Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / 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.

A filtered version of the page that excludes nominations of pages in the draft namespace is available at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts.

Information on the process[edit]

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:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
Files in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]

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

Deleting pages in your own userspace	If you want to have your own 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.
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[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 – 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[edit]

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 transclued 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.
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 Portal, please make a note of your nomination here.
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]

XFD backlog
V	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	48	13	61
TfD	0	3	3
MfD	3	3	6
FfD	0	0	0
AfD	2	0	2

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

Archived discussions[edit]

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

Current discussions[edit]

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

October 12, 2021[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Weather Alerts[edit]

– (View MfD)

This is a group of drafts was created by JHICKS1809, who is now indefinitely blocked from editing the draft and article spaces. These drafts were spam created, and have little usable material and no sources. I believe these drafts should simply be deleted as they are a continuation of the problem mentioned in the user's previous block in the article space. Noah^Talk 20:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mexican media image vandal[edit]

I am in general unconvinced of the utility of LTA casepages, but putting that aside as I realise that is probably a minority opinion, this specific page doesn't appear particularly useful.

Casepages make some sense when the actions are complex, hard to detect, or otherwise require preserving institutional memory. Disruptively adding images to specific articles meets none of those criteria, and surely can be handled like any other vandalism. firefly ( t · c ) 10:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Oppose clerking of LTA or SPI subpages, unless requested or supported by an SPI clerk or better. MfD regulars are not qualified for this. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

For reference, see Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive23#Suggesting SPI subsume LTA, and an SPI CSD criterion. I believe that SPI should take ownership of LTA (and close it if they wish), and manage it including deletions without reference to mfd. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia 1.0[edit]

"Wikipedia 1.0" is a never realized plan to curate and publish a printed or offline (DVD) version of Wikipedia. This has never happened nor, apparently, ever will. The project went on hiatus some time around 2010, and now it's overdue time to mark it historical, along with all subpages (I am not proposing deletion).
I do not foresee much controversy for marking this historical, but I would like to obtain a formal consensus before proceeding in cleanup: there is a maze of artefact pages related with a "printed encyclopedia", but I plan to address those at a second stage. This nomination only concerns Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team and its numerous subpages, as well as Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0. However, feel free to add any related pages that I missed. Actually, there is maintenance Category:Wikipedia release version work, but a good deal of those pages have already been marked defunct or historical. No such user (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Mark it historical per nom. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Mark it historical per nom. Senator2029 【talk】 12:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Mark Historical - I didn't know that Mark Historical could be requested by a filer here, although I have seen a lot of stuff marked historical as an Alternative To Deletion. In this case, I agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment - It appears that the Editorial Team page is subject to vandalism by IPs. That is not a reason for or against any other action. However, maybe it should be semi-protected to maintain it in its historical state. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 11, 2021[edit]

Draft:Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi[edit]

Article has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 19:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Pichemist, that doesn't make it automatically considered for deletion. Was the writeup extensively advertising in nature, like for CSD G11? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

My mistake. I should have listed it as WP:COI _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 08:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

That is not a reason for deletion. COI is a reason, a requirement, to use draftspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Decline and Weak Keep - Needed declining or rejecting. Was declined. Allow editor to tinker with and resubmit, and likely be declined again. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Draft:Famepublish[edit]

Repeatedly tediously re-submitted with just PR/Primary sources - website itself is a PR mill with "articles" repeated 10+ times on the front page KylieTastic (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi I agree with you but that was theme problem, we have fixed it. re-submission should not be a problem, only re-submission enables to re-review, everyone has the rights to have a wikipedia page, please take a look on this page which dont have any primary source: Indian Talent Magazine. But I am providing more citations than Indian Talent Magazine. Mr. Pratap Singh - founder of FAME Publish was a notable politician and was a Member of Legislative Assembly, He started this magazine in 2012, since then it was online website, since 2020 magazine has started publishing monthly issues. PR just a medium to get visibility but there is no false information included in that PR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pujabhargav (talk • contribs) 23:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Oppose deletion in this case. Tendentious resubmission, yes, but DECLINE/REJECT reasons are inadequate. I read the draft topic as plausibly notable. The author has no experience at writing content, not that can be reviewed, which makes things hard. The draft is WP:Reference bombed, which makes review very hard. There are some ok looking sources, but they also read like promotion, and they may fail the WP:GNG on independence. I advise the author to get experience by improving existing content. Advise them that WP:SPA accounts always attract suspicion. Do they have a WP:COI, a connection to the topic? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Delete per nom, now that I see the explanation was given, and better understand the nature of the website. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment - Where is it written that "everyone has the rights to have a wikipedia page"? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Delete but do not salt. Resubmission after one rejection is too much. As SmokeyJoe says, may be notable, but this version of the draft will never make it into article space, and should be blown up and started over. Repeated submission after rejection is unacceptable. Does User:SmokeyJoe have a different suggestion of how to deal with resubmission after rejection, or with this resubmission after rejection? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
My view of the RfC linked from WP:DMFD, which is now broken (we need to look into that), is that after tendentious resubmission or resubmission after rejection, it may be escalated to MfD. At MfD, we review, and may delete if not notable. Also, we can review the repeated declines or rejection, and here when I do so I disapprove of reviewers feedback. I mean to do this cautiously, because he is a respected reviewer, and the draft topic is complicated to review, but, zero words of feedback is not enough. Maybe feedback was removed? Still, I find the topic to be plausibly notable, and so am not agreeing to “delete”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I also remain extremely frustrated with WP:AfC in their persistent failure to advise newcomers to not WP:Reference bomb, that they will get a much better review by following the advice at WP:THREE. I’d fix it myself except AfC is so template heavy that very few people are capable of changing things.

And another suggestion is that IPs and non-autoconfirmed accounts should be be able to create drafts, and that newcomers should be advised to get experienced by editing existing articles before attempting new articles. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
SmokeyJoe the reason there is zero feedback on the reject is purely based on this being an attempt to legitimise yet another fake news site. Also remember that it is not just on the submissions that advice happens - I try to always answer all questions on my talk page to explain what is wrong and what could be done if possible (in this case User_talk:KylieTastic#Question_regarding_FAME_Publish). I don't reject often, and very rarely come here but in this case this is just a pay to promote website that is contrary to the purpose of WP. I note that they have changed the front page so it no longer shows the same paid content over and over and in every category making it extremely obvious. However it looks like just a template change so things like the about us is default text/contact details (not real). Lastly, although this really is not the place for these discussions, I always used to add extra comments but found that it made virtually no difference and if submitters ignore the decline notice they ignore the comments, the decline/reject notices are supposed to give all required information. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
User:KylieTastic, thanks, I suspected I was not seeing the whole picture. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment - The originator writes that "everyone has the rights to have a wikipedia page". Such an absurd claim gives me a negative outlook on everything else that the author says. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Contributors, I told "everyone has right to have Wikipedia" because Indian Talent Magazine got it without any independent source, they only given facebook links and blog post of their clients. Please dont take it negatively. You all have more experience than me, its my fault I created draft without proper knowledge. We dont publish paid articles, 25$ was just 1 time registration fee. You know running a magazine is not easy, afterall we dont show ad in our magazine inspite of google ads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4053:2C81:3D96:48C4:1030:F083:2216 (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Everyone has a right to Wikipedia. That is, everyone has a right to view Wikipedia. Many governments abridge that right, but it is a consequence of various human rights. No one has a right to have a Wikipedia page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Draft:5up[edit]

Serious BLP issues. I moved the article to draft to get it out of searches, but even so; the article starts with the "real name" of 5up, but this bit of information is unverifiable. Then we have things like "He was raised as a young child by his older brother" which is not in the source (the source states "5up has one older brother and was raised in Phoenix, Arizona."). Which casts doubt on other information in the article which isn't in the source either. Best to simply delete this as too much of a BLP violation. Fram (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Fram, does the content have too much WP:OUTING? Should it be sent to oversight? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Perhaps, but I'ld like it if someone first checked if I wasn't missing something. And it isn't WP:OUTING (which solely deals with information about other editors), but WP:BLPPRIVACY: but that needs to be referred to oversight as well, so your point remains valid of course. Fram (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

He was also born at a very young age. It’s not a BLP issue that it is unsourced that he has an unnamed elder brother. Unworthy of Oversight. It’s just pedestrian NOTWEBHOSTing. Delete now that we are here, but could have been left for G13, G13 was made for exactly this sort of thing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

referenced, [1] “5up was born on <exact date> … has 719k subscribers on his YouTube channel and 915k on his Twitch.”

This is not a BLPPRIVATE issue for Wikipedia.

Delete, NOTFACEBOOK, NOTSOCIALMEDIA. This is not the making of anything suitable for Wikipedia. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@SmokeyJOe: you have missed the two things objected to here: the supposed "real name" of 5up (not in source, not mentioned elsewhere, so a BLPPRIVATE issue), and the claim that he was raised by his elder brother (not in source, so BLP violation). Fram (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@SmokeyJoe: as always ping gone wrong... Fram (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Ok yes, misread. Delete per nom. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I have contacted oversight. Fram (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

It’s below my threshold for oversight. He’s probably revealed his mother’s maiden name on YouTube and twitch. Buts it’s nice that Wikipedia has exemplary standards. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Considering that he only recently did a "face reveal" (I know, great news), it seems quite possible that he hasn't revealed his real name. Maintaining anonimity is slightly easier if people don't know your name. Fram (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

After some consideration, I have oversight deleted the page. PhilKnight (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 9, 2021[edit]

Draft:Anon Cummings[edit]

Subject of the draft has no significance outside a particular and seemingly obscure video/game, the draft about which (Draft:Summertime Saga) I have rejected as beyond hope, months after three declines (by AngusWOOF and Zxcvbnm). The sole creator has been blocked by Bbb23 as a promotion-only account. It's unimaginable that this draft could ever become an article. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Draft:Summertime Saga, and allow it to be deleted WP:G8 when the target is deleted WP:G13. No advantage in rushing the process. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I agree with others here that this should be deleted, I just think that it should be left for the standard deletion pathway of G13, because we don’t want to bring every harmless worthless draft to MfD for a community discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete - As SmokeyJoe wrote in a different context, MFD is for things that never should have existed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I agree, the general statement, mfd, deletion, is for things that should not have been created in the first place. That applies to most things found in projectspace and userspace. It doesn’t so much apply to draftspace, because unimportant worthless harmless stuff can, and should, be left for G13.

In this case, Summertime Saga, is a plausible topic. I found one quality source, [2]. Anon Cummings is the player character in that game, a plausible spinout. Premature, given the difficulty in bringing the game itself up to Stub level. This is well above “never should have existed”.

The two drafts, even merged, will probably will never get to mainspace, but they are better left for G13 than deleting now. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Delete as "unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace" in WP:DMFD. Also the last name Cummings is not explained in the game draft article, not like Cloud Strife AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 8, 2021[edit]

Wikipedia:PBS[edit]

Proposing for deletion as I am not sure the true purpose of this page. Appears to be outdated. Astros4477 (Talk) 14:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I made this page as a record of some meetings. It is one of many records in category:Wikipedia meetups in New York City, and more broadly, Wikipedia meetups. Should this discussion be be about this particular record, or about best practices for records in general? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Mark as {{historical}}. bibliomaniac 1 5 16:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Tag with Template:Historical: Keeping what Bluerasberry said in mind, it's probably best to just replace this with the historical template and be done with it. Curbon7 (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

A page-move may also be of benefit if this route is chosen, as WP:PBS can probably be more useful as link elsewhere. Curbon7 (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Mark as Historical unless a reason, not yet mentioned, is given to Delete or to Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep. The nomination statement is not sufficient to justify an MfD. He should have asked on a talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 7, 2021[edit]

User:Charismamata/sandbox[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO; most references are WP:PRIMARY or illegitimate; content is copy and paste of the original edit from User talk:Garydoherty1976/sandbox, and both accounts are blocked for sockpuppetry per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Charismamata; likely WP:COI or undisclosed WP:PAID editing. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete as promotion by sockpuppeteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Delete per nom. ― Qwerfjkl talk 16:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Oppose deletion on the basis of being sockpuppet generated content, unless requested or agreed by a WP:SPI clerk or better, because it means mfd being run as shadow SPI clerking. Ask User:TheresNoTime, the blocking checkuser. Note that WP:COI and WP:PAID, and even WP:UPE content are not deletion reasons even in mainspace (see WT:Deletion policy), which means they are even less of a reason in userspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
If this page is a copy of User talk:Garydoherty1976/sandbox, then that page deletion was a bad U5, because this page is a plausible draft. User:Athaenara? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Whichever is a copy of which, both copies are advertisements, and no, we don't let self-promoters use Wikipedia for that. It's eligible for {{db-g11}}. – Athaenara ✉ 15:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I disagree that it is G11-eligible. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The subject, Gary Doherty, Irish TEDx speaker and personal coach (read promotion angles), is plausibly notable. However, this draft contains 63 mostly bad quality references. When starting a WP:BLP with promotional aspects, I strongly advise following advice at WP:THREE, and not WP:Reference bombing.

Delete per WP:TNT, without prejudice that some of the references could have been ok, and noting that the current author is blocked and this draft would be massively more work to rescue than for someone to start again. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 6, 2021[edit]

User:Ohioworld/JWray[edit]

This one has a few issues. Firstly, there's a copyvio of a Springfield News-Sun article in the Wrestling section. Secondly, there's content copied from an old revision of Lil Wayne from 2011 which isn't allowed per WP:COPIES. As this article is about JWray, the content about Lil Wayne is not appropriate here. Therefore, what is the best solution: remove the copyvio and old revision copying of Lil Wayne while keeping the rest of the userpage draft, or delete? This might have also been made at JWray by the same user, but I can't confirm as I'm not an admin. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Weak Delete as a coprolite from a user who did nothing but create this ten years ago. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Draft:National Broadband Mission (NBM)[edit]

Copyright Violations of- https://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/National%20Broadband%20Mission%20-%20Booklet_0.pdf?download=1 and other sites MoonlightVector^{Talk page} 13:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I've just finished cleaning the page, and the remainder is copyright compliant. — Diannaa (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Weak Delete Used Earwig on the draft and has ~60% similarity. Copyediting was also madeIf possible, for me, keep it for now. Xingqiu • Talk 15:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
- The draft has a large quotation which gives the 60% similarity result. Quotations are not copyright violations.— Diannaa (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
- Oh, okay then, thanks. Xingqiu • Talk 11:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Weak Keep - What is left is a draft that will be declined. We don't delete drafts because they need declining. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Draft:What is the importance of trees and how to preserve them[edit]

Content look like forum-ish or blog to me, therefore delete per what Wikipedia is not guideline Xingqiu • Talk 11:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Withdraw Report is malformed as there are no wikilink to the target draft being nominated. Xingqiu • Talk 11:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment Withdrawal of nomination has been canceled, now open for debate. Thanks User:PorkchopGMX backup for this. Xingqiu • Talk 15:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Weak delete – this draft is harmless and should have been permitted to die a natural death, but since we're here we might as well delete per WP:NOTESSAY etc. For future reference, MfDing drafts is frowned upon in all but exceptional circumstances: see WP:NDRAFT and WP:RAGPICKING. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Weak Delete - Unlikely to be able to be fixed before it expires. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Delete. Not a plausible draft. It is an essay unrelated to the purpose of Wikipedia. WP:NOTADVOCACY. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 5, 2021[edit]

Wikipedia:List of articles with Perl source code[edit]

I'm not sure why this would be useful, and it seems to be many years out of date. Qwerfjkl talk 17:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Tag with Template:Historical: Completely abandoned. However, the talk page, Wikipedia talk:List of articles with Perl source code, was the site of a "Vote for Deletion" back in 2004, so that should be maintained for the historical record. Curbon7 (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Redirect to Category:Articles with example Perl code. A category is a much more sensible way of keeping track of this kind of stuff, and this would match what was done to Wikipedia:List of articles with Python programs and Wikipedia:List of articles with C programs. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Mark Historical - The {{Historical}} can be used in Wikipedia space as an Alternative to Deletion that is not available in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Redirect per 192-etc. Dronebogus (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Redirect per IP. — csc^-1 18:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

User:Polysophia/Magic Trick (2011 film)[edit]

U5 ineligible, 2 sentence stub of user that last edited in 2012. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep. Not a good deletion rationale. There are no time limes. Nothing wrong with this userpage. This sort of policing of others' userspace is unwelcoming to returning editors and is a net negative to the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Do not move to draftspace. Use of draftspace is optional. WP:DUD. Moves to draftspace would mean the routine slow deletion of old users userspace, which would lock in the Self-fulfilling prophecy of their non-return. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Move to Draft Space - We do not need to keep time capsules for departed users just in case they come back. If someone wants to add references, it can be reviewed. (Well, reviewed has two meanings, reviewed by a film critic and reviewed by an AFC editor. Both are applicable.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
- Please reread WP:STALE and the RfCs which led to it. Trying an end-run deletion-via-draftspace is certainly not in the spirit of WP:STALE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  I'm pretty sure Rob is not seeking deletion by moving it to draftspace but is rather trying to legitimately promote them to mainspace as decent articles that would survive AfD. I certainly am not and I would ask that you strike the last sentence. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Disagree. The only difference between a draft in userspace and a draft in draftspace is the latter can be deleted.
  There was, in the earliest days of the draftspace idea, some notion that it would be useful for collaboration. That people would stumble upon other people's drafts, and after enough people did so it might be improved enough to move to mainspace. But apart from a few unusual cases and concerted efforts to do that, it doesn't happen. It's only ever used collaboratively by people who start out working together and are all active. It is, putting it as mildly as possible, unrealistic that an unsourced stub moved to draftspace will be stumbled upon by someone, improved, and moved to mainspace -- no more probable than the same thing happening in userspace, because the people primarily stumbling across such drafts are the people interested in patrolling the part of Wikipedia that's not indexed and hard to find.
  I work with an awful lot of new users, and there was a time that I encouraged people to use draftspace (and even used it myself on occasion). But an effort by a small number of users 3-6 years ago to make deletion of drafts as easy as possible eroded its value and made it, effectively, a trap for new users who don't know better. That can be beneficial when those new users are paid editors or otherwise creating harmful content, but G13 doesn't discriminate and the other CSD categories cover the worst stuff anyway. So unless I'm talking to someone who has a COI, I'd be telling them to avoid draftspace and to use userspace instead.
  Before the automatic countdown, a couple users would just move drafts to mainspace that have no business being in mainspace just so they'd qualify for AfD. Then there was a push to do that in userspace, too. After the countdown, there came the moving from userspace to draftspace to make it qualify for G13, or just going in an submitting other people's drafts to AfC regardless of readiness to make them qualify for G13. This was all roundly rejected, but it still happens from time to time.
  It would be fair to say some of us are a little sensitized to efforts to delete userspace content in ways that aren't explicitly permitted by policy/precedent. I do have a hard time believing that someone who's been around for as long as Robert could think that moving an unsourced stub from userspace to draftspace would think that's the best way to make the page survive. More likely is "make someone do something with it, or get rid of it," which isn't a position that isn't in the spirit of our policies on the matter. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep per WP:TIND. No good reason for those who are/were here to build an encyclopedia to be subject to userspace policing in this situation. — csc^-1 17:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep - if it doesn't qualify for CSD, there's almost never a reason to mess with other people's userspace. Not seeing a reason here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

User:Polysophia/Windfall (2010)[edit]

Editor has not edited since 2012, but has made constructive edits elsewhere so U5 is not eligible. Stub article with little potential. (Will be nominating similar articles Sennecaster (Chat) 00:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Move to Draft Space and post a notice at a wind energy project that this stub could be improved. IMDB is not a reliable source, but an IMDB listing usually means that reliable sources can be found. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Redirect to Windfall (2010 film). Do not delete others’ userspace. Do not draftify others’ userspace for G13 deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Redirect as per SJ. I made the mistake of not checking whether an article existed. If an article exists, a user page, like a draft page, should be redirected. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Redirect to Windfall (2010 film) per above. — csc^-1 17:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep - if it doesn't qualify for CSD, there's almost never a reason to mess with other people's userspace. Not seeing a reason here. What possible good does redirecting do? The only people who will ever see this page are the page creator and people looking through other users' draftspace for things to delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Old business[edit]

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 20:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC) ended today on 12 October 2021. 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.

October 4, 2021[edit]

User:Jwanders/ETNotice[edit]

user:Jwanders personal stuff, which clutters articles' talk pages, eg Talk:Ecoforestry. This user was lastly online in 2016. It seems that this question is already solved, see Template_talk:Environmental_technology#Rework_to_match_standard_navbox_style Estopedist1 (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete - I have not researched the original issues, but we don't need to allow the user space of long-gone users to keep either junk or old notes. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes we do, and we need people like you to not make offensive statements like that on the work of past editors. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment - Do we need a guideline on these? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep. To the extent that this is the editors personal notes, it should be kept for them indefinitely. Even if the user is confirmed to have died, we do not delete their notes.
It is, however, a template athat they used on many pages for a good reason. Subst all the transclusions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep Clutter on talk pages should be handled via archiving, not deleting. Furthermore, unused/outdated/historical/junk content should be left as is (or marked historical), not deleted, as that isn't a reason why the content needs to be removed from the public eye. — csc^-1 17:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep per csc and joe — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep per above. If you're really bothered by this template cluttering up a certain talk page, just archive it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 3, 2021[edit]

User:Khayyam 77/Afedism[edit]

As this is a personal opinion of this user per the Afedism paragraph, this fails WP:UP#GOALS. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete for two reasons. This is a personal opinion essay that is not a plausible draft. I would consider rejecting it if it were submitted as a draft, but it isn't being submitted. Second, it is the work of an editor who hasn't been here for two years. There should be a time limit on how long junk can be kept in the user space of non-users. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
There should not be time limits. One of the driving philosophies of Wikipedia is that there are no time limits. Your reference to “non-users” is confusing. Who are the non-users? Are you beginning a campaign to define inactive users as non-users? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep. A productive user’s userpage notes, sufficiently related to Wikipedia, and not the least bit offensive as presented. Well within standard leeway, with only 5% of the user’s edits being in userspace, and most in mainspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep This content is not extensive in the context of WP:UP#GOALS. Even ignoring that, minor things such as this, when done by a user who is here to build an encyclopedia, do not warrant the policing of userspace. — csc^-1 17:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep - userspace drafts that don't qualify for CSD should just be left alone. (it does strike me as a draft rather than an unrelated essay, but I can see how it might seem otherwise). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

User:Gloriamarie/The Hedonistic Imperative[edit]

As per the tag, this userspace draft is written like a personal essay, making this fail WP:UP#GOALS. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment. This was one among the three articles I userfied for the user in 2009, and this was meant to enhance the article on David Pearce (transhumanist). I do see that the user did contribute to that article, so I believe the purpose of the userfication was met and can the page can be removed. Jay ^(Talk) 21:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Delete or Move:
- This page is in the user space of a user who has not edited in six years. There is no policy or guideline or common sense rule that requires that pages be kept in user space for users who have gone away.
- This page is in the nature of a draft. It is not a personal essay, but is about a published essay. If it were submitted for review as a draft, it would be declined, not rejected or tagged for deletion. But it is in the user space of a departed user.
- If someone wants to take over this page, they should be allowed to do so. Otherwise it should be available for claiming later via requests for undeletion.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep. Completely inoffensive, and a long way within leeway for a very productive editor. The page is far less offensive than random policing of others’ userspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep This content is not extensive in the context of WP:UP#GOALS. Even ignoring that, minor things such as this, when done by a user who is here to build an encyclopedia, do not warrant the policing of userspace. — csc^-1 17:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Restore article to mainspace and redirect from there - if this were simply an article userfied after deleted at AfD, that's one of the things we should typically delete. However, if material from that undeleted article was then used in mainspace, we need the history intact. There's a problem, however, in that it looks like the article wasn't actually undeleted but copy/paste moved by Jay, which doesn't preserve the history (unless Jay was the sole author of the original article). IMO the best course would be to delete this (as it hasn't been modified, it seems), restore that actual article to mainspace, then redirect that to the Pearce article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
As the user had asked for only the text of the article for reference, and not the article itself, I copied the best last version and offered the user the whole deleted 92 versions, but it does look like the user did not want that. Jay (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

September 20, 2021[edit]

Portal:Biochemistry[edit]

Basically I don't see the point of having this portal. It receives 50x less views than the primary article (biochemistry) a day and contains minimal other content. When I view it contains: one paragraph about a "selected article", some uncited DYK content, and many many wikilinks.

I can see that a XfD was placed in mid 2019. Basically I think:

This page is still not helpful to readers, and it would actually be better if they just saw the main Biochemistry article
This page is not helpful to readers
This page is not actively maintained
There is absolutely no reason why what looks like around 200 articles need to link to this skimpy portal from mainspace
This situation hasn't changed since either the portal or renovated in 2019

Last MfD was dominated by two passionate editors who I think drowned out the voices of the community to a degree. So I would like to resubmit this portal for deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Biochemistry. Portals are moribund. What merit they have should be woven into a refresh of WikiProjects. No good reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

“Redirect to biochemistry”, as a general solution to all moribund portals, is the most obviously reader-focused easy solution. Anyone looking for an introduction to Biochemistry is VERY WELL served by the mainspace article.

As for all the subpages (if any), archive, move them to the WikiProject and archive them there. (If anyone cares, portal space orphan pages do no harm)

These are obvious policy compliant WP:ATD solutions, and the failure to address them means that this deletion discussion should be speedy closed. There is no reason the history should be unavailable to non-admins. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Speedy close with what action? Replace by redirect (effectively, deletion)? I don't think the portal meets any CSD, and this is the correct forum for a contested deletion. Certes (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Speedy close with no action. Refer to nominator to the Portal talk page, or to Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines, or to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals where you and I have recently had discussion. I have proposed drastic restructure there. I don’t seem to be persuading people, but the solution to lack of progress in discussion is NOT to praise the discussion as a 7 day deletion discussion. There is no WP:Deletion policy reason for deletion here, and every problem has a WP:ATD solution. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Portals lack developed policy. Ok? MfD is not for policy development. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@SmokeyJoe: I agree that portals would benefit from better guidelines and MfD is not the place to develop them, but I'm concerned by the "ATD solution". Do you intend to replace the portal with a redirect, even if this discussion closes as "no action"? If so, would that be because you feel this portal is exceptionally bad, or because you feel that most or all portals should be quietly overwritten by redirects? If I've misunderstood, please enlighten and forgive me. Certes (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The existence of an ATD solution means that XfD is improper without explicitly addressing the ATD solution.

Coming to XfD might feel like a good idea to make things happen, because XfDs come with a 7 day time limit, but that is not a proper use of XfD.

I have given a !vote to "redirect", because I think it is a better idea than deleting. I happen o think it is generally a good idea to do that to every portal, after moving good portals to WikiProjects where they can serve editors.

If consensus here is to redirect, then it will be redirected. If this discussion does not reach consensus to redirect, I will not be unilaterally boldly redirecting myself, no.

If someone does unilaterally redirect, then I would expect you to revert the redirect, and then if someone doesn't like the revert, they should make their case at Portal talk:Biochemistry. Escalation routes are WP:3O, WP:RFC, or a Village Pump, but not MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep. WP:NOBODYREADSIT is not a good reason for deletion, especially as the portal receives more visits per incoming wikilink than the article. The portal had a major overhaul in 2019 and minor maintenance since. Changes in showcased articles are reflected automatically, and nothing displayed seems obviously outdated. The format and general quality are similar to other portals which have been kept. Redirects from Portal: to mainspace are rare, and often for technical reasons such as Portal: No Escape. Replacement by a redirect would essentially be deletion, and would leave orphan subpages. "Portals are moribund" is a credible argument, but previous discussion found strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals en masse. Consensus can change but, as we have since deleted the worst portals (and many others) and improved the survivors, there seems to be little support for deleting this portal simply because it is a portal. Certes (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Delete, concurring with the nominating arguments of User:Tom (LT):
- - As the nominator states, there was an MFD in July 2019, in the middle of the deletion of hundreds of portals, many of which were created in 2018 by the portal platoon, and many of which had simply been languishing for years or even a decade. This portal had been named Portal:Metabolism, but had no real content until, during the MFD, it was renamed Portal:Biochemistry and restarted by User:Northamerica1000.
  - The nominator states that the debate was dominated by two passionate editors. Since there were multiple contributors, three of whom were the most active, I will take the nominator's comment as a compliment to mean that my involvement reflected reason more than passion. The other two were User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Northamerica1000.
  - In the previous MFD, User:UnitedStatesian recommended that, after the redesign (or design) of the portal, we wait for twelve months and then see whether the portal had been useful. I disagreed, favoring deletion, but that was a reasonable compromise proposal. The result of the MFD was No Consensus, and another look at the portal after two years is in order.
  - While WP:NOBODYREADSIT is not a reason to delete articles, which summarize what secondary reliable sources have written about, it should be and is a reason to delete portals, which are a clumsy way of navigating encyclopedic coverage of a topic that is better navigated by means of links from main articles and categories. Nobody reads it. The portal had an average of 24 daily pageviews in calendar year 2020, while the head article had an average of 1096 daily pageviews. A reader who wants to learn about biochemistry can better follow the links or peruse the categories.
  - On the one hand, portals are moribund. On the other hand, User:Certes is correct that the last time the community was asked about ending portals in 2018, the community declined to take that action. (This then was seen by the portal platoon as a basis to create thousands of dumb portals by script.) The community also has been unable to approve a portal guideline, even after being advised by the ArbCom to hold a community discussion on portals. What had been thought to be a portal guideline for twelve years had never been ratified, and then the community declined to adopt what had been labeled as a guideline. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_153#RFC:_Formalize_Standing_of_Portal_Guidelines_as_a_Guideline_(18_July_2019)]]. So there is either a complete lack of community guidance, or inconsistent guidance, or a rough consensus that there is no consensus.
  - User:Certes says that redirecting the portal would be a de facto deletion, and I agree, and I agree that redirecting a portal to article space is weird. However, Certes says that redirecting the portal would orphan the subpages. Maybe Certes hasn't examined the portal. The portal doesn't have physical subpages. The portal has an embedded list, which is an architecture that is an improvement over the disastrous architecture of truncated content fork subpages. Is Certes using a standard argument without analyzing the actual portal?
  - Since there are no notability guidelines for portals, the governing guideline is Use Common Sense, and that is that this portal is not a useful way to see what the encyclopedia says about biochemistry.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

By "subpages", I mean titles such as Portal:Biochemistry/box-header and Portal:Biochemistry/Did you know which are transcluded by the main portal. Certes (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Delete It's clear from the 2019 portal MfDs that, contrary to the sole argument for keeping, being abandoned and being barely read are valid reasons to delete a portal. Oppose redirecting as I don't see the point of a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Points for a redirect include:
- For readers who expect there to be a Portal:Biochemistry, to send them to the best place;
- For residual incoming links (there are currently many)
- For incoming links from the many downstream copies of Wikipedia (external incoming links that will persist);
On the question of where to redirect, you may think Portal space to mainspace is weird? I would oppose a redirect to Portal:Science as Portal:Science does not mention biochemistry. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Deletion would be less harmful than redirecting. If we must be perverse enough to go out of our way to deny our readers this useful material, we shouldn't be promising them a portal whilst linking them to an article. All but 12 articles which link to the portal also link to Biochemistry anyway.
The important question which still goes unanswered is: should the portal be deleted
because it falls below the general standard of portals (in what ways), or

because it is a typical portal and portals should be deleted on principle (which needs an RfC, not a MfD)
It seems irrational and unfair to delete (or ATD) without revealing which of those arguments is being applied. Certes (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
My argument for radical restructure, deprecating portals, is that they serve no positive net service. For readers, they are inferior to the parent article. For editors, and prospective editors, they are inferior to WikiProjects. This is true for all but the mainpage-linked Portals. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I interpret that as option 2. This MfD is clearly not the best forum to seek consensus for such a radical restructure. The only valid reason for deleting any page at XfD is that it falls below our standard for that type of page. Deleting an entire namespace requires an RfC, as happened recently with Book:. Chipping portals away one by one just for daring to be a typical portal was tried in 2019, and ended up at ArbCom. Certes (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
MfD is a terrible forum for a radical restructure, I agree. It is not what MfD is for.

Deletion is best reserved for things that should never have been created. Portal:Biochemistry does not fit that definition. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
User:Certes - I will try to answer your question. You ask is it option 1 or option 2. The answer is option 1. It falls below the general standard of portals. It has only 24 pageviews per day, and is not maintained. Portals that had fewer than 50 daily pageviews were often deleted in 2019, and those with fewer than 25 daily pageviews were almost always deleted. ArbCom didn't say to stop deleting cruddy portals. ArbCom said to hold a community discussion on portals, which fizzled out, and sanctioned an editor, not for opposing portals, but for personal attacks. The community did decide that there is no guideline for portals, so that means that we should use common sense, at least if anyone will tell us what the purpose of portals is. It still appears, as it did in 2019, that the advocates of portals have some mystical attachment to them that they cannot explain, and that therefore the advocates of portals see every portal as good. Some of us think that religion, rather than Wikipedia, is the route to mysticism. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I agree that whether typical portals should be deleted is a question for an RFC. This is a substandard portal. There are still many substandard portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Delete (second choice redirect). As others have noted, not being used and not being maintained are in fact valid reasons for deletion; a portal is not an encyclopedic topic itself, but rather a guide for readers, and an unused guide is worthless. Far better to spend that time on something like Outline of biochemistry instead, an actual article. Note that in the event redirection is chosen, there should be a high standard for restoring the Portal in the future - not just a one-time "here's an update." SnowFire (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep page view counts are not considered to be a valid reason for deleting anything on Wikipedia, and they shouldn't be. We are here to build an encyclopedia, if something is a valid part of that encyclopedia then it's still a valid part of that encyclopedia even if nobody reads it. Same goes for number of recent edits. Unlike some portals which have been created this is a high profile, broad topic. Consensus is against deprecating portals in general, so suggestions that we should do so are going against consensus. Hut 8.5 21:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep – The portal provides a functional, concise overview of the topic of biochemistry, serving as an informative page that is also useful for navigation. With the advent of the newer portal transclusion templates, portals do not require constant maintenance and updating. Content in articles is displayed verbatim on the portal; so the content does not become outdated. Numbers of page views is not a valid rationale for deletion at this time. If it were, then thousands of stub articles would qualify for deletion for having low page views, such as the Krzywda, Zwoleń County article, which has received a daily average of zero page views in the last 90 days (link). Should this geographical article then also be deleted, since it receives low page views, or only the portal, because it's a portal? Some opining for deletion have stated that the portal is not being maintained, but have provided no opinion regarding what sorts of maintenance would be in order to correct the open-ended statement. Should a new article be added every day? Every week? Bimonthly? Which should it be? What other work could be performed on the portal to improve it, rather than basing deletion upon arbitrary notions of it being "unmaintained"? Also, if a portal is not edited regularly, it does not automatically mean that it has been "abandoned", and again, verbatim content is presented via the transclusion templates .Another issue regarding page views is that very few articles in main namespace link to it (presently only 27 articles). So, if readers do not have access to links to view the portal in the first place, then the portal will naturally be viewed less. The solution here is for more links to the portal to be added to main namespace articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The portal page includes This page has been maintained by WikiProject Molecular Biology. However, there is zero overlap between editors of the portal page and members of the WikiProject. Can you explain? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Not sure why I should have to "explain" the work of others, but User:Zephyris created the initial portal in 2007 (perm link) and is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Biochemistry page redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology. User:Zephyris joined the WikiProject in 2005 (diff). So there's your overlap. Sorry, but your statement above that there is "zero overlap" is incorrect. Are you trying to find something wrong? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I thought you could explain because you did most of the recent edits to the portal. Presumably, that would mean that you interact with the WikiProject members.

I am seeking to understand the connection, if any, between the Portal and the WikiProject. You’ve pointed out a connection dating back in 2007, but I seem to learn that there is no such WikiProject Biochemistry, and never was. So the line is a small error? SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Delete per SnowFire. "Not edited" and "not read" (along with "bad quality") are valid reasons to delete pages that are meant primarily for readers, while encouraging them to become editors of Wikipedia by providing links to project space. (from WP:PORTAL). Portals do not have encyclopedic content of their own, no information would be lost. No such user (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Delete per BHG's original concerns in the prior MFD. This is a moribund portal.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

September 13, 2021[edit]

Draft:Lana Rhoades[edit]

Lana Rhoades

This draft was submitted and rejected in February 2021, and has been resubmitted without explanation or discussion. (There have been changes, but the nature of rejection is and should be such that an editor should not simply modify and resubmit a draft after rejection.) The draft was rejected because articles about the subject have been created and deleted three times, most recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana Rhoades (4th nomination). The title Lana Rhoades was cut down to a redirect, and was salted. It appears that the salting in article space has expired (possibly due to an error in entering the date by the salting admin).

The subject is a pornographic actress who appears to have a cult following of ultras. Any effort to create an article (after three deletions and one Deletion Review) should be via another Deletion Review, not by disruptive resubmission.

Recommend that this draft be deleted from draft space, and ECP create-protected in draft space, and that the redirect be ECP-protected in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep, "and has been resubmitted without explanation or discussion" is incorrect. Please see the comment I left on the draft. I'll repost it here. I added sourcing that did not exist at the time of the AFDs nor the last submission more than half a year ago. I do not appreciate the accusation of disruptive resubmission. I could have just moved the draft to mainspace. Mbdfar (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- "Draft revised by removing most non-english sources and providing a couple more reliable, secondary sources. I would ask the next reviewer to consider the in-depth Playboy article published since the last AFD. "Most recent" AFD was over a year ago. Although many sources are industry magazines, I believe there is more than enough coverage in this article and online (such as this list from the 4th AFD: Germany (Rheinische Post), and Spain (Marca), and Puerto Rico (El Imparcial), and Portugal (Correio da Manhã), and those found in the previous version of this draft [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]) to satisfy WP:BASIC." Mbdfar (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Robert McClenon:, I don't understand why my submission incorporating new WP:RSP, with the aim of improving the article and making it pass WP:GNG, was deemed contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Last submission was over 6 months ago, it's not like I'm spamming entries. I commented my rationale on the page. Legitimately believe this version of the draft is worthy of a non-biased review. Mbdfar (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
No comment on the merits of the draft but the mere fact something has been deleted at AfD a few times doesn't automatically make working on a draft inappropriate, or even recreating the article, and there's no requirement to go to DRV (which would probably ask to see a draft version anyway). The draft author did also make some improvements before resubmitting it. Hut 8.5 12:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Delete per nom and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana Rhoades (4th nomination). Advise the proponent of WP:DUD, and that few in the WP:AfC WikiProject are supportive of recreation of multiply deleted old topic, unless the advice at WP:THREE is followed. Also note that WP:PORNBIO topics are tolerated much less than once before. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- @SmokeyJoe:; Thanks for the WP:DUD link, that is the exact reason why I decided to re-edit and resubmit 6 months later. For what it's worth, this is only the second time this draft has been submitted for review. Again, thanks for the link to WP:THREE, but I did add "two or three" more WP:RS before resubmission. Also, the last AFD was over a year ago. This is a public figure, things change in that timeframe. I want to know why me changing things and submitting it (6 months later!) is considered disruptive.
- But this discussion isn't whether or not to accept the draft. If the reviewer doesn't think it's ready for namespace, fine! That's why I'm going through the motions and not just moving the page now, because I believe in the process. But why delete? This isn't a copyright vio, promotional, or anything else. It would simply be a case of WP:TOO SOON. If that's what the reviewer thinks, ok cool, I'll try again in another half year. Again, I'm not spamming submit, I'm not resubmitting the same version of the draft over and over. Deleting doesn't help anything, just say no for now. Mbdfar (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment - The draft had been Rejected and not declined. Rejection is intended to be final, and the submitter is not invited to resubmit a rejected draft. That doesn't prevent submitters from resubmitting rejected drafts, but it is not supposed to be done. In this case I had rejected the draft precisely because articles on Lana Rhoades had already been deleted by the community three times, and I will not accept a draft on a topic where the community has already discussed the notability of the subject. We can assume that another article would be deleted a fourth time. That is why I had rejected the draft rather than declining it, and a rejected draft simply should not be resubmitted. Resubmission of a rejected draft is very seldom done in good faith.
However, after reviewing the history, and User:Mbdfar's statement here, I think that this is a rare case where a rejected article is being resubmitted in good faith. When I reject a draft, I normally add a templated warning saying that if the draft is resubmitted, it may be nominated for deletion, or a topic-ban may even be requested. I forgot to provide that warning this time. Other reviewers do not always do that, and such a warning should not be needed, but the author had not been specifically told not to resubmit the draft. Also, I see that the author wishes to rely on new material to establish general notability. The way to do that after there has been a deletion discussion is not simply to submit or resubmit a draft. After a deletion, the author should request Deletion Review and should cite new material that may establish general notability. (General notability may be the only guideline that now applies to pornographic performers.)
If User:Mbdfar wishes to request Deletion Review on account of new material being available to support general notability, then I suggest that this MFD be relisted or otherwise kept open for an additional week, which is the time that a Deletion Review is normally open.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

- @Robert McClenon:; I appreciate the lengthy reply. I was not aware of the distinction between 'rejected' and 'declined' - I wonder if it's possible to remove the 'submit' button from 'rejected' drafts to prevent this confusion in the future. For what it's worth, your original post on my talk page after the February rejection did state "...please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page which criterion is met, and resubmit." It did have your warning at the bottom, but it was contradictory with the first half of the post. This was evidently confusing and should be considered in the future.
- I will likely open a deletion review once I look over the policy. Regardless, I still don't see the benefit of deleting the draft in it's current state. Would you consider placing the warning template on the draft and leaving it? I wouldn't resubmit it again, I just think the draft is well sourced and formatted, and would be a good jumping off point for future editors once notability is established. And for the record, I'm not an ultra. That was unnecessary. Thanks. Mbdfar (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  - User:Mbdfar - If you request Deletion Review, then, as noted, this MFD should be relisted or otherwise kept open while the DRV is in progress. If Deletion Review is not requested, and the three previous deletions of Lana Rhoades are allowed to stand, then the draft will serve no useful purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  - User:Mbdfar - I will take your word that you are not an ultra. Some editors, including some of those who push for the inclusion of deleted articles, are ultras; and the essay on ultras does state that they are good-faith editors who simply are very enthusiastic about a particular topic, team, or person. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    - @Robert McClenon:; "[if] the three previous deletions of Lana Rhoades are allowed to stand, then the draft will serve no useful purpose." - then why wasn't the draft put up for MfD in February? If you saw no chance of accepting this article through AfC, as you made it seem above, what was the purpose of leaving the draft initially? And why are things different now? Mbdfar (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Delete: per prior article deletion discussions. No point in maintaining a draft on a nn subject, whose lack of notability has been recently (2020) determined by consensus. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment User:Mbdfar - You haven't yet requested Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- @Robert McClenon: - And you haven't answered my above question. Mbdfar (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  - User:Mbdfar - The reason why I nominated the draft for deletion in September 2021 and not any of the previous times that it was submitted is just as I explained, which is that in September you resubmitted the draft after it had been Rejected. The Rejection of a draft is not the same as a decline, and Reject does not mean, "Resubmit when you feel like it", or "Resubmit after improvements". Rejection means, "Do not resubmit". And you resubmitted it anyway. You can see that some of the previous submissions had been declined and some had been rejected. If you didn't know that there is a difference, you should have asked, because you should have read the different messages. You resubmitted a Rejected draft, and I nominated it for deletion. That is an answer to your question. As I explained, you should have requested Deletion Review rather than resubmitting after rejection, and you still can request Deletion Review rather than using MFD to argue about adding sources. The fact is that you resubmitted a rejected draft, and that is a form of disruption that is usually dealt with by deleting the draft that should not have been resubmitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I disagree with Robert referring you to Deletion Review post rejection. DRV is NOT a standard appeal route for AfC rejection. Unless you have a WP:COI with the article, the proper referral is to WP:DUD. You can take the line that all of the AfC reviewers have got it wrong. Mainspace it yourself, and follow it to AfD.
    
    After mainspacing the improved draft, DRV is for contenting a possible WP:CSD#G4 deletion, or if you have an actual problem with the AfD deletion. Be aware that prior REJECTION at AfC is a bad sign for AfD, but this is the path available, and then AfD deletion has more finality than AfD Rejection. AfD acceptance, even "no consensus", makes the AfC reviews moot.
    
    If you have a WP:COI with the article, you should just give up. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    - @Robert McClenon:; that actually does not answer my question. Perhaps @SmokeyJoe: can provide more insight. I'm more concerned about the fundamentals of rejecting a draft. If I may highlight the question again, If you saw no chance of accepting this article through AfC, as you made it seem above, what was the purpose of leaving the draft initially? In other words, why wasn't the draft put up for MfD in February? No matter what sources I actually added, we'd be here regardless, correct? What, in your opinion, is the value in leaving a draft that can't be resubmitted? Mbdfar (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      User:Mbdfar, are you asking about the history of declines before rejection? Previous declines may give reviewers more confidence that the draft has no hope.
      
      Drafts only get put up for deletion at MfD if there is contention between submitters and reviewers. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      User:SmokeyJoe, not really. I guess I just don't understand why rejection is an option at all. If a reviewer thinks that the draft has no hope, why not go straight to MfD instead of rejection? Again, what is the value in leaving a rejected draft that can't be resubmitted? Mbdfar (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      User:Mbdfar the purpose of leaving the rejected draft undeleted is so that the author can, at their leisure, read the reasons for rejection. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment to closer - I have no objection to a Relist, but this MFD has already been open for 10 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I object to pointless, comment-free relists. They do little more than shuffle the MfD list order, and in fact hide the old age of the discussion. Old discussions get more prominence by being old in the backlog. A meaningful relist comment will note something that wasn't known to earlier participants, or will offer some wise refocusing advice. The relist template tends to give extra weight to new !votes that follow it, so the relisting comment really needs to have some merit. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep for now. I do see enough of a good faith improvement effort to give this draft the benefit of a doubt. That said, User:Mbdfar, I am unimpressed by the new citations and remain unconvinced this person is notable. Low-quality English-language sources are not an improvement over foreign language sources. WP:SIGCOV by reliable secondary sources remains the key problem, but I am also not convinced of the need to nuke the draft, instead of letting the draft process run its course. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- @Gene93k:; "Low-quality English-language sources are not an improvement over foreign language sources." I agree. However, the non-English sources were largely ignored in the previous AfDs, therefore making me believe either they were not sufficient to increase notability or people were not willing to consider them. I thought the new, multi-page Playboy article (a WP:RS) and the mention in the Wall Street Journal were very high quality. I believe those, supported by the large number of non-English sources (which do seem to be reliable) and souces found in the previous version of the draft, brought the article over the cusp of acceptability. Mbdfar (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Delete This ship has sailed, the citations are the same low-brow AVN, XBIZ, pornhub "awards" and the like that have been dismissed in several past discussions. Barring a notable event in the subject's life that sees coverage in legitimate sources, there is really nothing to discuss about this woman. Zaathras (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
- User:Zaathras, I have edited the draft to remove "low-brow AVN, XBIZ, pornhub "awards" and the like" citations that have been dismissed in the past discussions. I would be interested to hear your opinion of some of the remaining references. Mbdfar (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Not really about Lana Rhoades but about procedures[edit]

First, User:Mbdfar asks why this draft was not previously nominated for deletion, and what is the purpose of rejecting drafts rather than of immediately nominating them for miscellany for deletion. One of the main reasons is to avoid clogging up MFD with large numbers of worthless drafts. Rejected drafts will be deleted in six months as G13 if the author leaves them alone.
Second, User:SmokeyJoe refers to the option of moving or copying the draft into article space. I will point out that an article with a title that has been deleted repeatedly will almost certainly be tagged for G4 deletion as previously deleted. The New Page Reviewer who tags it for deletion does not have access to the previous article, but knows that many re-creations of previously deleted articles need deleting again. I was recommending Deletion Review not as an appeal from the rejection of the draft, but as an appeal from the deletion of the previous article.
Third, User:SmokeyJoe says that DRV is not a standard appeal route for rejected drafts. That statement is true; there is no standard appeal route for rejected drafts. I am willing to consider defining a standard appeal route. Is SmokeyJoe making a recommendation?

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

- The author *may* move it themself, if they don't have a COI. They take it upon themself that they are not being disruptive, and genuinely believe that new information has overcome the old AfDs. They should take it very seriously that AfC reveiwers do not agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
- For a previously AfD-deleted topic, for an AfC-REJECTED topic, there is no standard route of appeal. It is deleted. It is rejected. Move on. If, however, you think everyone else has it wrong, I would point to WP:THREE for making your case. Do not try to further waste peoples' time with endless more references for careful analysis for independence, reliability, depth of comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  At User talk:SmokeyJoe#Advice, I have responded to User:Mbdfar's WP:THREE sources, and assessed all three as "no", non-independent, all three are entirely derived directly from the subject. #1 and #2 are also blatant promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

September 23, 2021[edit]

Template:User Military ficton task force[edit]

Delete Unused userbox for defunct WikiProject. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Keep: No reason to delete. Was used. Nothing wrong with it. Busywork nominations are a net negative contribution. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It was used. There is nothing wrong with it. Deletion will make redlinks in the userpage history. There is no need to delete. If clutter in template space is the problem, userfy it to the author's userspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@SmokeyJoe: even if it is what you actually believe, calling another editor's work on the encyclopedia busywork and a net negative makes you look like a real jerk. I am sure you are not, and that you do not wish to convey that misimpression. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
User:UnitedStatesian. Even if? You doubt that I think this sort of nomination is busywork? You appear to picked a random, old innocuous thing, and have started a formal deletion discussion for it. Why, if not busywork? Your terse nomination statement gives no hint. Are you clearing out the records of Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Military fiction task force? Is your thrust coming from a clean-up of Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Or do you have an aversion WikiProject intersections?

Are you clearing out the unworthy contributions of User:Sadads? Why? Why mess with his contribution history and page creation records? You second word is actually in error. "Unused"? Incorrect, it was used.

I am aware WP:TfD has no regard for WikiArchaeology, and routinely delete old templates making old versions of articles unreadable. I guess they can argue that the templated content is not creative content belong to the page and so has not attribution need for record? I am also aware that CfD aficionados despise user categorisations, including userbox categorisation, because it is not "defining" of the user, and if the purpose is networking, fiding each other, and mutal awareness, they can user Special:WhatLinksHere. But that precludes the practice of Subst-ing the userboxing, which would protect their userbox-expressed self-declarations from people like you who would later wander in an seek the template deletion with a shallow, terse, rationale. Together, these things have created a circle of stupidity.

Why this userbox? How did you determine it was unused? For how long does it have to be unused for you to consider it ready for deletion? 1 year? 5 years? No time measure at all? You didn't give a time measure.

When this and the other userbox is deleted, what next. Are you going to continue through Category:WikiProject user templates? Is there a plan for the decision making, i.e. delete all unused as of the time you look? Will the justification be built upon lack of opposition in a small tests at MfD? If your plans are big, you should be proceeding through Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. They have an excellent set of rules that prevent busywork. Note, however, I will strongly oppose any attempt to delete once-used but now not-used userpage templates. These are for user-page self-expression, and deserve the same protection as any userpage content.

Now of course, some userboxes are not project-related, or not even suitable for polite company, and they, like any userpage, as Pppery notes, may be nominated for deletion. However, I expect nominators to put some serious rationale into their nominations. Not you, but some, nominate based on "doesn't seem useful", which is an appalling use of an important forum. You offer "Unused userbox for defunct WikiProject". "Unused" is wrong. Let's go with "userbox for defunct WikiProject". Is that a deletion rationale? It certainly is not mentioned at WP:Deletion policy, or WP:NOT, or WP:UPNOT. Maybe Wikipedia:Userboxes? Is it related to anything at Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes? Have you even ever posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes.

In the meantime, MfD is not for setting new policy, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with this userbox that was created to support coordinated contributions to mainspace.

On what basis do not not consider the nomination to be busywork?

Are you seeking to clean up template space? Have you considered userfying the userbox, or moving it to a subpage of the WikiProject (which is not for deletion even if currently inactive). Or improving the maintenance tools to separate userboxes from other old templates? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi SmokeyJoe, its a thing to clean up unused templates -- that was me in my early days and we never properly organized. Unfortunately WikiProjects don't have good ways to breath life into a working group, without active maintenance of the community. That being said, it does seem odd to delete community history even if its just documentation living in the backend. Sadads (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
User:Sadads, thanks. You made this. You put it on your userpage, and later removed it. That makes it part of your userpage's history. In template space, they like to clear out old templates. I suggest that you move it out of Template space, either move to a subpage of User:UBX, or put it in the WikiProject. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Delete per nom. Userboxes should not be exempt from the process of being nominated for deletion (and potentially deleted) as unused that other templates are subject to. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Closed discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates