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.
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Note: entries for inactive discussions, closed or not, should be moved to the archive.

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.

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 formating for the userbox.

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several related pages in an umbrella nomination.

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, 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 discussions can be found here.

Contents


Current discussions[edit]

Pages currently being considered 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.

Purge server cache

August 26, 2016[edit]

Talk:B. Shivadhar Reddy[edit]

Talk:B. Shivadhar Reddy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

non notable local police officer . DGG ( talk ) 07:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: DGG, I think you hit the wrong button? You've nominated the talk page, not the article. Graham87 09:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Sro23 is banned like a poop 2016-2020[edit]

User talk:Sro23 is banned like a poop 2016-2020 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Page was created by admin with a blocking template only. Account is permanently blocked. This probably should be deleted per WP:DENY. Safiel (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • An account created today that has no edits, and no deleted edits? A discretion and WP:DENY failure by User:BU Rob13, in blocking, and in creating the talk page, and then in Safiel broadcasting the matter at MfD. Accounts that are not editing should not be -pre-emptively blocked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @SmokeyJoe: The account did edit, although those edits will no longer appear to non-admins in the account's contributions. The block was not preemptive, although I'll note that it would certainly be justified as such based on the username, which refers to Sro23. I have no objection to the user talk page being deleted if the community prefers to go that route, although I'm not personally a fan of that practice when we haven't tied the account to a specific long-term sockmaster. The edits did not make the sockmaster immediately obvious. ~ Rob13Talk 04:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks Rob. I guess I am mistaken to trust the deleted edits count in tool like this?
I think the best thing to do is to defer to the judgement of the blocking admin. I suggest redirecting, both userpage and talk page, to the sockmaster. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:HydroShock(Youtuber)[edit]

Draft:HydroShock(Youtuber) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Obviously non-notable subject. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. We need a CSD for these things obviously speediable if in mainspace, U5-able if in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

August 25, 2016[edit]

User:Tucii1990/sandbox[edit]

User:Tucii1990/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:UP#COPIES - Old version of Fallout: New Vegas Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Carto-coolie$*[edit]

Draft:Carto-coolie$* (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Utter nonsense. CSD tag removed by 333-blue without explanation. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep – the CSD G2 does not apply in draft namespaces; is not a promotion and/or attack page. 333-blue 10:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@333-blue: Firstly MfD is not to evaluate the CSD criteria but a more general deletion criteria. Secondly G2 is for test pages not for promotion/attack pages. Thirdly G2 says nothing about draft space, it instead says not to tag in user space or in the sandbox, which this page is neither. Fourthly this pages is just a string of random characters. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Draft is a testing space, just like sandboxes. And please nominate for deletion after 6 months with no un-automatic edits as G13. 333-blue 10:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@333-blue: Please read WP:G13 (it says specifically it is only for WP:AFC submissions (a page in draft, user, wikipedia and wikipedia talk namespaces that is tagged with {{AFC submission}}); which this page isn't). If it was G13 eligible I would use CSD not MFD. However, just because it doesn't meet a criteria at WP:CSD (which IMHO it does (WP:G1 or WP:G2)) doesn't mean it can't be deleted. See many deletion discussions at WP:MFD or WP:AFD or WP:CFD or WP:TFD for examples of how deletion discussions work. Also drafts are not testing spaces they are for drafting new articles and templates and the like. The WP:SANDBOX is for testing as is a user's sandbox but draft space is not a user's sandbox but a place to develop things with an aim to publish to mainspace or template space. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bad CSD#G2 tag removal. G2 applies everywhere, only userspace tests (and by the user), sandbox, and the template thing are excluded. G2 taggings in draftspace are appropriate.
Commend User:Yellow Dingo and the appropriate taggings and for welcoming the IP doing the tests. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

August 24, 2016[edit]

Wikipedia:Mila the frenchton[edit]

Wikipedia:Mila the frenchton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

as per WP:A7 LovelyEdit talkedits 17:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as nothing at all close to acceptable, please use social media instead. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:DirectEcstasy[edit]

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

Non-notable individual that would easily be A7-CSDd in mainspace. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Thefacevietnamonline[edit]

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

Per WP:UP#COPIES. This page is a copy from The Face (U.S. TV series). Whpq (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

August 23, 2016[edit]

Draft:52nd Street (Album) Track 5[edit]

Draft:52nd Street (Album) Track 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non-notable song, an album track which did not chart. The user who started this draft has been edit-warring similar drafts into mainspace.[1] Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Redirect, with temporary protection. A valid drafting idea, but the IP is wrong, mainspace may not link to draftspace. I think it is very unlikely the community will agree to a standalone article for this song, as the appropriate place for everything that can be said is at 52nd Street (album). No opposition to "delete and redirect", if someone wants to use deletion as a behavioural remediation hammer, but the redirect serves to inform future editors that improvement to coverage of the song should be done at the article 52nd Street (album), and any associated discussion belongs Talk:52nd Street (album). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - the song itself may have adequate coverage to meet GNG. But this draft doesn't incorporate any sources, and so really serves no valid purpose. I disagree with redirecting since "52nd Street (Album) Track 5" is not a likely term that a reader would type in. Rlendog (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
"disagree with redirecting"? "not a likely term that a reader would type in" is a reason for deletion of a redirect in mainspace, but not in draftspace. In draftspace, there are reasons to keep:
(1) as a clear message to the previous author, that they should go to the redirect target.
(2) to avoid broken bookmarks by the previous author.
(3) In anticipation of a future new editor thinking to draft under this title. As it happened once, it mus be assumed possible to happen again.
Note especially, redirects are cheap, much cheaper than deletion, and this is not mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:52nd Street (song)[edit]

Draft:52nd Street (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non-notable song, an album track which did not chart. The user who started this draft has been edit-warring it into mainspace.[2] Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Redirect, with temporary protection. A valid drafting idea, but the IP is wrong, mainspace may not link to draftspace. I think it is very unlikely the cmmunity will agree to a standalone article for this song, as the appropriate place for everything that can be said is at 52nd Street (album). No opposition to "delete and redirect", if someone wants to use deletion as a behavioural remediation hammer, but the redirect serves to inform future editors that improvement to coverage of the song should be done at the article 52nd Street (album), and any associated discussion belongs Talk:52nd Street (album). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Half a Mile Away[edit]

Draft:Half a Mile Away (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non-notable song, an album track which did not chart. The user who started this draft has been edit-warring it into mainspace.[3] Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Redirect, with temporary protection. A valid drafting idea, but the IP is wrong, mainspace may not link to draftspace. I think it is very unlikely the cmmunity will agree to a standalone article for this song, as the appropriate place for everything that can be said is at 52nd Street (album). No opposition to "delete and redirect", if someone wants to use deletion as a behavioural remediation hammer, but the redirect serves to inform future editors that improvement to coverage of the song should be done at the article 52nd Street (album), and any associated discussion belongs Talk:52nd Street (album). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fart[edit]

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

What is this page for exactly? The edit came in Huggle. I speedied but reverted when I saw the edit history by administrators. Marvellous Spider-Man 12:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

After reading the last good version, I can say that this nomination could be withdrawn. Due to the IP edits and the page name, it didn't look encyclopedic at that time. Thank you. --Marvellous Spider-Man 12:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are too many weak attempts at so-called humorous essays attempting educational insight into the concept of Wikipedia:Notability, this one is particularly weak, but worst, it associates negatively with a living person, and has done since the first version. Better non-BLP infringing WP:BIO focused essays exist, (eg Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground), and far better treatments of the subject exist (eg User:Greg L/Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • As the original author, I of course don't think this should be deleted. The purpose of this, is not specifically directed at individual articles, rather, trivial content within articles about notable people. One does not need to include every trivial tidbit of every famous person's life in their article (which is the premise, not every fart is notable). The specific Bill Clinton example (for reference) was actually something that someone intended to include in an article. Did it happen, yes, is it relevant to their encyclopedic biography, no. --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

User:105.228.66.178/sandbox[edit]

User:105.228.66.178/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplicate of User:NiGoRa/sandbox Auric talk 00:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete in favour of User:NiGoRa/sandbox (please double check that they are exactly the same). Presumably, NiGoRa (talk · contribs) accidentally saved it there having logged out and in again during edits in a separate tab or browser, or some random mix up. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

August 21, 2016[edit]

User talk:Ilyushka88/February 2007[edit]

User talk:Ilyushka88/February 2007 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Ilyushka88/August 2007 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Ilyushka88/April 2008 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Ilyushka88/June 2008 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Ilyushka88/August 2008 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Ilyushka88/June 2009 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Ilyushka88/August 2009 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Ilyushka88/December 2009 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Ilyushka88/January 2010 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Ilyushka88/April 2010 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Ilyushka88/July 2010 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Ilyushka88/February 2011 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Ilyushka88/April 2011 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Ilyushka88/April 2012 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Ilyushka88/February 2013 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Ilyushka88/July 2013 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Ilyushka88/July 2016 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Non needed Archive pages of user talk, since I changed to use simplier "archive 1", "archive 2" etc... method. Contents have been copied to newer archive pages. Ilyushka88 | Talk! Contribs 18:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete all per WP:CSD#G7. User:Metropolitan90 was correct to note that the requested WP:CSD#U1 doesn't apply to the User_talk namespace, but he failed to note that these are all just copy-paste-archives for which the user is the sole author, and are therefore speediable under the G7 criterion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all. It's unclear to me that WP:CSD#G7 applies to user talk archive pages, because the "substantial content of the page" was not all created by User:Ilyushka88; it was created by other users responding on User talk:Ilyushka88. Nevertheless, I am supporting deletion because I understand that Ilyushka has copied the content of the monthly archive pages to numbered archive pages. I had removed speedy tags from a bunch of the monthly pages, but I stopped once I realized that Ilyushka had switched to using the numbered archive pages. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I note that users are allowed to blank their talk pages without archiving. I think it follows that they may archive and then delete their archives, as long as no other users talk edits are deleted.
Personally, I find talk page blankers and talk page move-archivers to be borderline disruptive, and only slightly less so users who never archive eventually rendering their talk page inaccessible.
My wish is that all accounts should have basic automated archival set up by default on account creation. Here, "minthreadsleft = 4" especially, is an example of suitable default parameters. This is alongside auto-welcoming.
Not sure where to best say this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, that is an awesome idea in my opinion. Although I am not sure how much that might load the bots. It might be the problem. Ilyushka88 | Talk! Contribs 21:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment as you can see here, the archive nav box was quite a mess and had loads of red links since I've had longer pauses from editing Wikipedia. That's why I decided to use numbered archive pages instead. It should simplify everything. Ilyushka88 | Talk! Contribs 23:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

August 20, 2016[edit]

Draft:William Crockford[edit]

Draft:William Crockford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft from November 2015 for a non-notable musician. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as there's nothing for convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as promotion. No independent references, promotional links (old, now broken at that), young musician, = promotion verging WP:CSD#G11. Ricky81682, User:SwisterTwister, why this obstinate refusal to accept community consensus that "notability" (the standalone article guideline) doesn't apply to draftspace (Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_58#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F), in cases like this where there is an obviously applicable non-controversial WP:DEL#REASON in the policy WP:NOTPROMOTION. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • SmokeyJoe I'm not arguing that the notability guidelines apply. I'm arguing that this is a draft from months ago about something that isn't notable. The RFC did indicate support for the possible inverse: that a draft that is not notable can be part of a reason for deletion but being not notable is not sufficient to being a reason to delete. Would WP:WEBHOST be an argument or some variation of that? It's the lack of evidence that it will ever be notable in contrast to something like say Draft:David Finkelstein (politician) or Draft:Alpha (film) where suggesting deletion is likely inappropriate. I don't think it's purely promotional as it looks with the infobox more like a draft than purely promotional. Otherwise I'd G11 tag it myself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I am just exhibiting mild frustration that you repeatedly fail to state explicitly straightforward reasons for deletion, reasons that I am sure are in you mind, specifically the explicit capital P Policy reasons WP:PROMOTION and/or WP:WEBHOST, and instead mention only obliquely the non-policy notability issue, and I guess, the "old" issue. RfCs are affirmed the obvious, that notability and age are not per se reasons for deletion of drafts.
Of course, in judging NOTPROMOTION and NOTWEBHOST, the possibility of notability becomes an issue to escape these policy lines, but the WP:NOT policy lines belong upfront.
This is a little bit about ease for me in reviewing MfD nominations, wanting to have a well-argued deletion reason, but it is also about the author who will come back some random time later. It is extremely bad if the logs point them to a discussion that shows a consensus to delete per an invalid reason while failing to direct them to the page they need to read, WP:NOT.
I'm note sure that the is quite G11-able, but I wouldn't object. If it is not quite G11, please be explicit with the policy based reason (almost always some WP:NOT issue). I would make me much happier. I am very happy to be able to run down the nominations and repeatedly !vote "delete per nom", but some diligence is required because not all nominations are appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Four Hearts Movement[edit]

Draft:Four Hearts Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft from 2015 for what seems like a non-notable movement. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Thrillofgambling.com[edit]

Draft:Thrillofgambling.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non-AFC draft for a non-notable website. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as promotion, not per the nomination statement. Allegedly non-notable movements are welcome in draftspace if they does read as promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Raag the band[edit]

Draft:Raag the band (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Promotional draft for a non-notable band. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as promotion, notability not being a reason for deletion from draftspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Order of battle of the 91st Infantry Division[edit]

Draft:Order of battle of the 91st Infantry Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

November 2014 draft about a German infantry division. From what I can tell, this is already covered by 91st Infantry Division (Wehrmacht) but I don't see the purpose of a separate page on the order of battle for the division. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

  • 'Delete Agree, even if there were a few iterations, the division article should be able to cope with them. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Appears to be someone's notes (references?) for improvement of the mainspace article. Not a WP:UP#COPIES issue. Don't delete, as the user who created the page may need to go back to these notes to continue his past intention of improving the article. Advise him to do it directly in mainspace, or to make use of the article talk page for the notes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Lifeism[edit]

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

Hopeless case, abandoned by the WP:SPA that created it. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

August 19, 2016[edit]

Draft:Suzanne S. Welsh[edit]

Draft:Suzanne S. Welsh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Substantially the same as previously deleted at AfD for lack of notability; pls see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Sagendorph Welsh and Talk page: Draft talk:Suzanne S. Welsh. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as no improvement on versions deleted at AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC).
  • Keep for now, wait until it is inactive fir a substantial amount of time before considering deletion. It brings no harm to wait a little bit. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 01:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Draft has been around for a month with no improvement and no prospect of any. It's time for it to go. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC).
  • If this helps, the two editors who advocated keeping the draft and then moved it back into main space were both indefinitely banned. Hence the discussion on the Talk page of the draft. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not webhost or memorial service. The AfD proved that the subject was clearly not notable. The 2 editors who had advocated keeping it have been since indeffed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per the AfD. Nearly a notable biography, arguably is per some opinions, but the AfD result was clear. Wikipedia:Alternative outlets give a kind explanation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/SimonWeller[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/SimonWeller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 16:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 23:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft from March 2013 that was later created (and deleted per G13) at Draft:Simon Weller. The draft version has actual sources so if someone thinks it's worth working on, it's better to restore the draftspace version than keeping this one. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 23:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Plausibly notable person, but far from definitely so. Could be more promotion than notability, but it takes serious effort to be sure. If the draft was better, it was definitely a draft with potential, far better than the overwhelming cruft that motivated G13. It is probably time with wind back non-discriminationing G13 deletions. Prefer to move to draftspace, and remove any AfC tags that enable G13 deletion. Or if the deleted version is better, undelete it, remove the AfC template, and redirect this page to it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
    • SmokeyJoe As noted, the draft version has actual sources so if this is plausibly notable, I'd suggest we delete this version and restore the draft version for further work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I think this is an example of compounding problems due to excessive deletionism. Undelete the deleted version, and merge the two together. As the to merge and content issues, XfD is not cleanup. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Well that draft was an AFC draft deleted due to G13. The alternative view is that this should be deleted to follow the G13 deletion but we can restore the draft version for further work without a need to restore this version since there's nothing sourced here needed for merger. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
          • I supported the creation of G13, because AfC had produced such massive amounts of cruft. It was understood that some gems would be deleted with the dust. Here we have found a rough gem. Recreations of the G13-deleted draft immediately suggests that the topic is not typical dust. Examination reveals plausible notability. I think in these cases, the page should be undeleted. Undecided on whether it should be blanked with an explanatory note, but next time someone comes along interested in drafting on this subject, they should be able to immediately find past efforts. Suggesting that they decipher Wikipedia culture and go to WP:REFUND to request access in several hours is not a good thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Marianneslam/Scalable Capital[edit]

User:Marianneslam/Scalable Capital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 16:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft page for mainspace article Scalable Capital, which is also nominated for deletion. Created by SPA, so this has no purpose other than to promote it. -- P 1 9 9   13:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I have supported the deletion of the mainspace article as a WP:CORP failure, and if that article is deleted I then support deletion of this highly related copy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

User:S@bre/StarCraft Ghost: Nova[edit]

User:S@bre/StarCraft Ghost: Nova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 16:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 03:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft from July 2007 with a lack of attribution. The mainspace version at StarCraft Ghost: Nova in May 2007 by someone else, but the attribution isn't there and has been a redirect since May 2008. After this much time, if the editor wants to try to create a draft, then they can argue for a split of the history and work on it but it's been almost a decade with no improvement. The text remains in the history of the mainspace one so there's nothing gained from having this one. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect. No reason to ask for deletion when a simple edit is obvious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Portal:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan[edit]

Portal:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 16:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 03:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Portal is effectively a duplicate of Portal:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa with the same subject, and created after the latter. I suggest deleting it and its sub-pages. Mar4d (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 02:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Just archive all PortalSpace. Its time has long since past. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Arithilim/Draft of Spencer Smith article[edit]

User:Arithilim/Draft of Spencer Smith article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Usercopy of an old revision of Spencer Smith (musician) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

August 18, 2016[edit]

User:Tikeem cumberbatch uttp tcgp own[edit]

User:Tikeem cumberbatch uttp tcgp own (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Like Supreme Genghis Khan, this troll seems to feed off having their sockpuppets tagged, as I've frequently seem them ask for their accounts to be tagged, and I think they should be given the same WP:DENY treatment as Supreme Genghis Khan by having this page, the corresponding user talk page and the userpages of their sockpuppets deleted.

Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 09:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Mixed It has both positives and negatives:

Positive: This troll might stop making more sockpuppets.
Negative: We won't have the ability to track how many sockpuppets this user has created.
That's my thoughts.--Whispy Woods (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


And semi-protect the LTA page too, since we dont want him vandalizing it and needing to state it on the page. Clubjustin Talkosphere 15:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think an LTA page is justified for this moron, just RBI, rinse and repeat. The tagged socks should stay, but we should preferably refrain from tagging more. Also, these guys love SPI attention, so just use AIV for a faster and more discreet response. GABgab 15:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@GeneralizationsAreBad: I think we should do a LTA page this jerk has has vandalized for a long time. There is a ban discussion at WP:ANI and you can reply there. I would not delete it. Just create the LTA and semi protect it so this idiot doesn't vandalize he should get one trust me he vandalized for a long time. --74.138.121.153 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Have to agree with what GeneralizationsAreBad said. I think we should simply leave the older sockpuppet userpages alone. RBI and reporting to AIV seems to be working just fine. Also, is a long-term abuse page really necessary for this (fairly well known) vandal? Tikeem gets a kick out of socktags and the SPI page, so I fear creating the LTA would only be giving them what they want. Sro23 (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all, salt any LTA page, and disregard all sockpuppets in this MfD. WP:DENY should be applied to users such as this. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all: per WP:DENY. Semi-protect his LTA page to prevent being vandalized, no matter this troll gets. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 10:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong delete all userspace pages, rename attack usernames and deny recognition. There is absolutely no need to keep track on whatever socks this chit is churning out lately. As per my rationale on the SGK MfD page, tagging only feeds the troll, and Linguist 111 was right about the consequences of leaving a paper trail over him. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'll start preparing an LTA page, if that's okay with everyone. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 11:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I oppose that proposal. It gives this person the kind of recognition he craves and doesn't really add any value. Favonian (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
What he does is blatant and flagrant anyway. An LTA page for a troll like him would be superfluous when 'tis just the matter of RBIng any of his socks. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all and do not make an LTA page. BethNaught (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all but make an LTA page: Same as MG. Same as SGK. Seems to be effective for both. Tikeem is just an even more childish version of SGK. My vote is, we give him the same treatment. Should it become apparent that Tikeem is deriving sufficient amusement just from having an LTA page, we can delete that too. — 24.15.68.186's vote – taken from semi-protected edit request. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 15:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment see CU comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AntiSemiTruckFan106 that this and several other prolific socks are all the same person - Incorigible Troll. Nthep (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Nthep: I was under the impression that AntiSemiTruckFan106 = Incorrigible Troll, who just used the names of other sockmasters (like SGK). ("...the 'master' is Incorrigible Troll... these are all the aforementioned Troll.") Am I missing something?GABgab 14:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
      • @GeneralizationsAreBad: SGK, Tikeem etc are all Incorrigible Troll so creating separate LTAs is pointless. The only person we have to deny is IT. Nthep (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Well, that's news to me - wow. GABgab 14:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
          • I had a feeling Genghis Khan and Tikeem were the same person... Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 15:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
            • Strike my last, serves me right for trying to make sense of something when I have flu and am feeling lightheaded. Nthep (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:DENY, but make an LTA page as reference for unfamiliar administrators to prevent future socks from being tagged, and to accelerate the sock identification process. Semi protect to prevent vandalism by Tikeem socks. — 59.7.114.36's vote – taken from semi-protected edit request. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 12:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong delete all and protect Barack Obama image so he can't spam. — 68.119.9.106's vote – taken from semi-protected edit request. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 12:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's almost as if daddy is doing all of the router rebooting, and little jr is typing in the account names and the vandalism. Same treatment as SGK. — 116.105.160.101's vote – taken from semi-protected edit request. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 13:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete! Delete! Delete! And do not salt the LTA page! 46.223.1.61 (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Moved from the talkpage. GABgab 01:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

August 16, 2016[edit]

Draft:Eric Poe[edit]

Draft:Eric Poe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An article about this person was already deleted once. Topher385 (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  • No helpful links?
A previous G11 does not necessarily prejudice a later different creation. It was only days ago, have you asked the G11 deleting admin User:Seraphimblade to comment?
The draft does not look G11-able to me. The author has made an admirable effort. I don't think the subject passes WP:BIO. I suggest a merge and redirect to CURE Auto Insurance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I can confirm that this is not the same version that I deleted under G11. Other than that, I don't particularly have an opinion on this version. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your feedback. I'm new to the Wikipedia community so please let me know if I'm not supposed to respond like this. I thought I'd pick up a new hobby of writing about people/businesses/nonprofits from NJ and it's much harder than I anticipated! I did rewrite the article to limit the cites to better sources - government websites, huffingtonpost.com, nj.com, njbiz.com, etc. I modeled this article after other individuals such as Arthur Bloom, George Norcross, etc. and it seemed to be similar in notability, content and citations. (Initially I modeled it after more well-known businessmen such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet but scaled it back after it was deleted based on the comments I received.) Originally I had drafted this as part of my CURE page but I thought it did not work because of the discussion on physician malpractice reform. Perhaps this is better as a stub submission? I'd hate for my research to go to waste so any suggestions you have would be appreciated. Thank you, hmariez —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Topher385, can you assist me with my questions above? Thank you. Hmariez (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Hmariez, I advise you to not write new articles until you have experience improving existing articles. If you think you have a worthy new topic, it will first have mentions in multiple other articles, mentions that you can improve. If not, if your new topic is a near WP:ORPHAN, you may be wrong about it being worthy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

August 15, 2016[edit]

August 14, 2016[edit]

August 12, 2016[edit]

Draft:Dwight Russel Micnhimer[edit]

Draft:Dwight Russel Micnhimer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, Dwight Russel Micnhimer. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Translation/Abdulhussain Abdulredha[edit]

Wikipedia:Translation/Abdulhussain Abdulredha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Translation/Khalil Motran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Translation/Yahya Haqqi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These pages (which relate to a system deprecated since 2009) don't appear to contain any info that is likely to be of historical interest. These could be replaced by redirects (e.g. to Wikipedia:Translation/*/In Progress), but I don't see any benefit in doing that. If this results in delete/redirect then the same should also be done to other pages below Category:Translation In Progress etc. The main purpose of this deletion is to reduce unnecessary clutter in Category:Inactive project pages (which I think is really intended for failed proposals etc) - e.g. see comment at Category talk:Inactive project pages. DexDor (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Lacks explanation of why the extra work of MfD is needed when redirection is an option.
Justifying MfD work on the basis of a maintenance category being cluttered with maintenance is well on the way to a circular busywork absurdity. If Category:Inactive project pages is generating maintenance needs, better to delete the category. However, I am sure there is an automated/bot method that can be conceived to sort uninteresting Category:Inactive project pages into subcategories. Come back only when there is a bona fide reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

August 9, 2016[edit]

User:Lilduff90/NanoWars[edit]

User:Lilduff90/NanoWars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Lilduff90/Isaac Cort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Lilduff90/Dev-BOT 226A (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 03:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Userspace draft for a video game "tentatively" set to be released in 2009 (which may or may not have happened, the name is somewhat commons) with no evidence of any potential for being useful. Also including two other pages for fictional characters in the same game. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • DeleteKeep Abandoned userspace drafts where the topics don't meet WP:GNG and have no references. I used a few search engines and I couldn't find anything about the game besides these drafts, so it likely wasn't released. Per SmokeyJoe, I have changed my !vote to keep. The drafts are unlikely to make it to mainspace, but the RfC's consensus (and WP:STALE, which was updated to reflect the RfC) shows that drafts generally shouldn't be deleted for not meeting notability. It's also currently abandoned, but drafts don't expire. Sunmist3 (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_58#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F. The community was very clear that the GNG is not a test to apply to userspace drafts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and replace with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. There is no advantage to deleting, and deleting is needlessly alienating to the user. I note that the user is active, and the nominator made no attempt to discuss before nominating at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

August 8, 2016[edit]

User:Allenkelly/Madware[edit]

User:Allenkelly/Madware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It doesn't serve a purpose, confusing, implausible redirect Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Retracted, I !vote for a move to general draftspace and removal of the redirect. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

  • You mistagged the mainspace article. I fixed the userpage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

August 7, 2016[edit]

Draft:Power Rangers (disambiguation)[edit]

Draft:Power Rangers (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is no need for a draft for a disambiguation page, especially when it doesn't seem to be needed. Power Rangers (disambiguation) does not exist as Power Rangers properly links to the main franchise article itself. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep - I don't see a problem with the page, especially when it links to some interesting articles and actually disambiguates. -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 11:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @MorbidEntree: but why keep it here? There is no disambiguation used in mainspace and it's not like there's some magic point where a disambiguation becomes the right quality to be put into mainspace. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Either Delete or Move to mainspace. I don't think drafting of disambiguation pages in draftspace is a good idea, even the simplest first version of a disambiguation page belongs in mainspace. I posted a note at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Drafting_disambiguation_pages_in_DraftSpace to draw the attention of editors involved in the maintenance of disambiguation pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The first response there, by a disambiguation expert, indicates that this is a non-issue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Move to mainspace; this is useful. — Gorthian (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

August 6, 2016[edit]

Wikipedia:Help desk/RD tip 1 (plain)[edit]

Wikipedia:Help desk/RD tip 1 (plain) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Help desk/RD tip 2 (section) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to {{HD/rd}} and other {{HD}} subtemplates. Pppery (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to {{HD/rd}} or {{HD}}, better to redirect in the case of redundancies in case the nominated pages are linked to. -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 12:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
@MorbidEntree: While, Wikipedia:Help desk/RD tip 1 (plain) serves exactly the same function as {{HD/rd}}, there is no one help desk template that could replace Wikipedia:Help desk/RD tip 2 (section). Instead there is one help desk template for each reference desk. Pppery (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
@Pppery: Perhaps a new subpage should be made under {{HD}} to move Wikipedia:Help desk/RD tip 2 (section) to? -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 13:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Instead of a new subpage, how about redirecting [[Wikipedia:Help desk/RD tip 2 (section)] to Template:HD/rd, and adding to Template:HD/rd a noinclude documentation which lists the different variants for individual desks? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
@Meni Rosenfeld: So merge Wikipedia:Help desk/RD tip 2 (section) with {{HD/rd}} and include a documentation page that explains how to use it and it's two variants? -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 00:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

August 5, 2016[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Spier Contemporary[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Spier Contemporary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Old draft from April 2013. It seems to be the subject at Africa_Centre#Spier_Contemporary in mainspace which only indicates that it was done in 2008 and 2010 which makes its notability as a separate project questionable. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep This project is notable in its own right - separate from the Africa Centre. Each iteration was an exhibition and showcase of over a hundred contemporary artworks from across that South African art world (from experienced artists to lesser known, newbie artists). Although it took over the banner from the more controversial Kebbel Art Awards, since its last iteration, there has not been such a platform for South African contemporary art and there should be. It was a snapshot of South African society during the years prior to and during the world cup.
The article does need a lot of work, which is why it is still in the incubator (although it has been in there far too long). I will work on it. Isla Haddow (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
This draft has nothing here. Why not just start with a new draft at Draft:Spier Contemporary rather than keeping this skeleton page hidden away here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Although a few others may disagree, I think that is bad advice, bad advice to start drafting when there is coverage in mainspace at Africa_Centre#Spier_Contemporary. The editor should be advised to improve the content at Africa_Centre#Spier_Contemporary, live in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay - go ahead and delete it. I will expand this section on Africa_Centre#Spier_Contemporary instead. Isla Haddow (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Paul Cole - King[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Paul Cole - King (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft from December 2014 for an unclear person who was allegedly "instrumental" in getting a museum started. I can't find the name as either history or staff so it's unclear how this person was helpful other than them possibly being this author. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep.
(1) It is just a draft;
(2) The information so far drafted is plausible and non-contentious;
(3) Malawi is a place where sources are difficult to find, and deleting drafts due to not being able to quickly verify is a big problem of systematic bias.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
It could be contentious if this person had nothing to do with the actual museum and it's just nonsense. I agree that it's difficult to find sources but even assuming this was in the US, we wouldn't have articles on every person allegedly "instrumental" in the creation of every museum so on its face there's nothing that even claims notability that isn't already inherited from the museum itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
That's all true. Again (similar to some other MfDs), the draft is inappropriate because if the material belongs anywhere it clearly belongs in Chichiri Museum. That article looks like an early 2001 article. I suggest merge and redirect to a new section at Talk:Chichiri Museum. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I have done the merge, with sufficient in-text attribution to Michaelphoya (talk · contribs), at Talk:Chichiri_Museum#Paul_Cole-King.2C_or_others.2C_instrumental_in_the_establishment_of_the_museum. His wife's obituary I found, which demonstrates that he existed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep.

Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Chiyao[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Chiyao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Renominating for deletion. One sentence unsourced draft from December 2014 that is already covered by Yao language (this is another term for the same language). Contrary to what was suggested before, we don't have alternative articles for different terms for the same language and there is already an actual cited source for the population in mainspace so I don't see the need to merge in an uncited statement about the population. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. Still no reason to delete. Organizing content in mainspace, by merging and leaving redirects, is the standard practice and a good thing to do. Doing the same thing outside mainspace is probably a completely worthless use of effort, tedious, no benefit, no problems removed, but if that's how you want to volunteer your time, go ahead, any bad edits can be reverted at any time. However, bringing them to MfD is overkill at best and recklessly destructive at worst. MfD is not well used to force cleanup of obscure pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
    • All the empty pages were deleted from this dead project. There's still a mass of copyright problems I keep finding and deleting from these pages. Useful pages are being moved to mainspace or merged with their relevant articles. Why is deleting this page because of the single sentence such a terrible idea when the pages without a single sentence can easily be deleted without dispute? Should I have just removed this as an unsourced sentence and argue for it deletion that way? I have no idea what you want here. Do you actually want someone to go back to this obscure page and work on it knowing full well that a mainspace page exists? Why? So that their work continues to lie in complete obscurity or so that someone else hopefully finds it and make it useful? Is the purpose here to create an encyclopedia or just to store scraps of lines people make while seeing if it randomly creates something useful eventually? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
      • It is not already sufficiently covered in the Yao language article. It is not merely an alternative English name, although some English thought so. More work is needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the page should be editorially redirected to Yao language. There is no need, or point to deletion, and deletion is alienating to its authors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Drafts should be encouraged not discouraged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulky mulky (talkcontribs) Blocked sock. MER-C 12:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see any reason to keep this. From what I managed to gather, Chiyao means "Yao Language" and at best this should be a redirect (which is already present in mainspace). In addition, the content in the draft (one single unsourced sentence) is already present in the mainspace at Yao_people_(East_Africa)#Language and is unsourced as well. Since we have a redirect in the mainspace and we also have the content, I see no reason to keep this draft. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete There's no reason to keep this - it's never going to be an article. Someone leaving their drink on the lid of a garbage can might come back for it in a minute. After a day, there's no chance. 24.210.156.247 (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

July 31, 2016[edit]

User:Jannerud/Jan Nerud Engineer Producer[edit]

User:Jannerud/Jan Nerud Engineer Producer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft from 2011 Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. I don't see a reason to delete this. Malarky snarky (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment struck as account is subject to a CheckUser block.  — Scott talk 19:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Stale drafts", as in pages that are merely "stale drafts", should be blanked with the template {{Inactive userpage blanked}} instead of being brought to MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Draft about a non-notable engineer. There is no evidence that this is a work in progress and there is no evidence that there is a likelihood of this becoming notable in the future. Rather than replacing the page with a template, the editor has been notified about this and if they return and they (or anyone else) thinks it's a worthy topic, it can be WP:REFUNDED. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, "now that we are here", however I think User:TenPoundHammer should have blanked it with the template. Deleting because it can be refunded if deleted is somewhat loopy logic, when the wiki is already working as a wiki.
Admittedly, I was influenced by the word "Engineeer". When I look closely, including at the sources, I see promotion, and would have immediately agreed if the nomination sought deletion due to it being essentially promotion of music. Promotion is listed at WP:NOT, unlike "Stale draft from 2011". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

July 29, 2016[edit]

Draft:Android File System[edit]

Draft:Android File System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 19:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft from October. Seems like a weird mix of an app description, a comparison page for different file system and a how-to guide on the file system, all unsourced unfortunately. It seems unnecessary to have an article on the file systems themselves. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - Eh. User is "active" in the sense of having edited recently and the content is not necessarily out of scope. Unsourced and problematic, hence weak keep, but there's a chance the user could revisit it and turn it into a comparison article, less the how-to. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The creator you mean. It's not technically in a user's userspace but in draftspace for all editors presumably. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

July 20, 2016[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Kambwe massacre[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Kambwe massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 15:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Empty skeleton page from December 2014. No sources nor discussion but the topic seems to be referenced or at least better at the Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Karonga Wars draft and at the Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Mlozi the Slaver. The other drafts seem at least plausible enough to work on while this can be reconsidered later for a spin-off article (plus there could be a bit of WP:NPOV issue with the title). Ricky81682 (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is something useful here. I am finding stuff, but not reliable, on a Kambwe Massacre of slaves, dated 26th October 1887. Wikipedia seems to be missing the information, which would belong at Karonga#History, third paragraph. I think it is plausible, and am not worried by the title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not arguing about plausibility, I think rather the content could better be served by a more neutral name than "massacre" such as focusing on the wars or battles or the person. Any article being created would literally be a draft from scratch and this hasn't been touched in over 18 months. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • It is a worthy draft, although I would have it merged as above. Massacre is definitely the right word. 1100 slaves lured, massacred, burned with crocodiles cleaning up. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
        • It's a single unsourced sentence. Please be serious here and not just reflexively oppose. Any draft that would come out of this would literally be one step removed from creating this from scratch (and that's excluding the removal of the nonsense interwiki links and headers). If you want to take on that task, fine, userify it to your user page for whatever reason you want but otherwise there are already two pages on the same topic that already cite sources so why are you wasting this much time supporting keeping this sentence around? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
          • I believe it is sourceable, either that or there is a very strange historical hoax at play. It is not a reflexive oppose, I spent fifteen minutes looking into the topic and the surrounding history, the full story is on facebook but it rings true. In my books, that makes it good enough for a draft topic. The topic comes from a remote part of the third world, it is hard to find sources online, but sources online is not a criteria for drafting. No, I don't want to userfy it, it is already located suitably.
"there are already two pages on the same topic that already cite sources"? I don't know what you are talking about ... --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
... if you mean that this page could be well-merged to Draft:Mlozi_bin_Kazbadema#Kambwe_Massacre, well that is not a reason for deletion. Talking "spinoff"s on drafts doesn't seem a productive activity if you are not working yourself on the drafts, and I am very sure the possible NPOV issue is no issue at all. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
There is noting to merge. If i wanted to merge these drafts, I would do that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. If reliable sources are found, a new article can be started. There is nothing here worth keeping, nor anything to merge. -- P 1 9 9   17:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That's not true. That there was a massacre, and who orchestrated it, is verifiable and important information. Both this massacre and the slave trader are missing notable topics. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • None of which is reflected in this single sentence. If the other drafts are better served renamed or split or whatever (and that's assuming they go into mainspace), it would be better to just rename them than to argue to keep this one sentence draft in the hopes that someone will take this one draft along to mainspace for whatever bizarre reason. If you want to work on adding the content here, then do so but what is the point of keeping this around just because you like the name? WP:Requested articles exists as a place to keep track of names for articles that are useful, not empty drafts sitting around indefinitely. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The points you make that are valid speak to redirecting, not to deleting. By seeking to deleting, you are being destructive of other's place markers, at the very least, and are forcing them to respond on your timetable. Why?
The Kambwe Massacre is a missing topic, and this deletion nomination seeks to make backward step. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Redirecting where then? There is no article on this topic. If you want to suggest that all these drafts be redirected around to each other and either (a) one and then all will be deleted as G7's or (b) something goes to mainspace and it's a bunch of double redirects to be bot fixed, fine but it's literally a single unsourced sentence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
You want to delete drafts for not having explicit sources? I don't think the community supports that, posts at WT:Drafts show that some poeple would hold DraftSpace to a much lower standard than that. The drafts single sentence, and title, represent good ideas, and the ideas shouldn't be deleted for mere lack of included sources. As I have indicated, sources exist. It is an obscure history, 150 years ago deep in Afrika. Both Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Stubs/Karonga Wars & Draft:Mlozi bin Kazbadema are much better looking drafts, mainspace-worthy in my opinion. This massacre, definitely a massacre, should be mentioned in both. But this does not mean that deletion is appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

July 19, 2016[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipack Africa Content/List of teams and cyclists in the 2013 Tour de France[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipack Africa Content/List of teams and cyclists in the 2013 Tour de France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I can see no good reason for a Wikiproject to copy articles that are not in its topic area into its wikiproject space - and when they are doing so without attribution (see WP:CWW) and without doing the basics such as removing category tags that are not appropriate on the copied page then the project should stop what they are doing and rethink. DexDor (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

well... it was user:Kelson who proposed to do it this way to work on the content to put on http://en.africapack.kiwix.org/wiki/Main_Page. The general idea was to prepare the content to put on the wiki on wikipedia itself, then to move it automatically through a bot system. Since the dozen of articles selected are meant to be "copies" of the Wikipedia article, then I obviously plan to keep the categories for the export
please note that I copied less than 10 articles and put an attribution tag on all the others. I just did not do this one yet because I saw earlier on that you were not happy about our solution. Accordingly, I stopped copying the articles (and forgot to put the last attribution tag), whilst trying to figure out a practical solution.
... so I understand you might consider it disrupting... but there is actually a good reason I kept those categories and to be fair... I think it is not up to you to consider what is in the topic area of our project and what is not.
I would appreciate that you do not start deleting the content I worked on before I found a solution. Clearly, we are not welcome. Fine. But it would be nice that we get the time to find another way of doing it. Thanks Anthere (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
You appear to have copied at least 10 articles (plus pages from the Help namespace etc) - none of them with attribution. With a wide range of subjects covered (picked at random?) I was concerned that you might be considering doing thousands more - thus adding lots of clutter to article categories. You may argue that the disruption to categorization would only be temporary, but I don't think you should be disrupting other editors/readers even temporarily and experience has shown that such things are often abandoned leaving others to clean up the mess (example).
This copying of articles into wikiproject space has been going on for over a month - e.g. this was created by you on 8th June and blanked (by myself) on the 14th. These pages are appearing on database queries that I check (mainly checking for incorrectly categorized pages) and also in maintenance categories that other editors check (example edit).
It's pretty obvious that an article about the 2013 Tour de France isn't about an African topic - its talk page is not tagged for any African wikiprojects (and it probably shouldn't be).
Why don't you just create a list of the articles that you want to take a copy of? (with links either to the latest version or to a revision that you've checked for vandalism etc). DexDor (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The exact list of pages I have copied is listed here : Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipack Africa Content/Wikipedia:Showcase. Within that list, the only articles I copied are the following. All together, they make 7 articles (NOT AT LEAST a dozen). 4 of those have attribution template at the bottom of the pages (check them out please)

Out of those 7 articles, 4 were already taggued with attribution (please check out one of those, I think it is a perfectly acceptable template : {{WikiFundi credit attribution|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heterodontosaurus&oldid=728209043|title=Heterodontosaurus}} with Template:WikiFundi credit attribution. I was working on the articles and debug the site yesterday, so yes, all attributions templates were not yet in place. I based that template over the translation template. I think it is fine, but if you think it is not fine as is, please suggest changes. I'll be happy to get some feedback on those.
There will be a grand total of less of 30 articles concerned overall.
So yes, I will revert those articles back and I will remove the categories and will put them back manually in the software. Fine. Does that satisfy you ? Let me try on one article and tell me if that is ok.

does that page satisfies you ? Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipack Africa Content/Baleen whale ?

No, I do not want to do a list. The reason is that I will slightly modify the articles for the final import. Such as removing templates if we really can not identify how to import them properly. Or removing certain elements to simplify the appearance.

I forgot Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipack Africa Content/Wikipedia Zero in my list...

As for your comment about me letting others cleaning my mess at Category:Articles in Wikipedia Primary School Project SSAJRP, I would actually love it if others were helping me cleaning up the mess. But fact is no one is helping me and I will do it alone. I am trying my best but since Wikimania, I am swamped in work and I struggle doing it all. I will fix this category, I promise. So if you could please refrain from such comments and remember that we are all here trying to help humanity and hoping to do the good thing, I would really really appreciate. You know... Assume Good Faith and that... really please DexDor. Ok ? Anthere (talk)

Other pages that have contained copies of articles are Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipack Africa Content/Sinenjongo High School, Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipack Africa Content/copyleft and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipack Africa Content/open source. Unfortunately, we've seen (good-faith) projects in the past that were a net negative to En Wp (e.g. IEP). DexDor (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there's any content worth merging, then it can be merged and remain a redirect but it doesn't seem like it's happening. Otherwise, it seems like there's a habit (not point to User:Anthere in particular as it's been happening for years from others as well) for people to propose grand projects either at meta or other places and for some reason their solution is almost always to come to English and enact them, creating elaborate structures and discussions here but without a discussion here as to what makes sense in terms of a project and without any effort to get interest here other than after the proposal is supposedly complete or in progress and then annoyance or anger that people here aren't in board with a project that's been discussed for months or even longer on an entirely different project without any input from the other volunteers here. I'm not exactly sure what the project is meant to do here but I think "create a copy of the mainspace page and edit it on our own and then either move/force/merge the content in" seems like a poorly designed way to go forward. I suggest that people use WP:VPP, especially the idea lab area, or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and propose what they want to do before jumping into these kinds of things, which often seem to die out as the initial person loses interest. As for Category:Articles in Wikipedia Primary School Project SSAJRP, WP:BOTREQUEST would be a simple solution to fixing the tagging but I still have no idea what the actual project proposes to do other than what seems like a bunch of vague, high-level talking points about its challenges and goals. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The Bot Request seems a good idea enough. Except that no one answered the request in several days... accordingly, I will start doing it by hand today. Anthere (talk)
Thanks for removing the category tags (e.g.) - the category has now been deleted. Note: I don't know why a project that added category tags by hand thinks that removing them should be done by bot. DexDor (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The suggestion is just as a matter of speed. It was doable via AWB since it's pretty consistent work. Either way, delete these articles and we can see if there's another method of how this project can work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.