:, Module:, Topic:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
  • Files in the File namespace that have a local description pages 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 personal userpage deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}}. If you wish your user talk page (or user talk page archives) to be deleted, this is the correct location to request that.
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:

Click to view 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 formating for the userbox.


if nominating several related pages in an umbrella nomination.


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 add a line to the top of the list:

{{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, 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]

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


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.

February 27, 2017[edit]


User:Sander.v.Ginkel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

By any standards this is a blatant fake article: written in the third person, article style and not a single word about what the guy does on Wikipedia. The declaration "this page is … not a Wikipedia page" simply makes no difference. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete per the concerns I raised in November - it is very much a fake article. SmartSE (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete There are many Wikipedians that present all sorts of information about themselves on their user pages but this is a blatant effort to host a fake article. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE - Pretty blatant self-promotion in the User Space. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE.The nom put it beautifully.Winged Blades Godric 16:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


Draft:Boutir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Clear company-motivated advertisement as nothing has significantly changed in 2 reviews, the PR advertised information and sources are still existing, and there's been no acknowledgements of the policies accompanied with the reviews; sources are simply company-based or republished press releases, notices, their own webpages, etc. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


Draft:ExTravelMoney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Company-motivated advertisement shown clearly by the information and sources, both of which emulate paid press, even if not intended since that's still what it is, the history has shown one particularly motivated user who has a clear involvement, but no signs they made the necessary actions about COI. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


Draft:CrescentKE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Would be unconvincing for G13 considering it's clear this was only ever planned as a social media webhost, one of which is unacceptable by our main policies thus allowing deletion, but the sources are also simply self-profiles, so nothing convincing for an encyclopedia; this past year has shown nothing else to suggest a newcoming. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


Draft:CoverHound (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Clear signs of a company-motivated advertisement, given the history shows a mountain of names, and yet no genuine signs of understanding our policies, WP:Articles for deletion/CoverHound showed there was nothing to accept in our policies, as noted by nominator Piotrus and there's nothing different now. Considering there's been no final attempts since the last decline, this may or may not mean it's unquestionably non-notable enough to not reimprove. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[edit] (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Suggestive of a paid advertisement or otherwise COI connected, and WP:Articles for deletion/ (of which I closely watched) showed no different, and there's no signs this would be sufficiently improved beyond its current PR; note the sources are clearly suggestive of PR-initiated business announcements, press releases, profiles, etc., enough to delete in it alone. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


Draft:LogiNext (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Enough to show this is a clear company paid advertisement, not only because of two casually focused accounts each with a composure of only what an employee shows, but because the current Draft itself has nothing to satisfy our main policies, the first paragraph itself mirrors what their own website says; overall, there's no negotiating with companies because Wikipedia has never self-served business PR, and there's no exceptions for one. A similar sign, we've established before, is when the company particularly focuses in what they want their customers to hear, and with this, what then involves either paid press or heavy activities like it, these sources here match it, making it unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

February 26, 2017[edit]

Draft:Martha Tarhemba[edit]

Draft:Martha Tarhemba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

does not meet notability guidelines Hmlarson (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

This was a previously published article moved to Draft space. What do you suggest? Hmlarson (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
From my understanding of User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines, this will be deleted on 24 April 2017 if it remains a draft. I'd suggest waiting until then. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
That is certainly a last resort option. It would help to remove articles from the list that clearly don't belong in the article main space for efficiency. Hmlarson (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Swei goh[edit]

