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.

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:, Topic:, 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 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.

I.
Edit PageName:

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

{{mfd}}
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.

or

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

or

{{subst:md1-inline|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
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
II.
Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

  • Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
  • Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
III.
Add a line to MfD.

Follow   this edit link   and 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
{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.
  • If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
    For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

    {{subst: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]

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

Contents

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.

November 19, 2018[edit]

November 18, 2018[edit]


Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/South African-Photography[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/South African-Photography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Left-over detritus long since superseded by article Photography in South Africa, by the same author. Worldbruce (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • speedy redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Narratives / myths of how Nguyễn Văn Linh was a economic reformer in Vietnam's renovation interpreted by scholars.[edit]

Draft:Narratives / myths of how Nguyễn Văn Linh was a economic reformer in Vietnam's renovation interpreted by scholars. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The other MFD did not post cleanly so here is the link to that article.

Draft:Narratives , historiography and myths of how Nguyễn Văn Linh as an economic reformer in Vietnam's renovation interpreted by scholars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:NOTESSAY, submitted under two different lengthy names. See author's own statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Narratives_,_historiography_and_myths_of_how_Nguyễn_Văn_Linh_as_an_economic_reformer_in_Vietnam%27s_renovation_interpreted_by_scholars&oldid=869433627 AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - This is an essay under two names, and so should not be accepted. I would consider keeping to give the author time to try to work it into something neutral point of view, but, first, the essays are too long, and, second, submitting the essay under two names (when they are really the same) is tendentious. (Also, the two names are disruptively long for Wikipedia, although they might be right as subtitles to an M.A. thesis.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think that I have corrected the bundling. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Daniel Mark Harrison[edit]

Draft:Daniel Mark Harrison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't think this page overcomes the objections at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Mark_Harrison but the creator keeps submitting it. Given the delete decision several years ago, an accept on this page needs a discussion. Legacypac (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • keep - here's what I see: two years after an article was deleted, a user creates a new version. It's declined. User then makes a bunch more edits to improve it and adds a new afc tag. Then before the second afc review comes in, you nominate it for deletion. How is submitting a second time after making improvements "keeps submitting it"? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - User:Legacypac is doing something that they sometimes do that is annoying, which is nominating a draft because it "needs a discussion". Is the discussion about whether to delete, and is LP advocating deletion? This is still WP:Miscellany for deletion, not Miscellany for discussion or Drafts for discussion. LP's real argument appears to be stated in the first sentence, that this does not overcome the objections at the AFD, and that is a valid argument, and can even be G4. However, in my view, it attempts to overcome the objection well enough so that another attempt to overcome the objections is in order. Therefore:
  • Weak Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it overcomes the AfD issues so I nominated for deletion. Others may have a different view. This is not a slam dunk case. Legacypac (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:911 Telephone Outage Emergency[edit]

Draft:911 Telephone Outage Emergency (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No claim of notability per WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete not useful. If there is something valid to add put it in 9-1-1 Legacypac (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect to Emergency Alert System. Possibly, put it back in mainspace and redirect to Emergency Alert System. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • keep - user creates an article clearly inappropriate for mainspace, but also clearly a good faith attempt to add to Wikipedia. so it's moved to draftspace. A couple days later it's sent to mfd? Why are we here? WP:USEFUL? GNG isn't sufficient reason for deletion of a new draft, and I doubt, if we're playing by those rules, that wp:before was followed. Put it in user space if the user wants to learn to improve it, explain why it's redundant, etc. Not even opposed to turning it into a redirect with explanation. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. This was already draftified, and is not harmful. No point in further downgrading it to the bit bucket. Leave it in draft space for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Geoff9115/Never shout Nevermind[edit]

User:Geoff9115/Never shout Nevermind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never shout Nevermind and that the game was never released Legacypac (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - This could have been bundled with the article in January 2012. It has been abandoned all that time. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per AfD, G11, U5, G8 and G4 for good luck. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Characters breaks the 4th wall and towards the camera in other places[edit]

Draft:Characters breaks the 4th wall and towards the camera in other places (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nonsense article. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete a mismash of random stuff Legacypac (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Not nonsense. I can even guess where it could be headed. I still think IPs should not be welcome to create even new draftspace pages, but as long as they are, the IP is doing exactly what AfC invites them to do. Draft is not even submitted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is total nonsense. 4th wall break is a notable concept in media but this is just a bizarre attempt to catalogue 4th wall breaks, apparently by physical location in the US, which makes no sense. ♠PMC(talk) 00:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • That is not the definition of nonsense. Maybe it is WP:OR, although considering this, not blatantly. It would be ok in userspace, not pretending to be a draft article. Fourth wall breaking is a 20th century US dominated phenomenon, and tracking its spread is not unreasonable. Fourth wall is pretty thin coverage, and the IP should be encouraged to pursue this interest. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
      • It's not tracking the real-world spread of 4th-wall breaks. How would you even do that for animated media? By the location the media was written? Where it was animated? It appears to be tracking supposed physical locations that these 4th-wall breaks occurred in-character. Even then, it's doing it in a way that doesn't make any sense (ie, listing the Seven Dwarves in real-world locations). That tells me that this is, at best, fanfiction. We are not a host for fanfiction. ♠PMC(talk) 06:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Alright then. It does look like fan fiction, and it doesn't actually contain anything of what I imagine could be on a path to maybe worthwhile. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - I disagree with SJ and agree with CS and LP that it is a hodge-podge of nonsense. It is true that the draft hasn't yet been submitted. The IP has done one thing which neither registered editors nor unregistered editors are allowed to do, removing the template, but I have restored it. They edited the article, which is permitted, and it is still crud. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Not sure what you are disagreeing with exactly, possibly just the "keep for now". If there were an account behind it, I would !vote to userfy. It doesn't belong belong in draftspace. I don't so much disagree with having it deleted if the IP doesn't show up, so much as I disagree with peoples' loose use of the word "nonsense". It is not nonsense, and I support it's WP:REFUND for the author if he or she WP:Registers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Comment - My disagreement with SJ and agreement with LP is about definitions of nonsense. It is true that reasonable people can disagree as to whether it is total nonsense or simply crud. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
        • I guess I lean to using the definition compatible with CSD#G1. Nonsense and crud are not the same thing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

It is nonsense in the sense bits of disconnected info has been thrown together in a way that makes no sense. The title has the same problem. I can't make heads or tails of where this is going. Legacypac (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I’m guessing you lot are not into creative scribble drawing games.[1]. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)



November 17, 2018[edit]


Draft:Mike Smith (businessman)[edit]

Draft:Mike Smith (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page has been in and out of mainspace so many times it is dizzy. Can we get a decision on where it belongs here? Legacypac (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Looking ...
6 references.
I wish there was a hard requirement for promotional type articles, that the onus is on the author to list 2-3 sources as the best notability attesting sources (independent third party reliable reputable secondary source making direct commentary on the topic, definitely no less than two sentences). Why does no one agree with me?
Going through them one by one:
  • Ref 1. Interview. Interveiws are not third party sources. Does not count for demonstrating Wikipedia-notability
  • Ref 2. "6 New Business Books to Read in November"
    Mike Smith is Vice President of Revenue Platforms and Operations at Hearst Magazines Digital Media and General Manager of Core Audience at Hearst Corporation. He is the former President of Forbes.com and CDO of Forbes Media. His new book, Targeted, takes a close look at how social media is changing advertising, the implications of paid-search advertising, how real-time bidding works, how big data is changing advertising, and more
Describes author and title of a recommended book. Maybe, a little bit.
Mike Smith, Hearst Magazines Digital Media
New Hire
Vice President of Revenue Platforms and Operations
Classification: Corporate Mgmt - Chrmn, CEO, CFO, Owner, Pres, VP, Other Exec
That's it. There is no indepth secondary source content.
I'm striking all but #2, which I am not sure about. They need two. "Mike Smith"? A very common name, hard work to google and filter.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete: promotionalism only on a nn businessman. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Ordinary corporate executive. jni (delete)...just not interested 18:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:PROMOTION. Independent reputable others have not already written about this person. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - In my opinion, if a page is either draftified twice or promoted to mainspace twice without a discussion having closure, there has been move-warring. That is, I take a strict view of being against move-warring. If an article has already been draftified once, and is back in article space, and is still not ready for article space, it is time for Articles for Deletion. This page has been draftified four times, which is too much, and since it is now in draft space, I agree that it is time to deal with it. The subject may be marginally notable or may not be notable. However, the page is the work of a paid editor, and like most work of paid editors is of low quality. (Paid editors are normally worth less than you pay for them.) Therefore:
  • Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Chryintel[edit]

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

Copypastaed article from 6 years ago; no other edits. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Speedy Blank which I've done. We can't delete a userpace but we can blank it. Legacypac (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Dozenness[edit]

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

Userpage shouldn't look like an article; user hasn't been active in 8 years. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Speedy Blank since we can't delete a userpage exactly. Legacypac (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Fortnite Skins[edit]

Draft:Fortnite Skins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Incomplete list of Fortnite "skins". Worthless. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete not a valid attempt at an article. Home Lander (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete no chance of becoming an article Legacypac (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Fortnite. Already an article. Governing policy WP:ATD. Redirect will send the retuning editor to the article he is most interested in improving. The target should mention the skins. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect as proposed by SJ. If SJ thinks that the target article needs improving, SJ can improve it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Fortnite skins are way down my priority list, there is already far too much of it in my house already. Let the kids improve articles that interest them. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Fortnite currently contains no mention of skins, and yet Fortnite skins are having wider media impact. [2] [3] [4]. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

November 16, 2018[edit]

Draft:McCoy Russell LLP[edit]

Draft:McCoy Russell LLP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A WP:MILL law firm in a smaller city with a limited history. No reason to continue to entertain their submissions of their profile. Legacypac (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete: promotional 'cruft on a nn subject. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not terribly non-notable. Not offensively promotion. Has been improved since first submission. No valid reason for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - Declared paid editing is still paid editing, and is permitted but is usually of low quality. Not likely to be improved by creating editor, who is a declared paid editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

November 15, 2018[edit]

Draft:Best Management Practices in an Organization[edit]

Draft:Best Management Practices in an Organization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another personal essay that has been submitted twice without a change three months ago. WP:NOTESSAY. No chance for the mainspace. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Did you discuss with User:Theroadislong about his decline, and whether he properly considered the option to "reject"?
Delete due to being resubmitted without improvement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:MONEY: A GOOD MOTIVATOR OR NOT?[edit]

Draft:MONEY: A GOOD MOTIVATOR OR NOT? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Also, by same author, almost the same:

Draft:MONEY AS MOTIVATION: NOT A GOOD DECISION (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another trash essay that is not suitable for Wikipedia per WP:NOTESSAY and has no chance of going into the mainspace. No one is going to bother to read about what one person thinks about money. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe - Please stop dumping on reviewers for declining rather than rejecting. As discussed below, the feature is still in beta, and doesn't work for some reviewers. It is not helpful to divert attention from deleting crud by complaining that the reviewer used the wrong method of saying no (even if they could have). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Are we talking about it not working for some reviewers somewhere? It needs a manual setup. I’ve been talking about the reject option for three years now, it is hard to accept that AfC is still playing with toes in the water. MfD is the wrong place to deal with useless harmless junk. Maybe if now Pkbwcgs can get the option installed, he can reject things that should be rejected instead of second guessing the decline choice by bringing useless harmless pages to MfD. I note that if another review decline, to reject you have to resubmit it to get the reject option. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I have enabled the AFCH script manually but I don't know yet if rejecting works. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Rejecting does not work for some of us yet. Software configuration thing. Legacypac (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Really? Oh dear? Is this being discussed anywhere? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Rejecting doesn't work for me either. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Rejection_feature_in_the_AFCH_script?.
You have to disable the default gadget (go to Special:Preferences and Disable/uncheck) "Yet Another AFC Helper Script: easily review Articles for creation submissions, Files for Upload, redirect and category requests" and
go to your common.js (mine is User:SmokeyJoe/common.js, swap in your username) and
add "importScript('User:Enterprisey/afch-dev.js'); // Linkback: User:Enterprisey/afch-dev.js" --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Is Communism Dead?[edit]

Draft:Is Communism Dead? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another trash essay that is not suitable for Wikipedia per WP:NOTESSAY. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete slam dunk. And no it is not dead, I've visited several communist countries. Legacypac (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTESSAY, not fixed to represent anything else besides an essay. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete communist should have died long ago, but this is not a place to debate the issue. Inherently unencyclopedic essay. jni (delete)...just not interested 18:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete but this appears to be a class project, with two almost identical essays with the same two sources. I have reported this at the education noticeboard and am requesting that the authors (if this is a class project) notify the instructor, who needs to be advised that this appears to be a good-faith error on the instructor's part and that they should discuss at the noticeboard and request further advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 02:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Is Communism Dead or Alive[edit]

Draft:Is Communism Dead or Alive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No chance for this essay to go to the mainspace per WP:NOTESSAY. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Essay, not encyclopedic. jni (delete)...just not interested 18:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete but this appears to be a class project, with two almost identical essays with the same two sources. I have reported this at the education noticeboard and am requesting that the authors (if this is a class project) notify the instructor, who needs to be advised that this appears to be a good-faith error on the instructor's part and that they should discuss at the noticeboard and request further advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 02:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


Draft:Marcel Saucet[edit]

Draft:Marcel Saucet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Nestor AI (Artificial Intelligence) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Marcel Saucet LCA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Dr. Marcel Saucet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A COI editor put this first page in Mainspace and then moved it from the proper title to his own name. He has created multiple drafts and moved them through many titles and redirects. All of these need to be removed. Let someone else write up these subjects who has no connection to the subject. Legacypac (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Dr. Marcel Saucet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Marcel Saucet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Moved from a merged page to this MfD) Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dr. Marcel Saucet which did not get deleted during the merging of discussions. Legacypac (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete all The articles as written are highly promotional and have serious COI issues. If you want to retain just one to work on, pick Marcel Saucet and make the Nestor AI an alias to it. But it will have to be fundamentally rewritten. WP:TNT Problem with many of the current ones still are full of advertising like Street Marketing™ with trademark symbol. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:My child memories[edit]

Draft:My child memories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:NOTWEBHOST - Personal stuff is not suitable for Wikipedia Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:TheUltamateBoss3900's Life[edit]

Draft:TheUltamateBoss3900's Life (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not an article. No clear CSD criteria. CoolSkittle (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Don't Delete- It is an article an article about me TUB3900 (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTAWEBHOST. User:TheUltamateBoss3900, please familiarize yourself with article creation-related policies. JTP (talkcontribs) 14:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete I almost nominated this myself yesterday but got distracted. U5 in Draftspace but that is not an accepted CSD. Legacypac (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete although does not qualify for U5 because that only has to do with users who have made few edits outside user space. However, see Wikipedia is not a web host. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - This page absurdly states that the author does not provide his real name on Wikipedia, and provides what he says is his real name. Bzzzt. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 02:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:India Greens - The Green Party of India[edit]

Draft:India Greens - The Green Party of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Carbon copy of Alliance 90/The Greens. CoolSkittle (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete all except the misleading title since the article is about a German party. Legacypac (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - A non-obvious hoax, of the type sometimes done by changes to a Wikipedia article about who the protagonist is. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Inger Mewburn[edit]

Draft:Inger Mewburn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This has been deleted twice before according to User:Mr. Guye/CSD log and User:Legacypac/CSD_log 10. It is weirdly promotional yet poorly written considering the subject is an author. One claim to fame is that their book is linked from a Wikipedia page. First time I've seen that as a claim of notability. Legacypac (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Question - What names did it have when it was deleted? I will !vote Delete if I can verify the history of deletion, but I can't track that down yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Inger Mewburn same as now. The page was already linked from the two CSD logs on creation (see what links here) Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I made this page and am not the subject of the page, so please don't judge her writing from mine. I am wondering what evidence of her notability is required for this Wiki page to be accepted? Thanks, hj Hj01234 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete: promotionalism only. Probably salt. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Heart to Heart Counseling Center[edit]

Draft:Heart to Heart Counseling Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After the page was rejected, Creator keeps pushing this WP:MILL business page via AfC and the AfC help desk. Time to make a decision to delete. Legacypac (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

November 14, 2018[edit]

Draft:Wake the Warrior (droeloe song)[edit]

Draft:Wake the Warrior (droeloe song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Would qualify for A9 if accepted. Multiple times an article for the artist attached to this release was attempted but failed due to not passing WP:MUSICBIO. Jalen D. Folf (talk • contribs) 20:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. Per WP:NMFD, MfD is not for making Wikipedia-notability judgements. Submitted once, User:Dan_arndt, declined, did not reject. Declined drafts not meeting any CSD#G* criteria do not get deleted, unless repeatedly submitted without improvement. If it is not notable, the WP:CSD#G13 pathway is the answer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete no page for the musician means no page for the album which means the song can't have a page. We don't generally start with a page on the song. Legacypac (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Bitbird, an article needing improvement, is an obvious merge target for Wake the Warrior, by Droeloe, a Bitbird featured artist. Draftspace need not be reserved for *only* standalone pages (one of the underpinnings of NMFD). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NMFD and SmokeyJoe. No opposition to a redirect.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete noting the following:
  • Comment - In its current form, redirect is not a valid alternative to delete, because the existence of the song, let alone the connection to Bitbird (a double redirect), is unsourced.
  • Comment - No page for the musician does not mean the song can't have a page. It only means that the song can be speedy-deleted if it doesn't make a credible claim of significance in article space, and this doesn't make a credible claim of significance in draft space.
  • Comment - The fact that a reviewer didn't Reject but Declined is not in itself a reason to Keep. Some reviewers, even experienced ones, are not yet familiar with the Delete option.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:ECONOMICS[edit]

Draft:ECONOMICS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Analysis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Notes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:RESPONSE PAPER (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Author appears to be using Wikipedia as a convenient place to work on a term paper. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Added other related pages. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Xayahrainie43/duodecimal[edit]

User:Xayahrainie43/duodecimal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Blocked user is continuing to edit this page in violation of their block. Previously, others would revert the edits, but now they're making edits, undoing their own edits, and messing around with copying things to the sandbox. I don't really know why, but there's no particular reason to keep this around, especially if it's just contributing to their block evading. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree -- behavior is very weird and wouldn't be problematic if it weren't block-avoidant. As far as I can tell, the only purpose the page has any more is to make it easy to check whether the blocked user continues to edit in mainspace, by following their latest IP address. (The answer recently seems to be "no".) --JBL (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Blank and semi-protect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Administrator note: I have reverted the page to the user's last non-block-evading edit, and semiprotected indefinitely pending the outcome of this discussion. Please comment on whether or not this content may be useful to the encyclopedia. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Possible usefulness? It looks specialised. I !vote “leave it available” whether reverted as you did or blanked, based on it not looking actually offensive to the purpose of Wikipedia. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • It's amateur number play, written in a haphazard and disjointed manner that would make the correctness of it amazingly tedious to check. The author admits below that it is "original research". It is not suitable for, or useful to, the encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete: Original research, WP:OR.-- Yu-Fan宇帆 (Talk) 14:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    No, you may not use Wikipedia to write "anything". If you want to write a blog, please feel free to sign up for a blog hosting service. Wikipedia is not one. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The status quo has the advantage of making the block evasion easy to spot. Is that a good reason to avoid deleting it? Probably not. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is not quite U5 because the editor has made enough edits in article space to avoid the criterion of "few or no edits outside of user space", but it is original research. The originating editor has made a further case for deletion by stating that this is their blog, but Wikipedia is not a blog. I respectfully disagree with the idea of blanking it. I do not consider blanking to be a satisfactory substitute for things that need deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

November 12, 2018[edit]

Draft:Yeet[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOTDIC, unsourced. Was deleted on Wiktionary. CoolSkittle (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete not an article. Better on urban dictionary Legacypac (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Some of the content may be suitable for merger within an article on slang or eventual transwiki. Sourcing is poor at the moment, but that is not a reason to delete a draft. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

User talk:142.227.150.1/Archive 1[edit]

User talk:142.227.150.1/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:212.47.82.34/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:216.226.127.171/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:12.159.137.194/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:193.61.255.86/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:142.227.30.65/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:64.50.95.2/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:209.232.148.109/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:209.189.130.57/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:194.154.22.53/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:216.100.90.24/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:207.73.23.170/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:67.52.195.162/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:198.237.17.5/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:163.153.10.4/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:72.237.90.5/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:12.152.249.124/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:66.168.119.50/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:65.79.36.130/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:209.174.191.11/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:12.152.177.82/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:204.185.222.253/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:207.63.88.20/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:139.139.35.70/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:206.176.109.20/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:207.28.126.253/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:12.156.85.66/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:12.160.9.34/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:151.188.105.130/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:64.22.215.178/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:12.151.240.2/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:12.154.178.135/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:165.155.208.83/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:198.178.254.2/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:216.56.21.254/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:216.54.35.18/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:117.18.82.1/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:119.111.41.82/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:117.18.80.14/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:168.8.212.113/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:208.87.77.35/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:208.89.21.34/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:207.212.143.243/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:119.224.20.155/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:219.89.204.200/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:12.151.252.170/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:194.239.156.141/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:173.84.36.62/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:70.28.59.179/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:65.175.247.51/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:82.43.21.215/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:68.113.83.14/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:195.195.201.42/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:217.20.20.85/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:68.15.207.155/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:72.10.122.193/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:67.230.207.82/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:12.208.58.227/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:14.139.187.225/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:217.179.210.30/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:209.43.37.194/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:46.227.50.162/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:5.179.81.130/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:117.239.246.84/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:85.118.2.68/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:99.194.53.66/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Pointless archiving of old IP talk page warnings. (Have not tagged the pages with the MfD tag, because don't see any point of doing that, considering that these are unlikely to have any watchers.) SD0001 (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete useless. I'm surprised you found these all. Legacypac (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not pointless. Not useless. Not hard to find. Careless deletions are a way bigger problem than leaving these live. Archiving is a very good idea to not confuse new users of the IP, and the archive is a good explanation for the reception are newcomer on an old IP may receive. If you want to change policy, address WP:OLDIP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @SD0001: You may find the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 33#U4 from 2009 useful. It was a discussion about making a speedy deletion criterion to delete old talk pages. However, some of the IPs in the list above are actually currently blocked right now and the deletion of these archive pages is against WP:OLDIP so the answer to this MfD nomination is to keep. I am sure there are IP talk page archives which are much more useless than this that don't have any warnings. They are useful. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Pkbwcgs: WP:OLDIP only says that user talk pages themselves should not be deleted if the IPs are blocked. Neither OLPIP nor the 2009 discussion you linked says anything about deletion of archived IP talk pages. There is broad, though undocumented, community consensus against archiving of warnings on IP talk pages, which is clearly reflected in the fact that {{OW}} (Older warnings have been removed) has 475,000 transclusions against a mere 77 for {{Warning archive notice}} (which is used on parent pages of all above pages). SD0001 (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Al16boss/Alphonse Lustrino[edit]

User:Al16boss/Alphonse Lustrino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned little add for a youtuber. Only edit from this account. Legacypac (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails WP:NOT. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • keep - straightforward sandbox page. Sigh. user writes a non promotional simple sentence about some YouTuber they think is significant. In user space. where nobody who isn't looking for user pages to delete will ever see it. Nothing resembling anything close to a wp:not issue. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
If there is no reason to clean up why do we have Category:Stale_userspace_drafts? There is tons of very bad material in this category, and clearing out the less bad crap saves time because we don't have to check and recheck it again and again while reviewing pages. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you would not ask empty rhetorical questions while making up reasons to delete userspace pages. This is not a stale userspace draft, is not in that category, and there is no reason to delete. If people's sandboxes bug you, you can find a different part of Wikipedia to edit. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. The lack of an external promotional link means that the page is not offensive enough for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Same as if in draft space, a useless draft that isn't yet a nuisance. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Chair/Nom result[edit]

Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Chair/Nom result (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Mediation Committee is no more. This documentation page therefore no longer serves a purpose. Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; no need for outright deletion in this case. Graham87 10:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • keep (no strong feeling on redirect) - I'm surprised this has to be said, but, being Wikipedia, we don't typically delete old process pages just because we don't use them anymore. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. The mediation committee is shut down, can be archived, but not deleted. There is no point in archiving every subpage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Bill Bucklew[edit]

Draft:Bill Bucklew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deemed unsuitable. The creator has been blocked for having a username the same a famous person, which matches the article title. So either this person is notable and the username block is justified or they are not notable and this is just self promotion. Legacypac (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Borderline notable. A heap of news from Dec 2017 - Feb 2018. Not a very good draft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

See comments from the creator here. [5] Legacypac (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm almost certain it's an autobiography based on the sources and photos. It may not be notable, but it's at least notable enough to merit discussion, even if it is a SPA/autobiography, which would merit a keep in draft space. Also, it seems asinine that someone would be blocked for having the name of a famous person if the person isn't famous enough for an article. SportingFlyer talk 02:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    Asinine? Superficially, yes; but this account persists in insisting that Bill Bucklew is a famous person. I'm taking them at their word that they, at least, think that he is famous; and if that is so, then they shouldn't be using his name unless they are him. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes a little strange. Given the page has been tagged "do not resubmit" and the username block and the possibility they are notable, I felt a deletion discussion was warrented. Legacypac (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
It's actually quite an interesting premise, this MfD. Even with the SPA/possible WP:PROMO concerns, I still think someone could still take this article and at least make a run at notability. SportingFlyer talk 10:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

November 11, 2018[edit]

Draft:Should Cetaceans Be Kept In Captivity?[edit]

Draft:Should Cetaceans Be Kept In Captivity? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Last one for today so that I don't flood MfD but this is another essay that is not suitable for Wikipedia. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete easily not appropriate. Don't worry about flooding with easy deletes. Legacypac (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    Comment I have done another MfD today but I will check for more tomorrow. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Do worry about flooding an important process with busywork. The process for pages like this is to "Reject", make sure it doesn't keep the big blue "submit" button, and leave it for G13. It looks hopeless, but it could be completely restructured to something reasonable, and MfD should not be used to pre-judge that possibility. Reject-G13 is the proper path. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per SmokeyJoe. Nothing else to add. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Should link to official record be include in martial artists info box?[edit]

Draft:Should link to official record be include in martial artists info box? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Don't know what this is but it is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Should smoking be banned?[edit]

Draft:Should smoking be banned? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another essay that is absolutely unsuitable for Wikipedia. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as not suitable. Now everyone else can ignore this nomination and it will be gone in a week with no fuss. Legacypac (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Obviously hopeless. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as per [[[WP:NOTESSAY|Wikipedia is not for essays]]. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:How ICT has an effect on Society[edit]

Draft:How ICT has an effect on Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is 100% an essay and has no chance of going to the mainspace. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Lets go through the community scrap heap, bring the silliest of it to the town meeting, and talk about it one by one. You like setting busywork. I think Pkbwcgs should be asked to add all possibly applicable maintenance tags to drafts like this before asking for the review. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete another good reason to extend U5 to Draft space Legacypac (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Arguably User:Bkissin should have rejected the submission, not merely declined. Merely declined drafts should not be sent to mfd. if they have no chance, they should be rejected. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The creator had had their AFC submission declined and has been invited to resubmit. Unless there has been copyright abuse, etc., they should be given a chance to do so. Thincat (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Thincat: Read WP:NOTESSAY before saying that this should be kept. This looks like a school assignment written in the draftspace rather than an article. The draft should have been completely rejected rather than just declined like SmokeyJoe said. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting rejection would have been wrong. But the draft was not rejected and the author was invited to resubmit. The solution is to improve the intellectual rigor at AFC review. not to delete drafts when there is a difference of opinion between AFC reviewers. Thincat (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per SmokeyJoe and Thincat. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I can withdraw this if @Nfear79: wants to improve this draft. Otherwise, this essay has zero chance of going into the mainspace and should not be resubmitted in the same state again. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Unless a draft is being tendentiously resubmitted, meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion, or is otherwise seriously problematic, the community generally prefers to let G13 clean up things like this rather than discussing them here. That is part of the reason that criterion was established, i.e. to lighten the workload here. Thus, the community often keeps pages such as this to discourage further nominations in the same vein. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. A bit of pragmatism is in order here. Had I come across this untagged I'd have unapologetically IAR deleted it myself. Wikipedia is not a webhost, and this has absolutely no chance of ever becoming an article. This sort of dogmatic adherence to vague principles is how AfC and Draftspace got so badly shat up that the community—that is, the people outside the walled garden AfC had become who finally realized what was going on there—rightly formulated G13 to deal with the fucking ridiculous 50K+ morass of of mostly-useless, often-harmful AfC submissions and drafts. This has no business on Wikipedia in any form, and the creator can show genuine interest in writing an actual article by starting over; nothing here is remotely suitable for an article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank-you User:The Blade of the Northern Lights please spend more time at MfD amd share these kinds of spot on comments more often. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • User:The Blade of the Northern Lights, I strongly object to your notion that this page is IAR speediable. Wikipedia:Process is important, to some degree. The AfC reviewer of the page indicated that the page is improveable. If that reviewer is wrong, it requires a discussion, not a heavy handed admin. I think the reviewer was wrong, the submission should have been “rejected”, but the page is harmless-worthless and is best left to the standard G13 process. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - In addition to Wikipedia is not for essays, this lacks context in that it doesn't say what ICT is. We don't need to retain crud just because the reviewer was nice and chose to decline (or didn't have the Reject button yet). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - And I still don't know what ICT is. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Me same. I am half expecting one of two possible surprise revelations: (1) ITC is some obscene joke and we are being trolled; or (2) ITC is something important and scholarly. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Some possibilities at https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/ITC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral Could be worked into an article possibly, but drafts that couldn't ever work in mainspace should be expediently deleted rather than waiting for G13. PrussianOwl (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:How I do control my thinking[edit]

Draft:How I do control my thinking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another unnecessary essay that is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:How I get pimples on my face?[edit]

Draft:How I get pimples on my face? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not suitable for Wikipedia. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Pkbwcgs, I think the minimal expectation on an MfD nomination is to connect the problem to a line in WP:NOT or UPNOT. "Not suitable" really is not sufficient. MfD reviewers should not have to do more work reviewing than the nominator did nominating. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not for FAQ lists. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Not a mainspace article by any means, but useful information. Doesn't belong here, but should be copied somewhere where it would fit. PrussianOwl (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:When can you claim that you’ve been in a country or state?[edit]

Draft:When can you claim that you’ve been in a country or state? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Essay which has no chance of getting into the mainspace. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - why not speedy WP:U5 I don't know exactly, but this is not an article and has no chance of being one. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete silly personal essay. Home Lander (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete U5 does not apply to Draftspace. Legacypac (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, unsuitable for Wikipedia. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is the remnant of what is left after a deletion, and is an impersonal essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Mr. dude Phil[edit]

Draft:Mr. dude Phil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unsourced draft about a YouTuber with only 5000 channel views, shows no evidence of notability. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

User:LifeIsMusic 1D/Liam James Payne[edit]

User:LifeIsMusic 1D/Liam James Payne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned user subpage, Could never be merged into Liam Payne, –Davey2010Talk 16:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete not useful. Legacypac (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - Says nothing that isn't already in Liam Payne, and is left over for seven years. Not sure I understand "could never be merged" except that this is not up to the quality of being merged into a real article. They are the same person. Delete anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

User:AaronTEG/Books/famous youtubers vol. 1[edit]

User:AaronTEG/Books/famous youtubers vol. 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hoax - No such book exists, Abandoned user subpage anyway, –Davey2010Talk 16:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:How to use a pressure gauge?[edit]

Draft:How to use a pressure gauge? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How-to guide that is not suitable for Wikipedia. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It was unsubmitted though, so it can't yet be declined. PrussianOwl (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences[edit]

Talk:Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Doesn't contain any useful content and is pure gibberish. 365 (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep - This doesn't seem to be within the scope of any of the Speedy Keep dispositions, but should be. The nominator is proposing to delete an article talk page because it contains stupid comments from the past, but it is a valid record of the past comments. If the user doesn't want to look at the past comments, they can set up talk page archiving. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Question - Is there a Speedy Keep or Procedural Close reason? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep we don't delete article talkpages. This one has somewhat useful info. Legacypac (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep not a valid reason for deletion. You can set the page to archive or even delete comments which are out of scope. You can revdel if there is a copyright violation (I don't see one). Deleting a talk page is not valid course of action. --Muhandes (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and blank the gibberish content in question. We don't delete talk pages and there is useful stuff but blanking the gibberish and nonsense content in question should be enough to clean-up the talk page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Some of the junk on the page can be cleanup up, but the templates and a few other things are good. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

November 10, 2018[edit]

Draft:National Data Guardian for Health and Care in England[edit]

Draft:National Data Guardian for Health and Care in England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An overly promotional page on a non-notable organisation. Created by Special:Contributions/MSLSH with no other contributions and no COI disclosure. Submitted twice with no improvement. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Edited. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment If the National Data Guardian is not notable by our guidelines there is something very wrong with our standards.[6][7] So let's hope it is just the draft that is substandard or that some paid editing has not been disclosed. Thincat (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Note edit summary by admin: "Not spam enough for G11", which is damning with faint praise. As per Thincat, reads like undisclosed paid editing, resulting in a substandard draft about an almost certainly notable organization. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Mainspace and let anyone clean it up. This is not that bad. Legacypac (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Nom's comment: hmm, not sure if we should be placing orgspam from UPE users into mainspace. The cleanup usually does not happen. If an uninvolved editor wants to create an artile, they would not need this draft, so it's best deleted. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with User:K.e.coffman and disagree with User:Legacypac, in that spam from paid editors really is all that bad and is a slow toxin in Wikipedia. If there were a dedicated group of volunteers whose function was neutralizing spam, we could keep this and let someone clean it up. But that is like waiting for an Easter bunny. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I am the author of this page and I am very sorry that it does not meet your standards. I must admit that I am finding this difficult, despite spending a lot of time trying to get it right. I did redraft it after the last review in August, and if it is not right I would really appreciate your help. I should declare that I work for NHS Digital, who host the Office of the National Data Guardian (NDG). I am not a 'paid editor' in the way that I understand that, but I suppose that I might be in your eyes as I work for NHS Digital who host the National Data Guardian's office. The NDG was concerned when she noticed that we (unlike the other national bodies that we work with daily) do not have a Wikipedia entry, and asked me to remedy this. If I, because of the nature of my employment, am not permitted to create this very much needed page, then I would really appreciate you advising on how I might make this happen. I absolutely don't wish to spam or promote - we are a national, government funded organisation due to be written into law in the next few months. We are not a private organisation, and it is very much within the public interest (and the interests of transparency) that we should have a purely factual Wikipedia entry. I entirely agree with you on that. I am just clearly bad at doing this! I have tried to be as factual as possible, even referring back to other similar organisations such as the Information Commissioners' Office, and it is just not apparent to me what is coming across as promotional and advertorial about it. I might just be too close to the content, but what I have included is all relevant, key facts about the NDG that would be of interest to those who might seek this page out. I feel quite crestfallen that it doesn't meet your standards, and so any specific advice or pointers you could give would be much appreciated. I desperately don't want it to be deleted, and I am very eager to get something approved, and to do the right thing, but this is all new to me. Many thanks for your help and comments so far.MSLSH (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Intensions Consulting[edit]

Draft:Intensions Consulting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non-notable company; a draft rejected twice. Created by Special:Contributions/MrVanDigital with a history of what looks like promotional editing, but no declaration of COI. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete As soon as I saw this editor pop on my watchlist because of the MfD notification to their page I knew this was another self serving non-notable effort. Legacypac (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - As per K.e.coffman, there is a history of apparent promotional editing, and this is a non-notable company. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Tarl Warwick[edit]

Draft:Tarl Warwick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This topic has been deleted twice at AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tarl_Warwick_(2nd_nomination). This version appears no better. Loaded with youtube links, it is promotional. It asserts Sarah Palin is responsible for a mass shooting, which could mean this is an attack page. There is no point letting this run trough multiple AfC submissions, and no point letting all those promotional links to Youtube to provide SEO benefits for 6 plus months. Legacypac (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as per the two deletion discussions. This draft may be an effort to game the system to do an end-run around the deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an unwarranted attack. The only legitimate criticism here is it's loaded with YouTube links. The page doesn't assert Sarah Palin is responsible for a mass shooting, it asserts Warwick claimed she is responsible, which is true. If an Admin see's this, i would like to ask you not to delete this draft, I've put a lot of time into it, and i will continue to put more time into it to improve it, so it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Also i believe the article could be improved rather than deleted. By these two guidelines i believe this draft cannot be deleted: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.", "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." Also the claim I'm Gaming the System, which is an accusation of bad-faith editing, is evidently not true and defamatory. ReaIestTruth (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per the clear decision at AfD. I was going to say delete per WP:TNT becuase an article can’t be based on (started from) YouTube and twitter sources. Read WP:RS. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe The criteria to delete a draft that is WIP and a published page is different. Also i am already starting to replace/support YouTube references with secondary sources.ReaIestTruth (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
No. The decision at AfD was that the topic is not notable. It is a decision made with prejudice for a fresh draft. One is, however, allowed to try drafting if they think the AfD decision was wrong.
The YouTube sources inherently make the draft unsuitable. Read WP:TNT. You need reliable independent secondary sources that discuss the subject directly to start the draft. They will steer the tone of the draft. This draft should be deleted. If you really think the subject is notable, prove it in the first save by including two or more quality sources. List them here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The twitter source has been replaced with a news article, currently the only section with YouTube sources is the "YouTube career" section, which i am currently compressing/overhauling, if i feel that the YouTube Career section still doesn't feel Wikipedia worthy after the changes, i will be replacing that section with a more broad career section that also includes Warwick's work as a editor/author. ReaIestTruth (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Repeating the claim about Sarah Palin without a RS (no the youtube link is not a RS) is problematic. Legacypac (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Not begging for mercy, just pointing out that i'm willing to put in the time to improve the draft to a suitable level. ReaIestTruth (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment to User:ReaIestTruth - Please request Undeletion of the deleted article to user space so that the community can verify whether the draft is better than the article, but only after upgrading the YouTube and Twitter sources. As long as it relies on non-reliable media, it still needs deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not the author of the previous deleted articles, so i don't believe i can request the deleted articles to be restored. ReaIestTruth (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, i believe i found the original articles on a 3rd party website. 2016 article, the earlier 2018 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaIestTruth (talkcontribs) 14:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment My latest edits to the draft continue to show that Warwick is notable and suitable for a Wikipedia article, and i will continue to add secondary sources to this article until I'm satisfied that the draft qualifies for a Wikipedia article. I do concede that the draft in my first submission was unsuitable for a Wikipedia article (due to it's over reliance of primary sources), but still maintain my position that the deletion request after my first submission was uncalled for. I would appreciate it, if an admin would remove this discussion, such that it doesn't delay my next submission (whenever it's ready). ReaIestTruth (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC) PS, I believe the situation has changed since the last deletion of the article, as he has acquired a much larger audience since then and has achieved the accomplishment of the largest BitChute (which already has a significant Wikipedia article about it) user on the platform.
This discussion will run a week or so before being closed. Legacypac (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment at this point only the YouTube career section of the draft (which I am compressing or potentially replacing) suffers from problems that would make this article unsuitable for Wikipedia, which means it can be fixed through normal editing, which means it is not a candidate for AfD (or MfD in this case). ReaIestTruth (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Unpatrolled articles/July 2011[edit]

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Unpatrolled articles/July 2011 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nothing special in this outdated page. There is no point keeping this at all. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep, was once useful, is harmless. And there are a lot more where that came from. Graham87 12:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Graham87: Please tell me why this was useful. There is nothing in that page which says that it is useful. I don't get what you are saying. The other pages like Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Unpatrolled articles/August 2011 has some data but this page has nothing. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
      • @Pkbwcgs: Ah, just looked at the history; there were no unpatrolled articles. But that does not mean there was no data ... the fact that there were zero unpatrolled articles a day *is* data that was useful in July 2011 and might be useful now. Why make it so that non-admins such as yourself can't access this data? Graham87 13:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's historical. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as part of Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Unpatrolled articles - Agreed it's empty but it may of been a part of something back in 2011, We should preserve history not delete it. –Davey2010Talk 15:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete once a maintenance task is complete we can move on. This is an old page no one really needs. Legacypac (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Graham87 and Davey2010. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The Sword in the Stone (2019 film)[edit]

Draft:The Sword in the Stone (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The creator of Draft:The Sword in the Stone (upcoming film) claims this is a copy paste of the other page. This is the correct title so delete to make way for the other Draft to be moved to the correct title. Legacypac (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - The draft isn't tagged as nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - We don't need to use MFD to accomplish a round-robin move. If this is not a round-robin move, what is requested? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

At the time I requested the MfD this title was an unattributed copy of another title. Since then the page has been edited 5 times. Another editor took the MfD tag off and then the page went through a history merge from yet another similar title. [8] so I think time to withdraw this and sort out what copy of page should be kept. Legacypac (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

November 8, 2018[edit]

Draft:What Ships Are For[edit]

Draft:What Ships Are For (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All plot attempt at a page. Not sure if the subject is notable but there are no refs either. Legacypac (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep - It's a draft. If this had been left alone, it would expire in January, but now the clock has been reset. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

November 5, 2018[edit]

Draft:Heroes and Villains of Deaf During Nazi Germany[edit]

Draft:Heroes and Villains of Deaf During Nazi Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.)PMC(talk) 23:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This has been a pile of articles about deaf people and groups in Nazi Germany that was submitted recently by different users. I suspect they are from the same group but using different usernames.

They all reference a book called Crying hands : eugenics and deaf people in Nazi Germany . The articles being drafted and submitted contain sizable biographies of so-called heroes and villains. Articles that already exist on Wikipedia include Sterilization of deaf people in Nazi Germany (serves as redirect for Deaf People in Hitler's Europe) and Deaf Organizations during the Holocaust.

Any recommendations as to how to proceed? Which articles should be created? The Crying Hands book? The individuals mentioned in the book? Regede is already covered by Deaf Organizations during the Holocaust. The problem with most of these is that they single source the book and the writing is very much like it was copy-pasted from said book. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a tough one AngusWOOF. When I've come across these articles, I've tried to point the editor in the direction of existing articles they can work on. Trying to AGF, assuming it is a young deaf person who wants to contribute. If they are still an IP, there isn't really an effective way to reach out suggesting they join WP:DEAF. I guess we could leave that as a comment on the drafts in question here. Bkissin (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC(talk) 23:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

As an update to this, the editors have decided to add the piles of information to Deaf Organizations during the Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deaf_Organizations_during_the_Holocaust&type=revision&diff=868876348&oldid=865595247 AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]

  1. ^ [9]