Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). Purge this page

WP:MFD

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText: and the various Talk: namespaces, and the MOS namespace (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect)
Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
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

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace	If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?	Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace	Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding `{{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~` to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first. Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion. User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion. Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages	Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere. Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages	It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status\|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication. Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion	Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems. Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6\|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD	Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

I.

Edit PageName:

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

{{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}

or

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

If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.

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.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Save the page.

III.

Add a line to MfD.

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

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".

Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add

{{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:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~
to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as
Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
If you are nominating a 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

XFD backlog
V	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	9	19	28
TfD	1	2	3
MfD	4	1	5
FfD	2	0	2
RfD	39	12	51
AfD	0	0	0

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

Archived discussions

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

Current discussions

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

September 13, 2024

Draft:Reanimal

Didn't find a reliable source either. Fail WP:GNG Zach (talk to me) 10:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Snap chat is good for kids under the age of 13

Obviously not encyclopedic, notwebhost violation Bestagon ⬡ 01:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Bduke (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 12, 2024

Draft:Kirby & Friends

Fake show, no references, poorly written ((Whatcha gotta say? :) -ThaFDA)) (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - No references and being poorly written are not reasons to delete a draft. The originator is blocked for a username violation for being associated with the show, so that this is at least a case of conflict of interest, and the draft will probably never be completed, because the draft is not being reworked on by either a renamed user or anyone else. With any specific evidence of a hoax, will change to delete. Otherwise let it expire. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right for that, and I'm sorry for not making it clear, this draft is a hoax and there has not been a show titled Kirby & Friends, especially one in 1992. I do not condone hoaxes and I do not like seeing hoaxes on Wikipedia. (even if they are just a draft) Whatcha gotta say? :) -ThaFDA (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: There is no ten episode show that has been airing since 1992. Speedy delete as hoax like the 3x prior Star Mississippi 02:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 11, 2024

User:Vrajadh/sandbox

WP:RFORK of data clump. Paradoctor (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary copy and fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 9, 2024

Wikipedia:WikiProject Muhajir

Seems like abandoned project of single Wiki user. Not sure if an entire Wiki project is required for this. Wikibear47 (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not need this WikiProject. And also the creator was blocked for copyright violations. Catfurball (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An unused WikiProject. The project page had 94 pageviews in 2023. That was total pageviews in the year, or about 0.3 daily pageviews. The work of a Wikiproject is done mostly on its project talk page. The project talk page had 28 pageviews in 2023. That is less than 0.1 daily pageviews. This project never launched. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arianeganda

WP:RFORK of Public administration. Paradoctor (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A very incomplete copy and so a fragmentary fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 8, 2024

User:Shelbyrank

WP:RFORK of Varsity letter. Paradoctor (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not exactly a copy and so not exactly a redundant fork, but as a user page, this is a fake article. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:User72023/sandbox

WP:RFORK of 2013 Peru bus disaster, untouched since 2023-07. Paradoctor (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete - Not exactly a redundant fork because an expansion of the article. Treat as an abandoned draft to expand the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Uyanga Enkhjargal/sandbox

WP:RFORK of Sodnom Baldan. This user and User:Baldan Sodnom may be a pair of socks. Paradoctor (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral at this time. Not a redundant fork, because on machine translation from Mongolian, does not appear to be the same. But maybe should be treated as abandoned. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I didn't say WP:COPIES! The subject is the same, not the content. Paradoctor (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vaan92

WP:COPIES from Triple DES (2018-05-22), Bosnian translation. Paradoctor (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this was being used as a draft translation, it has been abandoned after six years. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vaan92/sandbox

WP:COPIES from Triple DES (2018-05-21), Bosnian translation. Paradoctor (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This and the other copy are both six years old and abandoned. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thiru9959/sandbox

WP:RFORK of Vaddera. Paradoctor (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not a redundant fork of Vaddera. It is partly an expansion of Vaddera, and partly all sorts of other things, and is in a sandbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoBAPgo/sandbox

WP:RFORK, 2017 draft that apparently never went anywhere, and was obsoleted by someone's else draft in 2023. Paradoctor (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep unless the nominator provides a link to the other draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Earliest edit I could find. Please note that that sandbox was move to article space six weeks earlier, and again five days later.[1].