User talk:Swei goh (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Pakzan writes article in others' user talk page. Besides, User:Swei goh also writes article in his user talk page. Dqwyy (Talk) from zhwiki (·) Please ping me when reply. 14:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Sidebar[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/App/Banner, this has no place in mainspace, only in project and userspace. This is not article content, this is not here to improve the article content, and it has nothing to do with the article. Wikipedia articles are not the place to promote this type of material. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Restrict from article space Promotion, even if not of a third party, is still promotion. Also, WP:NOMEDICAL. This discussion was not closed, though I see a weak consensus towards banning it from the article space. — Train2104 (t • c) 16:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104: Not yet. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
That is a backdoor attempt to delete it from article space. It was not a RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Beetstra. User:Beetstra acknowledged there is a place for it "in project and userspace". We don't delete a banner that is still useful to the project. There are millions of people in developing countries that only have access to the Internet for a short period of time. This banner is a solution for millions of people who can use it when they are offline. The banner is article content at your fingertips for people who need it. QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep The link is to offline content of the article and has everything to do with the article. This is just as appropriate as the sidebar links allowing the article to be printed or downloaded as a pdf. Can the nominator explain how the link to media on Commons improves the article content? Of course not – writing an encyclopedia is not just about improving content; it's also about disseminating that content. The purpose of making content available offline is to further our vision to give every single human being free access to the sum of all knowledge. "Every single human being" necessarily includes those not fortunate enough to have permanent internet access, and there is a clear need to give offline access to our medical articles to people in developing countries in particular. This sort of link to offline copies of our medical articles is perfectly appropriate to place in medical articles next to the similar link to Commons. --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
No, the link is to a program that has offline Wikipedia content, and that content includes the articles in question. That is something completely different, and it fails the 'directness' (see WP:ELNO) criteria. Moreover, it does not tell more about the article subject (and likely less, since it has an offline copy of the article that may since have been updated), and when a person is accessing the online article, they do not need access to the program to see the offline version. Moreover, the link is useful for a small subset of readers (those who need access to the articles when they do not have an internet connection - most people who NEED the article content do have an internet connection on their mobile phone). However, this is not the place to promote that program, and I am afraid it is WP:SPAM by nature to put it in the article space. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the link is to a small program that makes available the 1.2 GB of compressed medical articles. The point is that compressed information is cheaper and quicker for the end-user to download. Of course it's direct - just as direct as the html we stream that needs a browser to make it available to us. To hundreds of thousands of people who have intermittent internet access, it tells much, much more about the article's subject than nothing, which is exactly what they have without the app. It's easy for you, with your always-on internet connection to make statements like "when a person is accessing the online article, they do not need access to the program to see the offline version", but you clearly don't realise that not everybody is that fortunate, and unfortunately we can't make the assumption that "a person" can be "accessing the online article". I find it offensive that you can dismiss millions of people who could benefit from access to our medical content as "a small subset of readers". You should be ashamed of thinking that way. --RexxS (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
"Millions of people who could benefit".. [citation needed]. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia article titled Internet access. See here. QuackGuru (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
And I am not disputing that there are people who can benefit from this piece of software, but Wikipedia (mainspace) is not a place to spam that. Wikipedia is NOT a place for advertising. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - per RexxS--Moxy (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Restrict from article namespace unless consensus is gained for it in the appropriate manner ("Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."; emphasis and link added by me). The sidebar template does not comply with the template section, and may also conflict with the what to link section, of the external links guideline. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Godsy, your vote is not applicable to this discussion. The voting is for keeping or deleting the sidebar. Please update your vote or strike your comments. Since you are not opposed to keeping it in project space then I assume your vote is keep. Correct me if I am wrong. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: A deletion discussion may end with any of a number of distinct outcomes, including but not limited to those described at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Common outcomes. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
What is it about the sidebar you personally don't like? QuackGuru (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NOTPART--Moxy (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@Moxy: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Sidebar is not a policy, guideline, or process page. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The link was to back up your time I will be more clear so noone looks like a fool.--Moxy (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep The fact is that some of our medical articles just by their very nature, take a long time to work through. That is a good justification for keeping the application for millions of people to access content offline. CV9933 (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • keep per RexxS as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep — One can not just try to delete things one doesn't like. I find this whole debacle ridiculous and screaming of intentional disruption. RexxS summarizes the issue very well. Consensus for inclusion is not achieved at MfD. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep This is no different than the sidebar we have for commons. A sidebar was requested in a previous discussion. Now that it has been created there are efforts to delete it. Those of us who live in the developed world generally have 24 hour solid access to the Internet. Most take this for granted as simply the way things are. This however is not even close to reality in the developing world were internet goes on and off (in many areas you are lucky if the internet becomes functional for an hour a day). Wikipedia is not just for the developed world, we are for all people in all areas. Remember our goal is "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." This app helps achieve this. It has currently been downloaded more than 100K times with about 80% of downloads from the developing world. We know the online website struggles to reach people in the developing world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Doc james: this is different for thesidebarfor Commons in that Commons generally more info on the same subject. This is plain spam for a program that has a lot of information from a notoriously unreliable source including the same or older information on the subject of the page. It does not add anything to the understanding, unlike commons where e.g. More images are available pertaining to the same subject. WP:NOT#PROMOTION. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC) (resign for ping Dirk Beetstra T C 15:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC))

