Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion)
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.

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.

Edit PageName:

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

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


if nominating several related pages in an umbrella nomination.


if you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
  • Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
  • Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
  • Save the page
Create its MfD subpage.

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

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

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

Follow   this edit link   and add a line to the top of the list:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".
  • Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
    Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
  • If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.
  • If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
    For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

    {{subst:MFDWarning|PageName}} ~~~~

    to their talk page, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as

    Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
  • If you are nominating a Portal, please make a note of your nomination here and consider using the portal guidelines in your nomination.
  • If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions[edit]

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

Current discussions[edit]

Pages currently being considered 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.

October 21, 2016[edit]

October 20, 2016[edit]

User:Gspieler/Geri Spieler[edit]

User:Gspieler/Geri Spieler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Improper usage of user page per WP:UP#NOT: excessive writings, information, discussions, and activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. This is a personal blog/autobiographical entry, more suited to the (presumed) user's actual blog. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


User:Commanderx881/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:UP#COPIES. Copy of Big Brother 17 which does not appear to have anything done with it. Copying it to user space is the sole edit this user has done. Whpq (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Aidan Connell[edit]

Draft:Aidan Connell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Advert created by the subject or somebody else using the name of his little studio Orange Mike | Talk 02:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • While I think this is more likely than not to end up deleted at AfD, it is not a WP:YAMB case. References 1 and 3 are evidence of notability (Ref 2 doesn't seem to mention the subject). I don't get the nominator's statement, I don't read an advertisement, just a borderline notable musician. The biggest problem here that MfD is not a forum to query Wikipedia-notability for drafts. I would advise to move the draft to mainspace except that the subject is not mentioned in any other current mainspace article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Jarrod Alonge[edit]

Draft:Jarrod Alonge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not notable. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Maybe I'm odd, but I think that when deleting other people's contributions, you should state explicitly the real reasons, and get the facts right. WP:N is not alone a reason, although a clean WP:N failure on top of other problems makes the decision easier. Your statement on the reason for the mainspace speedy doesn't match the log. If you are careless with such easily checked details, should we suspect that you are broadly careless, and thus should not trust anything you say at face value? It's not that I want to keep this page. It looks "promotional & non-notable". You might have mentioned "repeatedly resubmitted without responding to reviewer criticism". What I would like to review is reliable trustworthy nominations.
But on the other hand, this person "Jarrod Alonge" is mentioned in multiple mainspace articles. The draft easily passes WP:CSD#A7. the criterion cited when it was speedy deleted. Again, I wonder whether AfC reviewers are overconservative? What fraction of approved drafts of yours are deleted at AfD? If the answer is 0%, you are definitely too restrictive. I think reviewers do hold to a higher standard than AfD, and therefore I recommend that new contributors consider ignoring AfC and putting their work directly into mainspace. I also recommend that they first improve existing articles, whcih can include creating new incoming links for their new article. To enforce this, I support WP:ACTRIAL. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

October 19, 2016[edit]

Draft:Kawasaki Estrella[edit]

Draft:Kawasaki Estrella (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per this AfD. Subject fails notability. JMHamo (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • The AfD doesn't seem to mention this bike. You need to argue why a merge is impossible. The AfD was lacking in that respect. Definitely disagree that motorcycles are on a par with toasters and hamburger stands. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @SmokeyJoe: Merge with what? There is nothing to merge. JMHamo (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep I think I can find sources to develop this out to a stub. There's at least enough at de:Kawasaki_Estrella and I can translate from German. - Brianhe (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

User:BenPhil/Asiatic cheetah[edit]

User:BenPhil/Asiatic cheetah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Appears to be copied from mainspace; now, it is an inferior duplicate (Asiatic cheetah) whose original editor retired years ago. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, per WP:UP#COPIES. It is sandboxing of the article over a couple of days in September 2006. BenPhil subsequently edits the mainspace article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


User:Syler.mi4/Sulekha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Page in process to make it for promotion and nothing else. Intend or style of writing clearly states written by close associate of company. Light2021 (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - The style of writing doesn't indicate that to me. There is nothing blatantly promotional or non-neutral.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

October 18, 2016[edit]

Draft:Nitesh Tiwari (2)[edit]

Draft:Nitesh Tiwari (2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft is being tendentiously resubmitted. The subject is already the subject of a stub article, and any additional information should be added to the stub rather than resubmitted via AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  • The subject covered by the article Nitesh Tiwari does not look to me to be the same person. It is a pity that the author of the draft is not communicating. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - The author of this draft will not be communicating, because the author of this draft has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think that they are the same person, an Indian film director. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
There are a few specific details provided for the two putatively different people, but other than name and Bollywood films, I see nothing specific in common. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The authors of the two drafts appear to be the one person who engaged in sockpuppetry in response to your negative reviews. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nitesh tiwari.
The mainspace article appears to have an entirely different history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am aware that the mainspace article and the two drafts have different histories. That doesn't make them different people. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I am not convinced that they are the same person.
  • If they were the same people, the two drafts should both be redirected to the mainspace article. If they are not the same people, do nothing. The draft authors have been blocked, wait for a possible unblock request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - They are from different states. They really are different people. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I do not withdraw this MFD. Deletion of Draft:Nitesh Tiwari (2) will still leave Draft:Nitesh Tiwari, which needs to be disambiguated from the mainspace article in case some uninvolved person makes the draft into an acceptable article. The draft author is the subject of the draft article, and should not be editing the draft, but someone else may write about them. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • OK.
Move without redirect Draft:Nitesh Tiwari to Draft:Nitesh Tiwari (Bollywood music director) (over-disambiguated, but let's be more helpful in DraftSpace)
Redirect Draft:Nitesh Tiwari to Nitesh Tiwari
Redirect Draft:Nitesh Tiwari (2) to Draft:Nitesh Tiwari (Bollywood music director) (not obvious that that it is completely redundant, and it at least has improved formatting)
... some rationale... I think DraftSpace is largely an invitation for driveby contributors to waste a lot of time. (WP:ACTRIAL makes a lot more sense). This time wasting of experienced editors' time is not alleviated by deleting. It might be alleviated by having, for every mainspace title, the draftspace title redirecting to mainspace. If the mainspace title exists, people should not be drafting the same thing in draftspace. Making all these redirects, if not done as a lite and simple software trick, is probably way more wasted resources again, but as there is a history here, any visitor to Draft:Nitesh Tiwari should be sent to Nitesh Tiwari. Create a note on Talk:Nitesh Tiwari: "Not to be confused with Draft:Nitesh Tiwari (Bollywood music director)". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


User:Wam5995/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE - sandbox of a deleted article created by a banned sock. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. Old copy, or copy of an earlier version, of a deleted article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Userspace circular redirects[edit]

Double redirects are a navigational hazard where a redirect points to another redirect. These are primarily fixed by bots.

Circular redirects are redirect loops that never end with a page. Circular redirects are unhelpful because you will forever be redirected to a redirect. Furthermore, they clutter the Special:DoubleRedirects log unnecessarily and offer no benefit. There already are examples of it in Wikipedia namespace (for whatever the reason):

-- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Amalthea/rd1 forms a permanent double redirect because of its page protection. Bots cannot edit it. Its page history demonstrates multiple fix attempts by different users that were reverted. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm a software developer at the Wikimedia Foundation and I use pages in my user space for testing the mediawiki software. Please never touch pages in my user space. Pchelolo (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Pchelolo: I do not see there relevance of your employer. There is a testwiki if you want to test stuff. English Wikipedia isn't there for testing anything. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    If the Foundation determines that you need to use for testing, it should probably be done from an identity-confirmed WMF-tagged account. I'm also not sure how this sort of thing is constructive testing. In any case, I've tagged it CSD G8 as the user page of a non-existent account. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete It was an experiment I did to see if you would not reach a double redirect page and would have an infinite loop of page loading. It can go now, it's served it's purpose. I also agree with とある白い猫 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skynorth (talkcontribs) 19:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll delete the pages within your userspace. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Nick (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • 1) A page in my userspace that isn't linked to is no "navigational hazard". 2) My redirect test pages are flagged with the nobots-template. Bots should respect that and silently ignore them. 3) Testwiki is not sufficient if you want to actually test configuration of en-wiki; 4) Special:DoubleRedirects is processed by bots; no human should really be concerned about the pages there.
    That being said, I don't care that much anymore. Years ago MediaWiki got a new feature to allow configuration of longer redirect chains than 1, and we had a consensus to extend it by one; sadly, it never was implemented.
    If there is consensus that the above pages are problematic and should not exist then I will not object; but I don't see why anyone can really be bothered by them.
    Amalthea 19:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Amalthea: The issue here is they fill up the special page. No on-wiki configuration will have any impact on how double redirects work. I am one of the people that operate said bots. If bot hits a page that is a double redirect, it attempts to repair it. It is less of an issue when this happens on one page only. It becomes an issue when these numbers increase. Bear in mind I operate this bot on hundreds of wikis so even slight delays pile up over time. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
      • If the filling of that special page is an issue, fix the filling of that special page so that userspace is excluded. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
        • @SmokeyJoe: So instead of deleting or de-linking a few useless pages, you want developers to change an already working code? Furthermore, if I go to someones userpage or talk page and it turns out that the signature links lead to a double redirect, I will end up with a redirect page rather than the actual page so excluding user namespace or user talk namespace would be counterproductive. This happens whenever a username is renamed more than once as the entire userspace is moved in each case. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
          • Users have broad leeway in their own userspace. Poorly designed maintenance tools are poor justification for lightly asserting uselessnesses in others' userspace. Signature issues are covered by WP:Signature, is there a WP:Signature issue? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
            • @SmokeyJoe: What benefit do circular redirects serve? This is NOT the purpose of redirects. Might I suggest you take a look at SpecialDoubleRedirects.php#L35. This is what generates the special page. As you can see it is marked isExpensive() = true. MediaWiki queries on WMF that generates the special pages have a finite limit of 5,000 entries. So if these entries keep piling up like they have, we would have article namespace double redirects that go undetected as log would stop at the 5,000 cut off point. These circular redirects are as demonstrated above do disrupt the operation beyond the user spaces they reside on. Modifications to the query as you suggested above would require consensus by the rest of the community, someone would then need to program it, test it and deploy it. None of those is trivial. The alternative is not permitting such userspace circular redirects which would take us no more than 3.2 minutes.
            I operate my bot on practically every wiki, any redundant entry has an impact on the performance of the bot as it taxes bots time. Bot can cope with it mind you, it just delays things for quite a bit as each wiki has some permanent entries that are unfixable due to page protection and circular redirects. Each entry adds a redundent second or two to the bots task as bot needs to process it. If this happened to just 5-10 pages Wikimedia-wide, it wouldn't be an issue. But with few permanent double redirects it adds up.
            -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
            • You're still going on about technical issues with maintenance assistance tools. You are alluding to Wikipedia:Performance issues. If there is one, then get a developer to explain it to us. Otherwise, what I see is a maintenance hobbyist trying to make the project fit his maintenance style. Trying to expand the maintenance bureaucracy to meet the needs of the expanding maintenance bureaucracy. No. Leave users and their userpage alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
              • @SmokeyJoe: I do not know how to respond to this. Are you bothered that I am a volunteer or that I help with a mindless automated task? Some of us want to keep backlogs down. No one is after userpages. Any userpage activity that shows up on an expensive query should be dealt with. Your userpage is not your private property. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 07:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
                • Why don't you try editing the redirects, placing a note explaining the problem, and breaking the redirects? But come straight to MfD to delete userpages with history? No. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
                  • @SmokeyJoe: I am open to any methods of removing the circular redirects as circular redirects offer no benefit to anyone. Deletion is the obvious choice since after removing the circular redirects, pages loose their purpose. Mind you what you suggest is exactly what happened with the stroked out nomination. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yo, I've made mine no longer redirects. I'd prefer them to just stay that way over being deleted, so the page history remains public, but if that's a problem… (I'd like to export them though if they'll be getting deleted, but if they aren't, I don't feel like going to the trouble…) Thanks :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 19:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    If the page no longer shows up on the special page then you have nothing to worry about. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. They are not a hazard in userspace. Imagined problem where none exists. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per SmokeyJoe above. They are their own user subpages, and it should be the user who deals with them. 😃 Target360YT 😃 (talk · contribs) 03:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @とある白い猫/16: I don't even see why you put [[Special:PrefixIndex/User:Cubedev2539/sandbox/TestingPages/Bounce|User:Cubedev2539/sandbox/TestingPages/Bounce*}} into the list. Those are sandboxes, you know... That is a 100% keep for those pages. 😃 Target360YT 😃 (talk · contribs) 03:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Target360YT: They cluter the log. The problem is not isolated to the userspace. Detection of double redirects is a computationally heavy process which is why it is run infrequently. Sandbox is not the litterbox. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't run the double redirect detection process. Problem solved. I understand the mainspace double redirects are looked after and fixed in another way, and that in all other cases redirects are so cheap that this maintenance is unjustified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

October 17, 2016[edit]

User:William Stoddard Sr[edit]

User:William Stoddard Sr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User's only extant edits were to create this autobiography, contrary to WP:WEBHOST. – Fayenatic London 21:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:CSD#U5. It covers all userspace NOTWEBHOST, promotion, and CVs of non-contributors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, it has now been speedily deleted under WP:CSD#U5. – Fayenatic London 13:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:William E. Lehman[edit]

Draft:William E. Lehman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft on an non notable subject; does not meet BIO or WP:SOLDIER K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:There's no point[edit]

Wikipedia:There's no point (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Three-sentence mini rant. Not humorous BilCat (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Userfy to User:Resoru/There's no point. Can be read as a user's opinion, on one day, but as written it is wrong. Delete the projectspace shortcuts. Not humor. Not a valid multi-authored or supported essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Userfy There is no point in keeping this :) LOL. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

October 16, 2016[edit]

Draft:Jauhar Kanpuri[edit]

Draft:Jauhar Kanpuri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Completely unsourced and highly advertorial draft about a writer with no particularly clear WP:AUTHOR pass. Creator repeatedly tried to move the page into mainspace themself, without actually submitting it for AFC review first -- and an editor with the username "Jauharkanpuri" was also involved in those attempts, a clear conflict of interest which also opens the possibility that the original creator had one too (note, frex, that both editors have used the edit summary "this is article" to justify the page moves.) And then once WP:SALT and move-protection were applied to prevent him/them from moving the draft yet again, he/they simply abandoned the page rather than actually attempting to improve it. If this were actually in mainspace it could be speedied under both A7 and G11, so there's not much point in hanging onto it in draft form -- if an article about him can be justified and written and sourced properly, then that can be done from scratch without needing to start from this base. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.
Bearcat, you have written on the page: "Creator is hereby advised that they do not have the right to bypass the AFC review stage by moving the page into articlespace themselves."
For good or bad, your statement is not correct. No editor, new or experienced, is required to use AfC or DraftSpace. I tried to get a discussion going at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts/Archive_5#Reviewer_set_thresholds_and_repeated_submissions. Unfortunately, without some rules drafted to say otherwise, if a draft author doesn't like your reviewing, he can choose to go straight to mainspace. You might then choose to seek deletion via CSD or AfD. However, the author may also G7 the draft, abandon their account, start a new one, and go to mainspace hoping that you never know. There is no stopping that.
The discussion is needed. I think that AfC reviewers should, when disapproving of submitted drafts, post clear and simple reasons why the draft would be promptly deleted if put in mainspace, what if anything can be done to fix it, and admit to the author that they can ignore the advice and move it anyway.
However, I think it would be better to get rid of DraftSpace entirely, and to implement minimum requirements being being able and allowed to write new articles. (Similar to Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial). New editors should be encouraged to improve existing content first. They should introduce redlinks into mainspace in preparation for a new needed topic, and to not introduce an orphan article without connecting it to anything else. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


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

The first MfD attracted no interest and was closed no consensus, but both this page and its talk page are being used by IPs as web-hosts for fantasy games. Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Note to User:Whpq, nominator of MfD1. A weak nomination statement does not make for easy review. If the nominator would make decisive statements (not "appears" and "I do not think"), then the question to review is "I sthe nominator right or not?" Otherwise, the MfD reviewer has to repeat the investigation fresh. That can be too much work. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment - The original nomination is as definitive as it could be as the subject matter is related to a Spanish language show and I am not conversant in Spanish. -- Whpq (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as use of the page for web-hosting a hodge-podge of material. -- Whpq (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

October 15, 2016[edit]

Wikipedia:Narrative of an Expedition to the Source of the St. Peter's River (Article)[edit]

Wikipedia:Narrative of an Expedition to the Source of the St. Peter's River (Article) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This old article does not appear to have been created in the right place, and it does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG even if it had been. Scjessey (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Chris Rhoades[edit]

User:Chris Rhoades (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Blatantly promotional and autobiographical Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 14:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Luke de paul/sandbox3[edit]

User:Luke de paul/sandbox3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Exactly the same issue as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Luke de paul/sandbox - The page is simply being used as a navbox storage, I've got the other sandbox salted due to it being recreated, At the moment there's an edit war between 2 ips (one I have a feeling is Luke) over it being blanked, Anyway pointless sandbox, Better off deleted –Davey2010Talk 14:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to add but the editor did state somewhere they'd not use it as a storage thing again, Ofcourse if they do recreate this or another one I myself will drag their arse to ANI. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sandbox pages are meant to be used for developing content, not just for transcluding a bunch of navbox templates for no discernible reason. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

October 14, 2016[edit]

Draft:Famous Dex[edit]

Draft:Famous Dex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The original Famous Dex article has been deleted and this has to be prohibited from being drafted too. It fails the same cites that the original did. DBrown SPS should also be blocked from editing as well for abusing rules. (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak keep – It's a tough draft ever done to recreate this. Now somebody unknown is requesting for another deletion? DBrown SPS (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Question - How is it that you and seem to edit at exactly the same time so frequently? - SummerPhDv2.0 15:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
@SummerPhDv2.0: We do not edit at the same time. It is just that whenever I do something, it responds so negatively and I never pay any attention until now. DBrown SPS (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

October 13, 2016[edit]

Draft:Ray McCort[edit]

Draft:Ray McCort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I moved draft content to my sandbox and will submit it from there. 1900toni (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@1900toni: You have not given any reason for deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: I just did, thanks for notification. 1900toni (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fact that one editor has for some reason decided to create a second draft for an article rather than just improving the first one is not a good reason for deleting the history of another editor's draft. The original draft was not much good, but overwriting it with a new draft, copying the new one to a different page, and then using the existence of that new page as a reason for removing the original editor's draft is not a good way to proceed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep The draft should not be deleted for attribution purpose. I also see something really fishy here. Honestly, this looks like paid editing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
What?? Go ahead delete both the pages, I have no personal interest. It looked notable so I wanted to make necessary changes and request for AfC. 1900toni (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep the draft, delete the sandbox, advise 1900toni to read WP:MOVE and to avoid Copy-Pasting. It is about maintaining the integrity of the page history as the attribution record. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • keep. As noted, "I've created another draft in my own sandbox" is not a reason to delete the existing draft. Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Just noting that this nomination is part of an extensive paid editing ring and has some similarities to the orangemoody fiasco in getting articles deleted and then probably bidding to clients to create a new version. —SpacemanSpiff 08:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.