User:3sgf/sandbox

Non-notable organization, created by COI (and likely UPE) editor; editor blocked for WP:ORGNAME and has never sought unblock. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete - Treat this as an abandoned draft. The originator could have requested rename and moved this to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valentina valentine/Sarita Khurana

WP:RFORK of Sarita Khurana. The first version of Sarita Khurana was draftified, and second creation was deleted before the third one stuck. Paradoctor (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vanished user 24kwjf10h32h/translated english2spanish articles/Rickrolling

WP:COPIES from Rickrolling (2008-06-21). Paradoctor (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be another abandoned translated copy, with a long strange history, but rubbish that has been kicked around for sixteen years is still rubbish. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The complex page history seems to be a product of the creator's own complex history, which has led to them being banned and vanishing. Whatever they may or may not have gotten up to is not directly related, but it does mean that they aren't expected to ever be coming back to work on it more. No need to keep it forever. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 6, 2024

Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Popular pages

Useless only has 1 page and apparently only has ever had 1 page as per page history Is la🏳️‍⚧ 23:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It used to have most of the pages in the projectspace back in 2021. Hasn't been touched by anyone since 2021, and since then the bot malfunctioned and trimmed it down to exactly 1 page and I doubt there's any interest within the project to bring it back. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark historical' and revert to last functional version, no good reason to delete it entirely as it didn't cause harm. This is not a case of a malfunctioning bot; it's a case of garbage in, garbage out as, until my actions at Talk:Winter Storm Helena (which I undeleted, redirected, then re-deleted), it was indeed the only page listed under WikiProject Severe weather in the assessments special page search results. I've removed it from the bot's config page. I barely knew anything about how the popular pages lists were generated or page assessments special pages before this discussion so I've learnt several things about them by skim-reading the documentation and realising that the severe weather popular pages list began to malfunction around the time the templates were merged/deleted. Graham87 (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Variouspotatoes/sandbox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 14:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Variouspotatoes/sandbox

WP:COPIES from SEG-Y (2024-03-25). Paradoctor (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vinayak sk

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 11:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vinayak sk

WP:COPIES from List of Doraemon films (2017-12-12). Paradoctor (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vinayak sk/sandbox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 11:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vinayak sk/sandbox

WP:COPIES from List of Doraemon films (2017-12-12). Paradoctor (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vince Garcia/sandbox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 11:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vince Garcia/sandbox

I'm not sure if WP:COPIES applies here. The page is clearly a Portuguese translation of the 2014-11-28 version of Shy (band). The Portuguese wikipedia has no article "Shy" and there is no "Trojan" article about the band. Paradoctor (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The intent of the guideline about copies is clear. Copies may be kept for a limited period of time for drafting purposes or similar experimental purposes. Creating a Portuguese article about the band by translation is a valid purpose for a limited period of time. That doesn't mean ten years. This is an abandoned translated copy. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VincentCS104/sandbox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 11:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:VincentCS104/sandbox

WP:COPIES from Bread roll (2014-03-09). Paradoctor (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gangshape/sandbox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 11:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gangshape/sandbox

WP:COPIES from User:KT Business Consultants/sandbox/Vinod K Jacob (2021-01-19). See also this edit comment. Paradoctor (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copy and redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vircum/Π (film)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 11:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vircum/Π (film)

WP:COPIES of Pi (film) (2008-05-07). Paradoctor (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An incomplete copy and a redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Quida

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 06:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Quida

Arguably a WP:HOAX, but opting for MfD as WP:G3 requires it to be fake to the point of vandalism. However, this is just plain WP:MADEUP and will never be suitable for Wikipedia out of all likelihood. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all other similar drafts by User:Sisixive (listed immediately after this one), as I pointed out at the Teahouse. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after having read the explanation on the user talk page. These conlangs were made up by the author, who appears to be using Wikipedia as a web host rather than to improve the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Qua/Lexicon

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 06:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Qua/Lexicon

Arguably a WP:HOAX, but opting for MfD as WP:G3 requires it to be fake to the point of vandalism. However, this is just plain WP:MADEUP and will never be suitable for Wikipedia out of all likelihood. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after having read the explanation on the user talk page. These conlangs were made up by the author, who appears to be using Wikipedia as a web host rather than to improve the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, noting it is completely unsourced. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Qua

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 06:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Qua

Arguably a WP:HOAX, but opting for MfD as WP:G3 requires it to be fake to the point of vandalism. However, this is just plain WP:MADEUP and will never be suitable for Wikipedia out of all likelihood. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after having read the explanation on the user talk page. These conlangs were made up by the author, who appears to be using Wikipedia as a web host rather than to improve the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No source and fails WP:Notability Wikibear47 (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cincaen

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 06:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Cincaen

Arguably a WP:HOAX, but opting for MfD as WP:G3 requires it to be fake to the point of vandalism. However, this is just plain WP:MADEUP and will never be suitable for Wikipedia out of all likelihood. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - We don't need to delete drafts that were made up and were found by rag picking. They can be left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after having read the explanation on the user talk page. These conlangs were made up by the author, who appears to be using Wikipedia as a web host rather than to improve the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Matyvr

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 06:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Matyvr

Arguably a WP:HOAX, but opting for MfD as WP:G3 requires it to be fake to the point of vandalism. However, this is just plain WP:MADEUP and will never be suitable for Wikipedia out of all likelihood. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Drafts should only be deleted if the hoax is either obvious or clear but unobvious. This should be left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after having read the explanation on the user talk page. These conlangs were made up by the author, who appears to be using Wikipedia as a web host rather than to improve the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kilim English

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 06:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kilim English

Arguably a WP:HOAX, but opting for MfD as WP:G3 requires it to be fake to the point of vandalism. However, this is just plain WP:MADEUP and will never be suitable for Wikipedia out of all likelihood. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - May be a hoax, but drafts should not be deleted because they may be hoaxes, only if they are hoaxes. They should be left alone for six months, but this has restarted the calendar. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after having read the explanation on the user talk page. These conlangs were made up by the author, who appears to be using Wikipedia as a web host rather than to improve the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Valer-Nonre

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 06:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Valer-Nonre

Arguably a WP:HOAX, but opting for MfD as WP:G3 requires it to be fake to the point of vandalism. However, this is just plain WP:MADEUP and will never be suitable for Wikipedia out of all likelihood. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Drafts should only be deleted as hoaxes if we are almost certain that they are hoaxes. Otherwise they should be left to wither. The nomination has restarted the calendar. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But I am certain it's a hoax in the sense of being made up. G3 only applies to bad faith situations.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after having read the explanation on the user talk page. These conlangs were made up by the author, who appears to be using Wikipedia as a web host rather than to improve the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agree with User:Jasper Deng. The originator is acting in misdirected good faith, and so is not a vandall, but is not here to contribute, but to play around in misguided good faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:EOTY/nominee

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 06:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EOTY/nominee

Template subpage with no parent page, documentation, or categories, transcluded just once in a user talk page. Created in 2013. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this may be speedy-delete-eligible. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:EOTY. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to be exactly the same as the one that was deleted, but is unreadable and useless. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it is not exactly the same as the deleted one (the deleted one had an equally-illegible black |id=2012 on a dark blue background), but it is still useless. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 16:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vlgvlgvlg/Yaël Braun-Pivet

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 02:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vlgvlgvlg/Yaël Braun-Pivet

WP:RFORK of Yaël Braun-Pivet. Paradoctor (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

September 5, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vijaisns

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vijaisns

WP:RFORK of Lorem ipsum. Paradoctor (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - User came, created this fragmentary redundant fork, departed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Roehrig1109

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roehrig1109

WP:RFORK of Television and the Public Interest. Paradoctor (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - User came, created this fork, and departed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Publisher bible

Recently created information page by BarntToust to compile the various publishers of sources used on this site. I do not think a separate page is needed for this and the contents can easily covered by what is already established at WP:Reliable sources and the articles themselves. Full disclosure, the editor who created this has started repeatedly adding publisher params to cite temps on the article Superman (2025 film) and has insisted at my talk page about adding them to other related articles after I informed them it was not needed, and this page appears to be an extension of that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me like you wholly misunderstand to basis of publisher parameter on citations. They are higher-detail citations and are used per inline for extra detail on articles. Articles such as The Last of Us and The Last of Us (TV series), and substituents have been promoted extensively for Good Article status, so I have no idea why you are so against it.

Draftify this thing until it is developed. It looks like a good idea for a promising directory for new editors like me who might want a place to look for this information without having to sprawl out looking for them in each article. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and Tag as to required improvements. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userify as ATD, which I assume is essentially what YodaYogaYogurt154 has in mind (articles are draftified, project pages are userified). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VogueTortellini/Our Bodies, Ourselves

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:VogueTortellini/Our Bodies, Ourselves

WP:RFORK of Our Bodies, Ourselves § Boston Women's Health Book Collective. Paradoctor (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a redundant fork, will get out of sync with the article, and is not serving a purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 16:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC) ended today on 13 September 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

September 5, 2024

User:Warbert7+6/sandbox

Both this and Draft:St. Emma Military Academy were created on the same day by the same user. This looks like an WP:RFORK to me. Paradoctor (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The user edits intermittently and is maybe working on the draft. This sandbox may be used to improve the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 31, 2024

Portal:Hampshire

Portal not broad enough in scope to necesitate a portal, not updated since 2022, and entirely encompassed by Portal:South East England DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — perfectly functioning portal, it doesn't matter that it hasn't been updated recently; there's plenty of pictures and content to get cycled through. No reason to delete.

Cremastra (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something being functioning doesn't necesitate keeping it. It had a total of 6 daily pageviews in 2023, sometimes being 0 views a day. DimensionalFusion (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DimensionalFusion I'm sorry, but I really don't understand this reasoning. Just because people aren't looking at something all the time isn't a reason to delete it. It's a reason to link it from more places. Even if it is maximally linked (which is unlikely), there's still no actual reason to delete it. Maybe people will use it more in the future. It is still a net benefit to the encyclopedia. There's plenty of information about Hampshire. There is absolutely zero benefit to deleting this; this nomination amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cremastra (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are three problems with this portal. First, it is little viewed. It had 6 daily pageviews in the year 2023, while the lead article had 765 daily pageviews. Second, it is not maintained. It relies on subpages in Portal:South East England, specifically on those that apply to Hampshire, and there is no indication that this list is maintained. It includes 68 articles, which is a reasonable number. Third, it uses the obsolete architecture of subpages that are partial redundant forks of pages, and so are not updated when the pages are updated. This can lead to discrepancies such as biographies of living persons being displayed for persons who have died. We don't need portals that display information that is no longer correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - it's functioning, it is regularly monitored and maintained (by me). The fact it hasn't needed updating in the last couple of years shows that it's a low maintenance portal thanks mainly to automation, that's not an indication that it isn't being looked after. And a county like Hampshire is plenty big enough and broad enough in scope to warrant a portal. Page views are irrelevant, we don't delete stuff on Wikipedia based on page views. And ultimately it does no harm - deleting it would take up more disk space than leaving it alone, it's not using loads of processing power, it offers readers a great way of discovering content, so deleting it would be a net loss to the project. Really sad to see nominations like this happening again, I thought the idiotic "war on portals" was behind us. Waggers TALK 08:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also it's not true to say it hasn't been updated since 2022. Winchester College was added to the selected articles just a few months ago in November, after reaching Good Article status, for example. Waggers TALK 08:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's this "war on portals"? Portal:Hampshire isn't helping readers discover content (as evidenced by the low pageviews) and it's essentially a smaller duplication of Portal:South East England. Something being "functional" doesn't mean it should be kept. I disagree that it's reguarly monitored and maintained – consider that for WikiProjects (there's no criteria for Portal deletion), they should be marked as inactive if there haven't been any major edits to the main project page in four months. There haven't been any edits to the main portal page since 2022, and no major edits since 2021. So we have a portal maintained only by one person and automatic actions, low pageviews, and another portal that encompasses all the content of this portal.

