Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Skip to current discussions · Skip to old business · 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.

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]

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 – whose guidelines on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

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

Click to view instructions on listing pages for deletion

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

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

I.

Edit PageName:

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

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

If the nomination is for a userbox, please put <noinclude></noinclude> tags around the {{mfd}}, as to not mess up the formating for the userbox.

or

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

or

{{subst:md1-inline|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
if you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page.

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

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

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

Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
Insert this text:

{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.

Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.

III.

Add a line to MfD.

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

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

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

{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.

If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

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

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

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

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

Administrator instructions[edit]

Administrator instructions for closing 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.

February 2, 2017[edit]

User:Cdoechogroup[edit]

Page used for promotion of a book. A Facebook page called "Echo Group" has a link posted telling people to visit this page for more information. It's a WP:FAKEARTICLE at best, and a WP:G11 at worst -- giving it the benefit of the doubt by posting here rather than CSD tagging. User's only contributions are the creation and grooming of this page on a single day in November 2015. RL0919 (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia namespace pages in Spanish[edit]

This is not the Spanish Wikipedia. Delete or userfy them as subpages of User:Yhhue91. Steel1943 (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Leksijensen/sandbox[edit]

Attempt to preserve material in userspace that was rejected in article space for being pseudoscience; see user's talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:LatentView Analytics[edit]

There's enough signs here to suggest this is an unconfessed paid campaign and there's enough signs to suggest it's therefore unimprovable and, considering the listed sources are all PR, that alone is enough. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

February 1, 2017[edit]

User:Shazadoughan[edit]

Should be in separate page or deleted; account seems to have connection to target person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DASL51984 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

User:YASHASDG[edit]

Advertising User Page Arkhaminsanity (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Charles Sebastian[edit]

This is a user page masquerading as an article. WP:FAKEARTICLE. Whpq (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Outdoor Voices[edit]

Information and sources all still consist of clear business announcements, listings and mentions and there was a large sufficient time in 2 reviews to improve thus suggesting there was no actual improvements for our policies. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Eric444/Sandbox[edit]

Archives of positions on the Canadian Country chart which is listed on WP:BADCHARTS. Editor has been absent since October, so there is no foreseeable use of these. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: I formally merged all of those pages into this nomination. Best Regards, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 13:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep - Just because the nominator doesn't see a use for these doesn't mean Eric444 (a very productive editor of music-related articles who was not notified of any of these noms besides his sandbox) doesn't. I see no reason for or benefit of deletion - the pages are entirely non-problematic. I also think the idea that it's okay to clear out the userspace of editors once they go 3 months without editing is kind of amusing. A2soup (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@A2soup: The problem is that he is using the pages to archive information that is in no way verifiable (chart positions from a chart that, as far as anyone can tell, has never been reprinted anywhere), in blatant violation of WP:WEBHOST. He's made no attempt since making these pages to find any way to source the content; he's just hosting it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

What specific part of WP:WEBHOST is this in blatant violation of? Like can you point me to the relevant wording on the policy page? A2soup (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

"Don't store material unrelated to Wikipedia". There is no way any of this can be related to Wikipedia since it's totally unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess I am happy to leave it to the discretion of the closer whether archives of chart information in the userspace of an editor with tens of thousands of live edits to music and chart-related articles could plausibly be "Wikipedia-related material".

I would also note that that Eric444 updates these pages regularly, suggesting they are important to his workflow. Clearing them out would run a significant chance of alienating a productive editor, so we need to remember that editors matter and weigh the cost of potential damage to Eric's enthusiasm for the project against the benefit of deleting these pages (whatever it is). A2soup (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Relates to the contribution interests of a contributor, and so relates to Wikipedia. Ask teh user about the pages, and if he doesn't answer due to being inactive, you may if you think there are NOTWEBOST concerns (do pageviews suggest this?), as an editorial action, replace with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

February 3, 2017[edit]

Wikipedia:Ignore Meta[edit]

I am the primary original author of this, bit it has been modified quite a bit by other since then. This was created in response to a really awful, ridiculous incident that happened in early 2012. A dispute from here, that was eventually the subject of an arbcom proceeding, was allowed to continue at Meta despite the fact that their user community have no authority whatsover to determine how user problems are handled here. At the time, there seemed to be in some quarters there a palpable air of contempt for this project and open hostility towards it. This incident was instigated by such users enabled by by a small number of admins there who actively intimidated and bullied anyone who tried put a stop to it.

The end result of this debacle was the removal of the most abusive administrators who were involved and the introduction of a analog of WP:INVOLVED over there to prevent something like this happening again.

Observing these events, this essay was toned down considerably. In the intervening years the purpose of Meta has become more clear, and the advent of single unified login, global user pages generated at Meta, and other global policies and practices have further changed the purpose of Meta and the relative advisability of ignoring it.

In short, I don't think what happened four years ago would be allowed to happen there now, the lack of activity in the last three years at this essay suggests that it is having little to no effect here, and I just don't think we need it anymore. I am explicitly not advocating marking it as historical as I'd rather it was just gone as the incident that led to it seems well and truly gone and forgotten. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Tello Mobile[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Titoxd^(?!?) 00:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

3 reviews in the last months suggests there's simply nothing better in our policies considering it's still inchanged. SwisterTwister talk 11:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Titoxd^(?!?) 00:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

January 31, 2017[edit]

Draft:DATABASICS[edit]

Information for sole user confirms it's a company-motivated advertisement and, not only is that alone sufficient for deletion, but the Draft itself conveys no convincing signs otherwise; note how all sources are trivial announcements and listings. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete - there is nothing substantial written about the company so it wont be accepted, its also unambiguous advertising. Flat Out (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Ben Chetwood[edit]

There's been sufficient time in 3 reviews and several months to have improved this at the needed substance level, but the sources are then only announcements and mentions, thus unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Russell Reynolds Associates[edit]

There was enough time in 3 reviews to at least give us the needed substance in a convincing article, the article itself has unchanged itself with still only keeping either clear-copied company advertising or advertised business announcements, all is sufficient for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete as advertising. -- Whpq (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete there is nothing substantial written about the company so it wont be accepted, its also advertising Flat Out (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'd appreciate further clarification on why my Wiki submission for Russell Reynolds was denied and moved for deletion. You state that there has been anything to satisfy Wikipedia policies; however, when comparing the citations and the content to a different wiki entry for a company in the same industry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Zehnder the citation quality and language/tone for the Russell Reynolds submission are very comparable. In fact the Russell Reynolds submission contains citations from many of the same sources listed in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Zehnder The citations from the Wall Street Journal are a good example.

Heidrick and Struggles, another very similar firm, is also an approved Wikipedia submission with citations and language very similar to the Russell Reynolds submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidrick_%26_Struggles . Using Egon Zehnder and Heidrick and Struggles Wikipedia entries as examples to model the Russell Reynolds citation after, since they are approved which means they satisfy Wikipedia policies, seemed to me like a good idea. Is that not the case, and if so, it would seem as if the approval process is very subjective and not based on any clearly defined standards.

Here is the specific feedback:

There was enough time in 3 reviews to at least give us the needed substance in a convincing article, the article itself has unchanged itself with still only keeping either clear-copied company advertising or advertised business announcements, all is sufficient for deletion. e

You mention that the submission was populated using marketing copy taken from elsewhere, if so, I would love to see the source material I used copied. I am not being snarky, rather, I wrote this content and do not appreciate being accused of plagiarism/copy and paste.

Business announcements usually are sales propositions - this article submission is merely stating facts, much in the same way the content that populates:

Also mentioned was the timeline elapsed from the first entry until this most recent. I am not being paid to submit this information to Wikipedia - if that was the case, I most likely would have lost my job by now since indeed it has been quite some time. I did add additional text and 6 additional new citations from reputable sources.

I am not trying to be difficult and am more than happy to additional content to this submission if you provide me with additional direction. This exercise is simply meant to be a way to learn my way around Wikipedia. I appreciate your help and guidance.

Thanks, Jose User: JCTH2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCTH2015 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The entire article reads like it is a press release. Whether you took the words from ad copy, or wrote it yourself, the entire article looks like advertising, and not an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment - You stated: "You mention that the submission was populated using marketing copy taken from elsewhere, if so, I would love to see the source material I used copied."
- From the draft you wrote: "The advent of digital technologies (mobile devices, social media platforms, cloud, big data and analytics) is dramatically disrupting all traditional businesses. To help meet this need, Russell Reynolds Associates launched the industry’s first Digital Transformation practice in 2012."
- From http://www.russellreynolds.com/services/digital : The advent of digital technologies (mobile devices, social media platforms, cloud, big data and analytics) is dramatically disrupting all traditional businesses. As a result, organizations require new leaders who combine digital vision, industry experience and change-management expertise. To help meet this need, we launched the industry’s first Digital practice in 2012.
- The bolded text is verbatim. I'd say this was a very clear case of swiping ad copy, and most assuredly reads like advertising. -- Whpq (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

- Ok, thank you for pointing that out - my error, it's been quite a while since I wrote this entry. That, in part, stemmed from my misunderstanding on how to properly populate the entry. If I remove that and significantly expand the wiki entry will you reconsider? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.216.108 (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep Previous reviewers rejected the article on the grounds that the subject lacks notability.

News reports from just the last few months suggest otherwise:

--Russell Reynolds Associates is leading the search for the UK's top post-Brexit international trade negotiator.^[1]

--Was hired by the city of Houston to find its next police chief so that "applications and résumés of job candidates do not have to be made available through the Texas Public Information Act." ^[2]

--Will find potential candidates for future top executive positions at HSBC Holdings Plc. ^[3]

--Has been retained by Shake Shack to initiate a search for a new chief financial officer. ^[4]

--Is looking for a new president of the University of Texas of the Permian Basin. ^[5]

Since the subject is arguably notable, and this is the first time reviewers have raised the issue that the article reads like an advertisement, contributor should be allowed to correct issues that are now being raised. As the notability guideline states: "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort^[6]."

162.245.21.61 (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

JCTH2015 (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Thank you so much for the guidance, I will edit my article submission to correct this issue and also incorporate the citations listed here. I'm very grateful for the additional feedback.

TimedText:Güzelim-c...ogg.tr.srt[edit]

Not English Brianga (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep. It's an accurate TimedText for a non-English audio file. While it's not English, it's the best we can present to deaf readers. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

TimedText:Baby Doll Sample.ogg.hi.srt[edit]

Not English Brianga (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Brianga: So what ???❤ TrendSPLEND ^✉ 07:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Dublin Swimming Club[edit]

Delete: Started as an article and move to draft in 2015, then nominated for deletion in mid-2016 but kept on the chance that someone would improve it BUT after that keep I discovered it is all the prose is a copyvio and as normal removed the violating text. That leaves us with one short sentence and an infobox. It is now WP:STALE with no real likelyhood of improvement having been given plenty of time. It's time to get rid of it. ww2censor (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Given the fundamental problem with copyrighted text, it's better to start from scratch if somebody wants to write an article on this club. There's a note on the talk page tht indicates a willingness to release the text under a free license, but simply repeating the prose on a web site does not make for a good (or neutral) article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a very large amount of text in the history that is not obviously copyright. Either link the source of the copyright infringement so I can compare, or rev-delete the copyright infringing additions. There are no time limits. If it is OK for a future editor to work again on this topic, it should not be deleted, except what what is actually copyright infringing, and even then we usually think it is OK to leave things in the history. Blank as inactive if you like, but I oppose deletion. It appears a notable topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

January 30, 2017[edit]

Draft:Chyka Keebaugh[edit]

Resubmitted 3 times and still unconvincing for our standards and there was enough Draft-time to improve it or at least conclude to something else. SwisterTwister talk 16:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Mathmensch[edit]

Includes some political statements not appropriate for userspace, not blatant WP:U5, borderline attack page but include legitimate user page content. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It would be appropriate if the statements which are allegedly not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies could be named explicitly. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

MM, it's pretty much everything after your first sentence and prior to Newly created articles, not including the userboxes, see UPNOT and, particularly, POLEMIC. Remember this isn't Facebook or a discussion group, we're here to build an encyclopedia. Letting folks know something about you is fine, but we're not a soapbox. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep -- has anyone expressed a concern? I don't see any discussion to this effect on the user's Talk page. Would that not be the first step to resolving any concerns? Since this has apparently not occurred, keep is the way to go IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep. I don't necessarily agree with some of the statements in the page, but there is simply no need to delete them. (I don't agree since "out-Trump Trump" isn't a way to go.) -- Taku (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep. This is the wrong procedure. If you feel that the political statements on the page violate UPNOT then delete them, discuss it with Mathmensch on his talk page, and if they're reverted back in then go to ANI. Deleting the entire page, however, is inappropriate. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

TimedText:Baby Doll Sample.ogg.hi.srt[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 with no contextual significance §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

TimedText:Baby Doll Sample.ogg.en.srt[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 with no contextual significance §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

January 29, 2017[edit]

Book:Dana haden (r.i.p.)[edit]

Doesn't seem like a topic for book space; there is no Dana Haden in the encyclopedia, and this seems to be a random list of links. bd2412 T 17:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Diplomatic League[edit]

The article in main namespace was deleted on 29 January 2017 per the topic lacking notability, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diplomatic League North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep - "Deleted at AfD for notability" is not a reason to delete a draft, as has previously been firmly established. The draft is not being tendentiously resubmitted to AfC, is not enormously stale (I don't think this should be a reason for draft deletion, but it's worth noting), and while there is a promotional tone it is not so bad as to merit draftspace deletion. A2soup (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

January 28, 2017[edit]

Draft:Satya Brahma[edit]

After 11 reviews, it's safe to say this has nothing satisfying our policies, not only because it was part of a mass-advertising campaign as the history shows, which then compliments other side-to-side campaigns that occurred with those other accounts, but there's nothing significant here, and the blatant consistency of such advertising for so long, shows there's an overfocus with getting it accepted, regardless of what our policies need, which therefore deletion is allowed entirely. SwisterTwister talk 21:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete. No substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources to suggest that subject is notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete - there's nothing significant written about the subject. Flat Out (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Hartek Group[edit]

Clear company advertising and the 2 reviews haven't been answered for actually fixing it, and only to resubmit, therefore deletion is supported by our policies given advertising is unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 18:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Altangereliin Enkhtuyaa[edit]

The content is not confirmed by the source; I was not able to find sources myself. Ymblanter (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:FloEazy[edit]

Part of clear unconfessed paid advertising campaign considering the username shows it alone, and the fact the account has heavily focused with it in the past month shows there's been no apparent changes in either methodology or contributions overall, and the Drafts all follow the same methodology because it's self-advertising; sources are only announcements, and it violates our policies against advertising. SwisterTwister talk 03:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleteunambiguous advertising. Flat Out (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Educreation Publishing[edit]

Self-serving blatant advertising because it's the company account starting the advertising with clear republished announcements, and the one review hasn't been met with sufficient improvements, which is why WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete. This draft article contains relatively little by way of information about the company itself. There are five sources which pick up on some self-published works that were produced using this company. While verifying the existence of the company, the sources themselves don't provide any WP:CORPDEPTH. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

January 27, 2017[edit]

User:Dude54321/sandbox[edit]

No citations about a living person. The article content can be perceived as derogatory in the style it is currently written. JustBerry (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete. No notability, and no reliable sources. Had this been created in mainspace instead of draftspace, it would have been entirely speediable. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Hollie McKay[edit]

3 reviews and still not the convincing we need for an article, and what's here is still not significant in notability. SwisterTwister talk 16:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand the continued dismissal of this article about a respected journalist. My last discussion with reviewer Cerebellum indicated that what was needed to show notability were articles featuring the subject as the topic of articles showing a progression of development as a journalist of note; to journal how the subject came to be. Several articles supporting this request were researched and supplied. The subject is clearly a bona fide journalist with a major news bureau. The body of work of the subject is certainly worthy of cataloging and curating. Many other journalists with Wikipedia pages have far less material in their pages but seem to be well beyond acceptability standard. The rejecting reviewer seems to be applying an unusually high bar compared to other similar articles in the system at this point. Please provide a list of what's still missing? Why exactly is this one less worthy that the many others already approved as pages on Wikipedia?

DennisLLSantiago (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Dennis Santiago

This is the link to the talk entry with reviewer Cerebellum identifying what areas of additional citations were needed with examples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cerebellum#21:40:35.2C_23_January_2017_review_of_submission_by_DennisLLSantiago. The guidance specifically stated that articles focusing on the subject were what was needed. Per this guidance, several new citations were added in the early life and FOX Culture Reporter sections of the draft specifically to meet the reviewer's counsel. It was my impression that this was what was needed to meet the "independent" notation criteria.

DennisLLSantiago (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Dennis Santiago

Looking up the Wikipedia policy on living persons, this entry does seem to satisfy the "one verifiable statement rule" for biographies.

Proposed deletion of biographies of living people[edit source] Further information: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people As of April 3, 2010, a proposed deletion process for unsourced biographies was established, requiring all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, to have at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement about the subject. Once the article is tagged in this manner, the prod blp tag may not be removed until such a source is provided. If none is forthcoming, the article may be deleted after 7 days. This does not affect any other deletion process.

Please help me understand what I am missing here. Thanks, Dennis

DennisLLSantiago (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Dennis Santiago

Please advise on the following idea. Analyzing this draft, I believe there are at least two topical articles it can be transformed into. These being,

1. FOX 411 Pop Tarts - an article about the video and online news entertainment column by FOX News from 2007 to 2013 authored by Hollie McKay. This news series embodies around 1700+ articles and 300+ video clips and was a part of FOX News' entry into the online news market space.

2. The Human Cost of ISIS 2014-2016 - an article about the series of vignettes painting a picture of the time of ISIS in Iraq from its emergence in 2014 to the battle for Mosul in 2016. The article would discuss the fighters of ISIS, the victims of ISIS and the forces fighting ISIS using and expanded version of the template from the draft to include more illustrative quote excerpts from articles.

I am thinking I may have tried to capture too much in a single article around the author and perhaps should rethink my approach and focus on the topical elements that the author's body of work created that are noteworthy for an encyclopedia.

I would appreciate guidance on whether this change in approach is advisable.

DennisLLSantiago (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC) Dennis Santiago

I have done a radical edit to reorganize the article to focus the relevance of the subject's work to her news bureaus' business agenda. I also added a list of other Wikipedia content pages that use citations to the subject. I have resubmitted the draft for re-review.

DennisLLSantiago (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC) Dennis Santiago

Keep. Meets GNG based on: Inner West Courier and The Sunday Telegraph (Australia) [1]. There are a couple articles covering her book as well: Mackay Mercury/Daily Mercury [2], Muswellbrook Chronicle [3]. And a couple brief mentions in articles about her work, just to show that she is still getting coverage: Wonkette [4], Mediaite [5]. All of these sources except the last two are local newspapers, but WP:AUD only applies to corporations so they should still count towards the GNG, right? I'll rework the article later today to address its content issues. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Cerebellum, thank you for taking the time to edit my draft. I now see what the essential elements you were looking for are to develop independent confirmation of notability. This is my very first article attempt of this type for Wikipedia and, based on the edits you made, I clearly had written it more in the form of a detailed profiling dossier with attention to academic levels of citation to back up each statement of the previously 90+ citation draft. Now that I know what to look for I should be able to more efficiently contribute future articles. I hope this one is eventually approved. I shall make an edit clean up pass to it to correct any errors that may have linger from the last edit. Thank you for helping me learn about how Wikipedia works. It's different from the other mediums I've composed for and I wanted to learn how it worked. Best regards,

DennisLLSantiago (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC) Dennis Santiago

Draft:The Purple Agency[edit]

Clear company advertising g and there's been no actual improvements after a review, all that's here is clear PR such as their OR awards, services, company specifics and then sourced by their own PR, hence we're being misused for their own website. SwisterTwister talk 15:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Mudunuru village[edit]

Per WP:FAKEARTICLE JustBerry (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Google translation of the content on the page: "The village is part of the West District mudunuru pentapadu zone." — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 11:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

There are two Mudunuru villages in India, both of which are situated in Andhra Pradesh state – Mudunuru, Krishna and Mudunuru, West Godavari. We already have an article for the one, which is situated in the Krishna district – Mudunuru. From the translation, it's clear that the above user wanted to create an article about the namesake village, which is situated in West Godavari district. But they followed the wrong method. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Henri Arslanian[edit]

The article in main namespace for this subject was deleted on 10 January 2017 per lacking notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henri Arslanian for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Draft was from September 2016. It reads like a cv, although there are no particularly notable claims that I could see and there are no references. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Leavingstone[edit]

Admitted editing about itself by an advertising company., No substantial evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 08:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Lacks substantial evidence of notability from independent, reliable sources, offered or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Credible[edit]

Declined 7 times as an advertisement. enough is enough. From the comments at the Draft [age, the contributor seems still to confuse existence with notability, and self-serving interviews with 3rd party sources. DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Article has been through substantial revisions, in response to direction provided by reviewers and Wikipedia guidelines. Am attempting to address reviewer's comments, still awaiting a response on article's talk page. ^[7]162.245.21.61 (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nom. This draft is not improving, the "best sources" discussed on the draft's talk page, being interviews and "sound bite" passing mentions, fall well short of being in-depth coverage of the subject. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete as clear advertising alone. SwisterTwister talk 00:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's notability guideline^[8]calls for "significant" coverage. There is no requirement for "substantial" or "in-depth" coverage:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The three references cited on the talk page represent only a portion of the sustained coverage that the subject has received. If there is still an ongoing debate over notability, that does not justify deleting this article. The notability guideline states:

For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

Reviewers have failed to identify specific language in the article that violates neutral point of view guideline^[9]. The article:

--Avoids stating opinions as facts.

--Avoids stating seriously contested assertions as facts.

--Avoids stating facts as opinions.

--Employs nonjudgmental language that neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject.

Wikipedia editors are advised that "a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities."^[10]

162.245.21.61 (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk:IHelpWhenICan1[edit]

This "user" was created from a renaming process that happened in 2013, Since the "user does not exist", this page shouldn't either, no? I ^help_dןǝɥ I 07:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Michael Fenster[edit]

Examining this again, it occurs to me there's no significant reviews because his books were so close to each other there's hasn't been the reviews that would've helped this, since he's certainly not notable as a professor. SwisterTwister talk 00:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Plausibly notable. The reviewers think he is not notable. User:MatthewVanitas, why do you say "You must footnote all content about him" ? While a good idea, I don't believe he must, and further, it is irrelevant to the notability concerns. The real reason this draft is here at MfD is the tendenditious resubmissions without attempting to address concerns, or even responding. We need a better solution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete. While there is a plausible claim of notability here, there isn't a properly sourced one — the referencing is far too strongly dependent on a linkfarm of primary sources and blogs. If somebody can do better than this, then they're certainly welcome to — but there's no value in hanging onto a draft that's being tendentiously resubmitted over and over again without the necessary improvements. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:ID Wholesaler[edit]

There's enough here to suggest we're being misused as a clear PR webhost, because this has been deleted and contested before (for example, deleted in last March after existing since August 2015 and contested today), but with no actual changes, and this current Draft hasn't changed from its clear advertising, and the sources then being published and republished advertising, therefore policy WP:NOT certainly applies. When such a blatant advertisement exists for that long but restored after deleted that long ago, and to not improve subsequently while asking for review, is unacceptable because it's still blatant advertising. SwisterTwister talk 00:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete - unambigious advertising. Hasn't improved since recreation. Flat Out (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Revcontent[edit]

After multiple changes, there's still been nothing to satisfy our pillar policies and thus is still unconvincing; if after all this, this is all that exists, it still violates WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Fatunder/sandbox[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Resubmitted nearly every day or a few days apart for the past weeks with still no significant improvements as the listed sources are still only indie-specific publications or simply similar, it's not the genuine significance needed and since reviews is what especially helps, the current ones are simply not enough or what would confidently accept.SwisterTwister talk 16:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Not true! Not submitted every day... simply learning the Wikisystem Yesterday significant references were added links and press and news links... The publications and quotes are very significant... this should be listed... have a look prizes and awards were added as well as curating categories. I am adding honorary doctorate to awards now... is this not significant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatunder (talk • contribs) 07:39, January 19, 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The content in question has been moved to Draft:John K. Grande. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 12:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Dosti Realty[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Clear advertising submitted nearly a half-dozen times now and stacking another by resubmitting with no changes, thus this is violating our policy WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing since it's clear PR. SwisterTwister talk 16:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC) I have took another stab at it and changed some of those reference with new references directly mentioning about Dosti Realty and their projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dostisemimz (talk • contribs) 12:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC) This is a legitimate company and I have removed all the content which had a promotional tone and provided references from various sources. Can you check again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dostisemimz (talk • contribs) 13:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

User:James Allison/Enactus[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

This was speedy deleted in 2016 for being unambiguously promotional. It was userfied at the request of James Allison shortly after, but the draft has been largely untouched since then. It still reads as unambiguously promotional in tone. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Valoem/List of auteurs[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The article was deleted at AFD in 2011 for being too subjective to ever be complete (see the discussion here). It was then restored and moved to Valoem's userspace in 2014 at their request. Since then, it has sat, largely untouched, since 2014. I doubt this will ever be encyclopedic, for just the reasons noted in the original AFD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep - Clearly allowed by point 3 of WP:UPYES. Valoem is an active and WP:HERE editor. There was a big brouhaha about stale drafts last year, and I think one of the things that most everyone agreed on during that debate was that deleting drafts from the userspace of active editors should only be done if the draft is truly problematic. The AfD you link was very close - it does not indicate to me that this could not possibly become an article. I see no reason that an active and HERE editor can't keep an article that was deleted after a very close AfD on the backburner in their userspace, clearly tagged as a draft, not bothering anyone at AfC or anything. It is unnecessarily intrusive to police such things - it has a great potential to stir up bad feelings and deletion provides essentially zero benefit to the project. @PMC: how would you feel if someone MfD'd User:PMC/SIS without consulting you (or even leaving a notice on your talk page) because they didn't feel it contributed to the development of Wikipedia? A2soup (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wouldn't bother me, given that I haven't edited it in something like a decade. In fact, I just nuked it myself, because it's clearly some old school assignment that doesn't contribute anything to the development of Wikipedia. If you go digging around and find any more, do let me know :) You're right though, my bad on not advising Valoem. I wrongly assumed that if the draft hadn't been touched then he probably wasn't here. I've left an apology on his talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

January 26, 2017[edit]

Draft:Anthony Hashem[edit]

3 reviews and no convincing changes for our established policies. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Brian Harrington[edit]

I in fact planned to nominate sooner if it wasn't that I hadn't expected to be reviewed as largely as it has now, and there's still nothing satisfying our policies hence deletion is the only foreseeable solution. SwisterTwister talk 21:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete. I reviewed and rejected this on its fourth resubmission — and while two new sources were added since I did that two weeks ago, both of them just reconfirm that the subject exists, while failing to actually do anything to bolster his notability. One of the two new sources is just a blurb, and both of them cover him solely in the context of "guy who attended the inauguration" rather than "guy who did anything encyclopedically noteworthy". A person does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because they can be reliably sourced as existing — as I've pointed out many times in deletion discussions, I can be reliably sourced as existing, as can the woman who lives a mile down the road from my parents who got herself into the newspapers when she woke up one morning to find a pig in her front yard munching on her petunias. A person gets a Wikipedia article only if and when the context in which the coverage is being given satisfies a specific notability criterion, but nothing here meets that requirement. In addition, there's a conflict of interest here, as the article was originally created by "Brainharrington" and the most common editor since has been "Capolitico" (an editor who has made very few edits not directly related to Harrington) — as usual, even if a person can be adequately demonstrated to pass our notability criteria, the path to actually getting a Wikipedia article does not pass through writing and creating it himself (or through getting a friend or colleague to do it on his behalf for plausible deniability, either.) Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Telecoming[edit]

@Rozybienert: Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Anthony Appleyard - What is the problem with this as a draft? Why has it been nominated for deletion? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Is the editor planning to improve this draft, in which case I will favor Keep, or to resubmit it in its current state? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Rozybienert and Robert McClenon: The editor is likely planning to improve this draft. It was originally speedy-delete-tagged at 12:21, 25 January 2017‎ by Rozybienert. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep in draft space. No reason to delete from draft space, where the standards are less stringent than in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment In reference to Robert McClenon's concern, the article has definitely been gutted of a lot of promotional material (see this diff) since it was originally submitted. It's a lot more neutral now. I should also mention that I speedied this page a few days ago without noticing the MfD, because the template had been removed and replaced with db-spam by the original author. A2soup gave me a heads up and I have since restored it to allow the MfD to continue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete - undisclosed paid editing. Google "Bienert Telecoming" and check the linkedin profile (2nd result when I searched). Cabayi (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment – I just notice Rozybienert reposted the article in the same condition using different title Telecoming.com so is it possible to protect the title? GSS (talk|c|em) 10:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

Everything from here on down is old business; the 7-day review period that began 09:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC) ended today on 3 February 2017. Open discussions below this marker should be either closed or relisted above. 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.

January 26, 2017[edit]

Draft:Mental Daily[edit]

entirely written by now banned undeclared paid editor and sockpuppetmaster. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nom -- cynical abuse of Wikipedia for promotional purposes. MER-C 02:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

January 25, 2017[edit]

Draft:Namik Paul[edit]

Deleted several times in the last months to year and there's still not the genuine convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep - Does "genuine" convincing require something beyond significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources? Because that is absolutely there. I'm confused by your last decline - do you think the multiple Indian newspapers cited are not reliable or independent? Additionally, a simple google search reveals many Times of India articles solely about Namik Paul beyond the one already cited. It has some tone issues, but it's not promotional. I'd say it's ready for mainspace. A2soup (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

They can be, but we've also established these publications willingly publish paid press as it is, and we have a history of XfDs establishing it; next, the user also stated he still has not obtained other released works yet, so this is in fact still in line with the last AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namik Paul since his career hasn't changed since then, thus still unconvincing; those links above are all still entertainment announcements. We're not IMDb and this here suggests it's one. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that there is a history of XfDs establishing the Times of India as not a reliable source? Because all of the delete !votes at the AfD you cite give a lack of coverage in reliable sources, so if the coverage in the Times of India counts as reliable, your citing of that AfD doesn't count for much.

And besides, this is a draft, not an article. We are not using AfD standards, we are using chance vs. no-chance standards. I find it difficult to believe this draft represents a "no-chance" situation. A2soup (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

At AfD, I especially emphasize TOI is unacceptable for anything such as business and companies, because those are especially clear paid press; but in this case, they're simply entertainment columns, that alone is not enough to satisfy our policies since they're clear about what they accept. Because it was deleted at AfD, and it's still unacceptable here, deletion is the next step. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

All of your arguments refer to policies about what is acceptable as an article. What makes this unacceptable as a draft (which is what I assume you mean by "here")? A2soup (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

January 24, 2017[edit]

January 23, 2017[edit]

Closed discussions[edit]

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

[1] ttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/29/brexit-trade-deal-vacancy

[2] ttp://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Turner-uses-search-firm-to-keep-police-chief-7955792.php

[3] ttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-26/hsbc-hires-recruitment-firm-to-find-future-executives-ft-says

[4] ttp://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/01/05/shake-shack-names-first-coo-says-cfo-to-retire.html

[5] ttp://www.oaoa.com/news/education/utpb/article_c75a04e2-da89-11e6-b70b-175410a11e3a.html

[6] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

[7] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Credible

[8] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

[9] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

[10] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

Centralized discussion

Proposals: policy	other	Discussions	Ideas
New wikitext editor Notifying creators of pages nominated for speedy deletion Investigating COI editing How editing restrictions are listed Future of Articles for Creation Guidelines for recent year articles Notability of beauty pageant participants Notability of secondary schools For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
archive talk edit history watch purge

v t e Wikipedia community

For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.

About Wikipedia	Welcome! Administration Task Center Regional notice boards News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Awards Reward board Contests Wikipedians Statistics Milestones The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous

Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation Creation Help Vital articles Today's articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Portals Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors

WikiProjects and groups	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Version 1.0 Editorial Team Accessibility

Maintenance tasks	Open tasks Cleanup Vandalism Database reports 'As of' Page Curation Recent changes Backlog Controversial issues Dusty articles

Administrators and noticeboards	Admin dashboard Admin requests Administrators' Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Requests for closure Revision deletion Oversight Request Page protection Sockpuppets User permissions Open proxies Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship & bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement

Content dispute resolution	Editor assistance Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources Mediation

Other noticeboards and assistance	Requests for help Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Online Ambassadors Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Paid editors Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bot owners' Education Incidents New pages patrol General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse

Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Books Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue

Elections and votings	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones

Directories and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Template messages Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wikis Wiki markup

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Information on the process[edit]

Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

Administrator instructions[edit]

Contents

Current discussions[edit]

February 2, 2017[edit]

User:Avipearce[edit]

User:Cdoechogroup[edit]

Wikipedia namespace pages in Spanish[edit]

User:Leksijensen/sandbox[edit]

Draft:LatentView Analytics[edit]

February 1, 2017[edit]

User:Shazadoughan[edit]

User:YASHASDG[edit]

User:Charles Sebastian[edit]

Draft:Outdoor Voices[edit]

User:Eric444/Sandbox[edit]

February 3, 2017[edit]

Wikipedia:Ignore Meta[edit]

Draft:Tello Mobile[edit]

January 31, 2017[edit]

Draft:DATABASICS[edit]

Draft:Ben Chetwood[edit]

Draft:Russell Reynolds Associates[edit]

TimedText:Güzelim-c...ogg.tr.srt[edit]

TimedText:Baby Doll Sample.ogg.hi.srt[edit]

Draft:Dublin Swimming Club[edit]

January 30, 2017[edit]

Draft:Chyka Keebaugh[edit]

User:Mathmensch[edit]

TimedText:Baby Doll Sample.ogg.hi.srt[edit]

TimedText:Baby Doll Sample.ogg.en.srt[edit]

January 29, 2017[edit]

Book:Dana haden (r.i.p.)[edit]

Draft:Diplomatic League[edit]

January 28, 2017[edit]

Draft:Satya Brahma[edit]

Draft:Hartek Group[edit]

Draft:Altangereliin Enkhtuyaa[edit]

Draft:FloEazy[edit]

Draft:Educreation Publishing[edit]

January 27, 2017[edit]

User:Dude54321/sandbox[edit]

Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives[edit]

Draft:Hollie McKay[edit]

Draft:The Purple Agency[edit]

User:Mudunuru village[edit]

Draft:Henri Arslanian[edit]

Draft:Leavingstone[edit]

Draft:Credible[edit]

User talk:IHelpWhenICan1[edit]

Draft:Michael Fenster[edit]

Draft:ID Wholesaler[edit]

Draft:Revcontent[edit]

User:Fatunder/sandbox[edit]

Draft:Dosti Realty[edit]

User:James Allison/Enactus[edit]

User:Valoem/List of auteurs[edit]

January 26, 2017[edit]

Draft:Pankaj Jha (Entrepreneur and Scientist)[edit]

Draft:Anthony Hashem[edit]

Draft:Brian Harrington[edit]

Draft:Telecoming[edit]

Old business[edit]

January 26, 2017[edit]

Draft:Mental Daily[edit]

January 25, 2017[edit]

Draft:Namik Paul[edit]

Draft:Isabella Giovinazzo[edit]

Draft:Usama Mukwaya filmography[edit]

Draft:Ed Eichenlaub[edit]

Draft:Alexia Vassiliou[edit]

Draft:Baxter Planning Systems[edit]

File talk:Nexstar Logo.jpg[edit]

User:Zamolodchikovan/sandbox[edit]

User:V838 Monocerotis/sandbox 3[edit]

User:Catholic Laitinen/Mispronunciations and Spelling Errors[edit]