Talk:Table of handgun and rifle cartridges[edit]

Talk:Table of handgun and rifle cartridges (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

This table contains copyrighted materials. Many, almost all the entries are copied from sources that state that they are copyrighted protected. Digitallymade (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Did you mean to AFD this? Anyway, I'm pretty sure that merely copying the data and not a screenshot of the table itself is not a copyright violation by the sweat of the brow doctrine. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
It's called copyright for a reason. The table also uses trademark information. Copying a book wholesale could also be considered theft. Digitallymade (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Ogechi Onyinanya[edit]

Draft:Ogechi Onyinanya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

does not meet notability guidelines Hmlarson (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Allie Bertram[edit]

Draft:Allie Bertram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft which would have been eligible for G13 speedy deletion except that it attracted the attention of the Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal, after which it joined the long list of pages subject to the regular TFD vandalism/revert cycle. --Finngall talk 00:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

February 25, 2017[edit]

Draft:Parker family[edit]

Draft:Parker family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a web host for genealogy pages; several of the purported people here do not exist; this cannot ever become an encyclopedia article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Darren Parker[edit]

Draft:Darren Parker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No credible claim for inclusion; no sources, Wikipedia is not a web host. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Josh M. Parker, Sr.[edit]

Draft:Josh M. Parker, Sr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No credible claims for inclusion; Wikipedia is not a web host. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Josh M. Parker Sr.[edit]

Draft:Josh M. Parker Sr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No credible claim to notability; Wikipedia is not a web host NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Visual arts/Selected picture[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Visual arts/Selected picture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I found the page that currently has the pictures at Portal:Visual arts/Selected image. When you click on the More selected pictures... link, it directs itself to Portal:Visual arts/Selected picture. I'm proposing to deleted this page so that I could move Portal:Visual arts/Selected image there. Info2Learn (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Shakib Islam (2)[edit]

Draft:Shakib Islam (2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft with no references. As it appeared to pass WP:NFOOTY, I postponed a G13 deletion intending to go back and find the sourcing. However, a News search returned a single hit, to a facebook page. If you look at the claim that he is on a current roster (as of the article's creation), he is currently not listed on the the roster of that team. Searches on Newspapers, Books, Scholar (of course), Highbeam and JSTOR all returned zero references. At this point, I'm not sure this isn't a hoax. Onel5969 TT me 12:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Think Again Conclave, BITS Pilani[edit]

Draft:Think Again Conclave, BITS Pilani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Simply advertising, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think Again Conclave, BITS Pilani. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


Draft:SupportMart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Started 2 clear company employees, and if that wasn't all, the first account was actually called "SupportMart", and without any actual changes made since October, this was resubmitted by an anon IP today, so it's clear there's nothing to satisfy our policies, let alone if both accounts are gone in the wind now, and the IP is a hit & go visitor so there's no one to talk to, and considering I nearly warned the 2nd account to, but only to see it's been months since it last contributed after one of the reviews. However, considering that not once in 4 reviews in 4 months, was there any serious acknowledge of our what policies actually are and need, it's unsatisfactory. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Soumen De[edit]

Draft:Soumen De (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned draft with no evidence of notability and no sourcing. This was created and submitted at AFC last September and declined for lacking any references. The creator then resubmitted it a second time in October without actually having made any new edits to actually address the reasons why it was declined the first time, and the only other edit that's taken place since the second turndown is the removal of the AFC decline notices. There's no need to keep a draft that simply isn't getting worked on. Bearcat (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

February 24, 2017[edit]

Draft:Amber Doig-Thorne[edit]

Draft:Amber Doig-Thorne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Moved this to draft space from the sandbox of a sockpuppet, thinking after a cursory glance that the subject just might be notable enough to warrant an article. However, all but a few of the sources are her university's newsletter, her own website, "celebrity wikis", and IMDb; plus any of the things she's done don't seem to meet the threshold of notability. She seems to have been in an internet video that went viral once (or maybe twice), so I think this is a classic WP:BLP1E. There's also the issue that the sockpuppet is known to advertise article writing services, so it's probably a WP:G5 case but I thought I'd put it through MfD just to see if anyone disagrees. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, my search didn't turn that up. I won't because I already opened the discussion, but if any other admin would like to delete this WP:G4 or WP:G5 they'll get no objections from me. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Squingynaut[edit]

User talk:Squingynaut (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Spam? Squingynaut (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Courtesy blank and block the IP that created this thing for stalking. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

February 23, 2017[edit]

User talk: You Dreaming? Twenty 4 Seven song[edit]

User talk: You Dreaming? Twenty 4 Seven song (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned copy of Are You Dreaming?. See also User talk: You Dreaming?, a similar copy, Auric talk 21:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Dil Howlter[edit]

Draft:Dil Howlter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There does not seem to be any conceivable possibility of an article for this youtube fictional character. Submitted 4 times already. Given that the article draft ends with " lol no one will ever see this." it looks like the contributor must realize this. DGG ( talk ) 08:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Travelers United[edit]

Draft:Travelers United (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Noticeably reviewed in consistent submissions in about 4 months and none of it satisfies our policies including the simplest criteria, the improvements have still shown no convincing signs beyond simple announcements or mentions. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

February 21, 2017[edit]

User:Rowde/ITV2 Sports Programming [edit]

User:Rowde/ITV2 Sports Programming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User page created by editor currently blocked who has created multiple 'TV guide' type pages in the past which have been deleted. Not clear what this is meant to be as ITV have not broadcast or intend to broadcast any of the coverage referred to as far as is ascertainable. Editor has also previously created similar list type pages which seem to have been purely for their own amusement. Should be deleted as WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Csd {{Db-u5}} cannot be applied as the user made many edits outside userspace. Eagleash (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


Book:Knowlege (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A somewhat random collection of articles. I see no point in correcting the misspelling of the title. Userfy, perhaps? John of Reading (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete, not at all about the concept of Knowledge. However, nothing wrong with allowing userfication if the creator makes a request. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ Along the river[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ Along the river (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Seems like an improperly completed nomination which was never fixed. Steel1943 (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


Draft:Checkmarx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Still unchanged in 2 reviews in the last week and the sources are still too focused as announcements but, not only this, but also the fact the company is still young (past 10 years) so there's simply no better substance beyond it; article has continued with a PR emphasis. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I changed the page three times adding more citations from reliable sources including WSJ, CBS News and TechCrunch. All are original pieces by these sources that are focused on the article's subject. Also, CatcherStorm has given some criteria for approval and I have provided those sources. The fact that the company is young is not a sufficient criteria for deletion. It has shown to be notable in its field on multiple levels and over time. אגם רפאלי (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

February 20, 2017[edit]

Draft:List of Good Game reviews[edit]

Draft:List of Good Game reviews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Never going to make it to the mainspace, as this both isn't a notable topic and is pure fancruft. Definite WP:NOTWEBHOST material. ~ Rob13Talk 07:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library. It's pretty useful to search for additional sources as Good Game is a reliable one. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/List of Good Game reviews and link from Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library, per Hellknowz. It has back room uses, but is not for mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No objection to moving to project space if it has a use in creating articles. ~ Rob13Talk 04:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm looking around but I'm not seeing a List of Good Game episodes. That would seem more valuable to me while preserving some of the content in mainspace (namely, the game reviewed on a particular episode--the rest is cruft IMO regardless of namespace that anyone who is interested in adding to articles is going to need to have access to the entire episode anyway for the actual content of the review). My first inclination is rework to "episode"-focus and my second-barring-the-first is simply to delete. --Izno (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The show is cancelled and it was never in a verifiable state for our needs (being television). I'd say move it to the Ref lib just to preserve the information (but is it even sourced/accurate?) but I'd also just as soon delete it for that lingering question. There is no need for such detail or even an episode listing at all in mainspace. The source coverage doesn't warrant it. czar 17:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Aurelio Hevia[edit]

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Aurelio Hevia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Charles L. Poor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Edward F. Cullen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Georgi Harteveld (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Chief Bald Eagle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unreferenced, single-line stubs on non-notable individuals that have been lying stale for a long time. (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand notable people, needing work, and not in mainspace. Some a few lines, some a single line for now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep all - Reasonable drafts within the userspace of an active contributor. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. RAN has suggested that some may be moved to Wikidata, if he so chooses that is fine, but currently work in progress. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC).
  • Keep all. Worthy drafts. Historic figures. There are no time limits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

January 1, 1970[edit]

Draft:Al Haramain Perfumes LLC[edit]

Draft:Al Haramain Perfumes LLC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Clearly labeled company advertisement, which would be enough to delete, but 2 reviews have not shown the genuine substance our policies consider notable, as all sources are still only company-based announcements, press releases or their own website.

February 19, 2017[edit]

Draft:Richard Keatley[edit]

Draft:Richard Keatley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Resubmitted 2 times with no convincing changes so there's nothing to accept in both our standards and policies, which say enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Anchorage, Alaska/Census debate[edit]

Talk:Anchorage, Alaska/Census debate (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

This page was created in 2005 as a subpage of Talk:Anchorage, Alaska to fork off a particular contentious discussion which occurred the year before. I'm to understand that the practice of such subpages is long deprecated. The only edit made to this page was to create the page; the content has been moved to Talk:Anchorage, Alaska/Archive 1 and the history of the individual edits still resides at the main talk page. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

February 18, 2017[edit]


User:TheValentineBros (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Use of Wikipedia as webhost. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk: your new article name here[edit]

User talk: your new article name here (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

abandoned draft with dead link Auric talk 15:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Aïn arnat[edit]

Draft:Aïn arnat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unneeded draft. It is simply a copy of the existing article Aïn Arnat. Whpq (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Redirect. WP:ATD. Come to MfD if there is a reaction, but note that this is extremely unlikely. DraftSpace is stuffed with unneeded drafts, please don't bring them all here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Steveneu/Reedman World Auto Center[edit]

User:Steveneu/Reedman World Auto Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Six-year-old abandoned article. No hope for the topic (a local auto dealership) and the ONLY edit, ever by the editor. Calton | Talk 06:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

February 17, 2017[edit]


User:TUSHAR KARMARKAR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User pages that look like articles are prohibited UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • kick it to draft there seem to be some CIR issues with this editor, so it might be worth kicking it to draft and someone with patience can try to help them develop it. Primefac (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: - This article has previously been deleted due to the subject being non-notable. Sending it to draft would just impede the inevitable deletion. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I haven't really looked to see if it's worth keeping, so if it's overall delete-worthy then by all means boot it. Primefac (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Josh Littlejohn[edit]

Draft:Josh Littlejohn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 11:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

3 reviews and still unconvincing for our main policies especially ones involving business as the information and sources are still too business advertising. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Ajay Data[edit]

Draft:Ajay Data (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 11:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Closely suggestive of advertising as the information and sources show and the sources are either clearly labeled advertising or not quite open about it, there's simply nothing for our policies since the history shows no serious attempts at satisfying the applicable policies, the last resubmitting happened exactly after the 2nd review which labeled the concerns. SwisterTwister talk 20:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Chris Obi[edit]

Draft:Chris Obi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 11:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Twice reviewed now in 1 day and yet no actual changes or anything to suggest convincing in our essential policies; sources, as shown are simply advertising. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep - The author may not have provided any sources you consider reliable, but the quickest of googles clearly shows Chris Obi is definitely notable. Feel free to keep declining the draft until you think it is ready (a process that may be expedited with providing the author with more feedback than "Not satisfying our basic policies", for instance, telling them their current sources are advertising as you have informed us here), but I don't think we should delete drafts for subjects that should have articles. A2soup (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • What currently exists here is a clear violation of WP:NOT, our main policy for articles and what we use for such matters, so even though there's sourcing, none of it supports a policy-based notable article. SwisterTwister talk 02:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Advise the author, Melisewilliams (talk · contribs), to edit existing articles first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Certainly notable. Provide useful help / show how it's done. To a new editor, the decline reason reads like gobbledygook. Lyrda (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    How so? It helps to show since 2 reviews showed no improvements and I'm not sure how "Not satisfying our basic policies" couldn't be any clearer since that's exactly what our own policy pages say for subjects. Not only has this been confirmed as a paid advertisement (as history shows), but the current improvements even now are simply bare URLs to PR announcements, mentions and similar = Not what establishes an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
    Notability is about the topic, not the article. The draft was declined because it's in a poor state. That's easy enough to mend. Lyrda (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There is so much wrong here. The subject looks notable, good. The author, Melisewilliams (talk · contribs), has never edited any other article, made a userpage, posted a message, bad. The author has never been welcomed, bad (just done now). The draft has an unused talk page, bad. The AfC instructions have sort of been followed, but the efforts have been rewarded with perfunctory templated messages on top of the article, extremely unintuitive as to how to be responded to. Now to see SwisterTwister write "couldn't be any clearer", when the totality of correspondence looks like monkeys barking at each other across great distances, and SwisterTwister's tortured English only barely comprehensible, and references to "our basic policies" simply not including sufficient detail to be meaningful. The entire AfC thing should be shut down. It is a waste of so much time on so many people's part, with such a low rate of quality output. My advice to Melisewilliams is to follow the hits found by the search and to spend some time improving the content there, including redlinks to Chris Obi, and only after that, if the redlinks stick, to attempt to create a non-WP:Orphan article directly in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • delete current state doesn't satisfy wp:NBIO Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 05:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    Notability is about the topic, not the current state of the article let alone a draft. Lyrda (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Note The creator has started a new article Chris Obi in mainspace again, consisting of a single sentence.[1] -Lyrda (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Prince Pipes & Fittings[edit]

Draft:Prince Pipes & Fittings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 11:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Twice reviewed in 1 day with no significant changes with heavy emphasis in PR thus unconvincing in our policies. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Jeffrey Thompson Sr.[edit]

Draft:Jeffrey Thompson Sr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No such person exists as Jeffrey Thompson, Jr. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Jeffrey Thompson, Jr.[edit]

Draft:Jeffrey Thompson, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No such person exists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


User:Mungkorn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale article draft, dating from Sept 2008. Slightly promotional, tho it could perhaps have been rescued ... but after this much time, this minimally-sourced draft is not a useful base to build on. The website still exists, and it may be notable (I have not checked), but if anyone wants to write an article on it, they will do better to to start from scratch. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Move to User:Mungkorn/Sanook and replace contents with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    • That sounds fine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks! I think the topic and drafted content is good enough to make it findable to someone searching all Wikipedia namespaces, and was never offensive enough (violating something at WP:NOT) to require deletion. Re-titling will make it turn up on a search for "sanook", and blanking is appropriate for old dubious (out of date?) content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


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

Clear company advertising in which WP:NOT applies alone, given we're not a business webhost. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep and allow some time for the main contributor to make more improvements. After the draft was AfC declined as reading like an advertisement on 10 February 2017 (diff), the author made proactive efforts to address the matter on 16 February 2017‎ (diff) and then resubmitted the draft (diff). After this, on 17 February, rather than addressing the matter via typical AfC procedures (e.g. such as declining again and providing a rationale), this was instead simply nominated for deletion here (diff). See also WP:BITE. As a sidenote, it's unclear if the primary author is affiliated with the company or simply chose the company's name as a user name out of personal interest. I have notified the primary author on their talk page that their user name presents a conflict of interest (diff). North America1000 10:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

February 16, 2017[edit]


User:RobertCrip (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Fails WP:UP and WP:NOTWEBHOST DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete or Forced Change - While he does seem to make his user page not serious as to not be confused with an actual article, it still falls under WP:FAKEARTICLE. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

February 15, 2017[edit]

Draft:Max Life Insurance[edit]

Draft:Max Life Insurance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Still advertising after 2 reviews with no assurances of satisfying policies. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I will be surprised if this is actually improved. DGG ( talk ) 08:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: The author posted the same version of this draft in the mainspace which I have requested for speedly deleted and this search result shows multiple users tried to create article about the same subject and some of them are blocked. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. based on the current article and the information about the previous versions. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Kerry Lee Crawford[edit]

Draft:Kerry Lee Crawford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplicate of Kerry Lee Crawford. Created by same user, so no attribution issues. P 1 9 9   17:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Mainspace article was speedy deleted, and previously deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerry Lee Crawford. I still think the draft article should be deleted as well, no need to keep a draft of a topic that will not become an article. -- P 1 9 9   15:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

February 14, 2017[edit]

Draft:Becoming Assiya - The Story of the Children of War[edit]

Draft:Becoming Assiya - The Story of the Children of War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Either self-advertising or clear hired help because there's clearly heavy activities here, none of which have actually improved the article for our policies. Article also has copypaste. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

February 13, 2017[edit]

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Zimdars' fake news list[edit]

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Zimdars' fake news list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We have taken the personal opinions of Melissa Zimdars, associate professor of communications at Merrimack College[2], and enshrined them as a sub page off of our identifying reliable sources page. I see no reason why we should allow this while not allowing subpages off of our identifying reliable sources page enshrining the opinions of Scott Shackford,[3] Chelsea Schilling,[4] Shawn Hannity,[5] Kira Davis,[6] Ethan Barton,[7] or Samantha Chang?[8] Could someone please explain to me why their opinions aren't just a good (and just as bad) as the opinion of Melissa Zimdars and just as worthy (and just as unworthy) of an identifying reliable sources subpage? Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: We seem to be having the exact same discussion in 2 places at once. Should I just repeat the same comments here or do you want to centralize this discussion at one location? Kaldari (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion on the article talk page is about improving the article, in this case by adding sections for all of the biased, unreliable sources listed above.
This discussion is about deleting the page or moving it someplace where it isn't a subpage to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • keep, mark it as an essay (done). Useful resource. We "enshrine" (via "see also") lots of essays of people with even less credentials. We have it because this list was released under Creative Commons, so we can copy it and format in the form convenient for us. Moreover, we can also edit it, if we decide that some entries are wrong. The opinions of other people are just as good, and if they release them under CC, we can just the same use them here. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I did not write "enshrine". I wrote "enshrine as a sub page off of our identifying reliable sources page". I would have no problem if this was in one of the usual places where we keep essays. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Standalone essay (first choice) or userfy (second choice) or works for me. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Standalone essay is fine with me, although I still think we should link to it from WP:NEWSORG so that people can find it. Kaldari (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appropriate essay. DGG ( talk ) 08:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @DGG:I am surprised that you think that it is appropriate in its current location. Would you object to other opinions/essays being added as subpages to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I am pretty much sure that location is a non-issue now. Once everybody agreed it is OK to have it as an essay, moving it to a standard location is a pure technical moment nobody will oppose. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as an essay, which was tagged as such by another user after this was nominated for deletion (diff). Note that I moved the link on the WP:RS page to the Essays section in its See also section (diff). North America1000 19:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appropriate ProjectSpace work. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. This will only become more important and probably should eventually be upgraded to something more officially WP:PAG. jps (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep but move it out of the IRS namespace. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
--Guy Macon (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
No objections, so I am WP:BOLDLY making the moves. If nobody reverts, this MfD may be closed as withdrawn. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek/Evidence[edit]

User:Volunteer Marek/Evidence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per WP:POLEMIC; old stuff from an old case. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Can I just blank it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Not really, that doesn't count because many people would want to keep their polemics blanked (edit to add point poking opponent, then blank page, repeat indefinitely). Please add {{db-user}} to the page. Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, let me just save the text to my computer (some of those jokes were funny!) Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Wait, do I need to add {{db-user}} or can you just delete it since it's here at MfD? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Just add db-user and forget about it. Someone will delete the page in due course. That is the cleanest procedure because the deleting admin does not have to wonder what to write for an edit summary since a simple "db-user" is both self-explanatory and verifiable (by admins who can see the history of the deleted page). Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Blank at least. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

February 12, 2017[edit]


User:EtienneDolet/Evidence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please delete per WP:POLEMIC--Etienne, you can always stick a WP:G7 tag on this. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep I think it should be kept because it has been cited (and linked to) in a past ANI case [9] as evidence, and nobody is suggesting it contains sanctionably inaccurate claims. If at the time, rather than placing it in a separate page, ED had just pasted the content into the ANI case, nobody would now be suggesting that this content should be deleted. However, I think a lesson is that ANI case evidence should not be presented in this way. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Blank at least. Assuming the troubles are dealt with. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Things are rarely completely "dealt with". Administrators constantly bring up past cases as reasons to criticize or sanction editors and new ANI cases often refer back to old ones. So any editor perusing past ANI cases needs to be able to view all evidence presented in those past cases. My position is not specific to this page, it would be the same for any proposed deletion of any page that has been presented or cited as case evidence and which does not contain material which breaks Wikipedia rules. Would blanking still allow the content to be viewable through the page's edit history? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Bring it to a head at some WP:DR forum within a week or take it offsite. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Drmies - Regardless of where its been used it doesn't belong here pure and simple, If you want to submit evidence than either do so or keep it off-wiki, As the page has been here since August 2016 it's obviously not going to be used for anything, Better off deleted. –Davey2010Talk 00:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Asserting that something should be a particular way because it is "pure and simple" it should be is a rather empty argument to present. The page was uses, it was submitted as evidence, it is currently linked to in a past ANI discussion. Saying it's "not going to be used for anything" could be said about every closed case or dead discussion that now exists essentially as an archival record of what happened - that is not a reason to delete things. You don't delete archival material regardless of personal opinions about its importance or usefulness. This is the wider principle at stake here. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. It is pretty simple. Establish the very good reason or take it away. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
So you advocate the deletion of ANI cases related to individuals once they are closed? No such policy or practice exists and would require a major policy change decided elsewhere (not something a miscellany for deletion discussion can do). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
No. Archived ANI threads are stored in an appropriate context, archived alongside hundreds of other silly short term grievances. A stand alone userpage is quite different. It can but pulled up completely out of context. If the page was central to an ArbCom case, I recommend moving it without redirect to a subpage of the case, and leaving its long term fate to the discretion of the Arbs and their clerks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd failed to spot that so my apologies but still regardless of whether it's being used/linked or not it still doesn't belong here, I would have no issues with anyone updating the Arb page saying it's been deleted but in short if kept it would mean this would have to be kept pretty much forever and that could set a precedent for those who too want to keep their evidence - I guess you could say it'd be a loophole for some, Anyway many evidences in userspaces have been deleted and I don't see why that shouldn't be the case here regardless of it being used/linked or not. –Davey2010Talk 17:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • delete, or merge, and redirect, per SmokeyJoe (not good to keep out of context a stand alone page about a editor's behaviour as seen by another editor) - Nabla (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of AfDs opened today[edit]

Wikipedia:List of AfDs opened today (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This only transcludes another page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today already exists and this is not linked from anywhere, so no indication this is useful. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: Hi Champ, this page is used in User:Lourdes/AfDstarted.js, a script that is listed at WP:AFD for quick access to Afds that have opened today ("Alternative scripts are available for viewing all deletion discussions[1] or those opened[2] or closing[3] today."). It doesn't transclude Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today; rather, it builds the list itself by taking the current date and month etc, because the page builds a particular presentation style. I would prefer keeping this page (because it has a particular presentation style made to ease reading for the script's users). Lourdes 04:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @Lourdes: (ec) I would prefer you move this to user space rather than it remaining in project space if it is kept, because if it serves no other purpose than as part of that script, there is no point of it remaining in the project space. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Sure. Just delete it then. I wouldn't prefer a public script to link to a personal user space. When people use such public scripts, I don't think they would prefer seeing a personal user page of an editor providing a list. No problems. I'll do a workaround and use the log page itself.. Thanks. Lourdes 05:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, allow User:Lourdes to use it or not, on his decision. This should have been discussed with him before bringing it here, use of ProjectSpace in developing scripts for general use is perfectly fine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect as duplicate. Pppery 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.