The "selected article" section literally comes from Portal:South East England's selection page for its articles. DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main portal page is a framework, it does not need updating. The content is set from elsewhere and I updated some of it just today. Waggers TALK 12:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Wikipedia editors will happily delete portals for entire countries but not subregions of English speaking countries. Too narrow for a portal, and it seems that there is another portal with a broader scope. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors will happily delete portals for entire countries but not subregions of English speaking countries. Is this not WP:OTHERSTUFF? Cremastra (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, it's not a valid deletion justification. I trust the closing admin will take note of that. Waggers TALK 07:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. But the point still stands about this being significantly too narrow for a portal, and low page views. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 30, 2024

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame

I marked this as historical [2] eight years ago, as it was not being used, but that was removed nearly a year later when someone decided to start editing it again. I simply do not think this page is appropriate. A self-selected hall-of-fame, with no clear criteria for inclusion, no apparent rules of any kind, no new entries in over three years, and a talk page that has not been used for discussion of the scope and purpose of the page in fourteen years.

Additionally, there are a number of entries in this list of supposedly great people who turned out to be truly awful people, one of whom still actively trolls Wikipedia on a regular basis, and several others who were socking and vote stacking. In fact, it was two of these offenders that created the hall of fame in the first place. These people do not need a memorial to their deceit or dishonesty hosted on Wikipedia.

There's just too many problems here for WP to continue hosting this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Case not nearly made. Even assuming that all that is really asked for is blank and archive, keeping the history available, the case is not not nearly made. It is not nearly good enough to delete Wikipedia history on the basis that some are alleged to be awful. It may be difficult to write an acceptable essay about how, objectively, some editors, were awful, but to justify the deletion of this history demands it.

There is no attempt to substantiate ongoing harm. There is no attempt to argue that all involved, especially the modern editors, are awful, let alone an objective net negative contribution to Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be difficult to write an acceptable essay about how, objectively, some editors, were awful, but to justify the deletion of this history demands it. I'm not sure I understand. I have to write an essay explaining why two banned trolls, one of whom is still actively harassing people over grudges from like 10-15 years ago, are not good people? I mean, that isn't even my only point but to be required to write an essay to justify one deletion discussion is an entirely new concept to me. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ARS team had an admirable motivation, in my opinion, obtained from a distance. Rescuing notable topics sent to AfD is a good thing. So what happened? If you want to selectively delete the history of a a prominent feature of Wikipedia history, I expect there to be a high level summary, at least. I read your nomination as a proposal to retrospectively shut down the ARS, and before agreeing to deletion, I want to see the history documented. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read your nomination as a proposal to retrospectively shut down the ARS Well, that's odd because the ARS is still active and I have not in any way proposed shutting the whole thing down. I just don't think we ought to host this one specific page, which has no criteria for inclusion and is therefore just a randomly selected list of AFD discussions that random people have decided to highlight.

and here's that executive summary you asked for

Of course I did also mention that it was created by two people who turned out to be awful trolls. I didn't mention their names but here they are: A Nobody, since banned by ArbCom for faking a crisis to avoid discussing their own behavior, and banned by the community for socking and votestacking.Continued socking from 2009-2021. They also childishly pre-emptively banned people they didn't like from a wikia site that they were an admin on, regardless of the fact that the people they were banning had no edits there and were mostly unaware it even existed. Wikia yelled at them for that.

So that's pretty toxic, but not as bad as Ikip, banned by the community for socking and votestacking, years later, globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation for relentless ongoing harassment of users he has a grudge against. To be transparent, that does include me, I am one of his many chosen victims ho chooses to focus on when harassing people. Malicious socking and harassment from 2010-present.

The first several hundred edits are these two.

And then there's Benjiboi, blocked for... wait for it... confirmed socking, later banned by the community for the same, continued to sock for over a decade.

They were all in good standing when they created this monstrosity, but they didn't bother making it clear how it is supposed to work, and nobody else has ever bothered to do so either.

There are people listed here who were and are simply good faith members of the ARS trying to save content from deletion, but why some debates are listed and the vast majority are not is as clear as mud.

It simply has no value, no context, no reason to be hosted here.

Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This page is also the more recent work of JGHowes (talk · contribs) and Beccaynr (talk · contribs). SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but, why? What process decides what debates are hall of Fame material? As far as I can tell it is entirely at the whim of literally anyone and there is no process.

And by "more recent" we are talking about three years ago. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with blank and maybe redirect to WP:ARS. The page was not created by socks or trolls, people should use chronologically precise language when speaking of past users who contributed substantially. I found these people admirable in some ways. They got frustrated and behaved badly, and admittedly I was not targeted or involved with responding to bad behaviours, and I don’t want to lionise them, but neither do I want to see once well meaning and often constructive Wikipedians disappeared. I think it is interesting to see how they saw themselves, together. Also, not everyone named or in the history is now in bad standing. There are important things to be learned from history. Keep the history available behind the blanked page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I, for one, hardly see the listing of an editor here as glorifying them, but only as indicating the the ARS glorifies them. If the ARS continues to exist, it can continue to have its heroes, and other editors can ignore the list. If someone wants to delete the ARS itself, I am willing to take part in yet another vote to delete it as not serving any purpose in the 2020s. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no value at all in maintaining this page created by socks and/or trolls that lionizes many of the same, particularly when it lists no guidelines or methods of selection, and is not actively edited or curated. Wikipedia is not social media. Page is highly problematic as it appears to perpetuate a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with comments like "Proved that an article that doesn't have a NPOV stance doesn't mean it isn't valuable", like a list of victories over "enemies". Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and maybe redirect to WP:ARS. This seems a reasonable compromise between those considering it historical and those considering it inappropriate. If I can offer a broader suggestion, perhaps we should BLAR all ARS pages and then WP:ESPERANZA it. As part of the "newer generation" of editors (c. 2022), I've only ever heard of ARS spoken in the tone of a horror story. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly prefer deleting it outright for the reasons I've already detailed, but I could live with this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Schleswig-Holstein

Consensus was reached at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein (2nd nomination) to move this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein, but was moved back by its creator in 2022 after zero substantive changes were made to the portal. If this was 2022, I would revert this unilateral move against the MFD consensus. But this is almost two years later and WP:SILENCE is consensus, so I am back at MFD seeking consensus for deletion from portalspace for the same reasons – primarily because This subject is arguably not broad enough to exist as a standard portal. No objection to projectspace-fying, if the WikiProject wishes to keep it around. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to project space per previous discussion. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to project space as before DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - There is no need for this so-called portal and no need to delete this so-called portal. This portal is a large menu. There is none of the usual portal code behind the façade. What is behind the façade is a listing of more than 120 article titles, at which I stopped counting them and did not have a convenient tool to automate the counting. This menu is almost completely unused. In the year 2023, it had an average of 1 daily pageview, while the lead article had an average of 959 daily pageviews. But the user who went to the portal got to look over a list of articles and view the ones that they wanted. I am generally skeptical of portals. This looks like a portal, but it is a menu, and menus are useful for navigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 27, 2024

Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Articles by quality statistics

Transcludable non-template page redundant with User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Palaeontology, which uses a Toollabs tool instead of categories and is regularly updated by a bot. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A template that is used only on this page has been TfD'd at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_27#Template:Assessment_row. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to delete. Simply replace the page content with a transclusion of the WP 1.0 bot table, which I have seen in many other projects. This will save fixing the many incoming links. – Fayenatic London 19:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented that transclusion, in order to update links between category pages. – Fayenatic London 08:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: Is the alternative implemented by Fayenatic London sufficient to address your concern? I can close this as withdrawn if you are satisfied. --RL0919 (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just redirect? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a question best addressed to User:Fayenatic london. I'm hoping to find a consensus among the participants in the discussion, not to become a participant myself. --RL0919 (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: does that have the same result? If so, by all means redirect instead of transcluding. I used transclusion because that's what I've seen before on these table pages for other projects. – Fayenatic London 08:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates