Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

"WP:MFD" redirects here. For media for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files for deletion.

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

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

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

• 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

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

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	1	67	54	122
TfD	0	0	0	2	2
MfD	0	0	6	12	18
FfD	0	0	44	9	53
AfD	0	0	0	12	12

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

Archived discussions

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

Current discussions

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

November 21, 2021

Wikipedia:Alphabetical order

Wikipedia:Alphabetical order (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

It's not a helpful page. I'd fix it but it's not clear enough to that I can figure out exactly what its trying to say. I think it's saying "Categories are sorted in Unicode order" but is it "by the software" or "how you should do"? We don't use Unicode order for anything here cos it puts "Z" before "a" and that'd be madness. Maybe the software uses it for some purposes but so.

It's not marked as an essay, there's no nutshell (one reason I can't even figure out what it's about). It looks like Manual of Style type advice but it's not integrated into the MOS.

There's no activity on the talk page, I don't think the page is read or referenced much. It just gets in the way of someone trying to figure out details of how we alphabetize here. Herostratus (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep - It is an explanation of the order in which Special pages lists page names, etc. It warns you that it puts "Z" before "a", etc. Not understanding the system of ordering undermines its usefulness. - Patrick (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Robin Miah/sandbox

User:Robin Miah/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Article not developed, this person is not prominent, poor sources, only one user editing Kpddg (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Facebook Instagram and LinkedIn are definitely unsuitable sources, and as these are the sole sources, the entire page in poisoned by unacceptable source use. It appears to be a drive by autobiography, which is a misuse of Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:User Eurabia

Template:User Eurabia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This userbox promotes an Islamophobic conspiracy theory. It should also be noted that the creator was indefinitely banned for promoting Islamophobic viewpoints. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:DAO

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. Speedy deleted as a G2 test edit. Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC) Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC) Help:DAO Help:DAO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Not a Wikipedia help page. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC) Userfy: without redirect, AGF presumption of test, with suggestion to WP:U1 it if he doesn't want it, but it does not belong in project space. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC) No particular opposition to speeding G2. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC) G2 as a test page. It seems to just be someone playing around with buttons. They already have a sandbox full of button experiments, if they really want these broken ones too they can be userfied upon request. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC) G2 Speedy per 163.1.15.238. Just a test page. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

November 20, 2021

Template:Userboxthisuserlovesdeadkennedys

Template:Userboxthisuserlovesdeadkennedys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Not used, the creator is a novice. Did Q28 make a mess today? 01:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Moved from TfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• That’s no deletion rationale. Userfy either for the creator or to User:UBX. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Userfy per SmokeyJoe. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• weak delete as it’s so poor quality nobody is likely to use it (the link to the logo is a particularly funny/sad aspect) and the only other edit the user made was an even more abysmal user box that’s mercifully in their userspace. No point in userfying something for a user who made three edits back in 2019 and never returned. Dronebogus (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  A point for userfying for an old drive by editor is that assuming editors won’t return is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you would do it for a respected editor, do it for this editor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Nothing wrong with liking that band, but the creator of the userbox's only contribution to Wikipedia, was the creation of the userbox. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

November 19, 2021

Talk:Thomas L. Short

Talk:Thomas L. Short (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

No point to keeping around this talkpage of a long-deleted article. It isn't general practice to keep around article talkpages when articles are deleted, even via PROD, and I don't see a convincing case to do something different here. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete I also fail to see a reason for keeping this around. The only contents on the page are basically a G7 rationale from the article's creator. If someone does ever decide that they want to WP:REFUND the page in the future the deletion log already points to the talk page, which the undeleting admin will be able to see. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, I think it's helpful for anyone wanting to create the article, to dissuade them from doing so. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 23:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Notifying Explicit, who put the G8-exempt tag on. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 23:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• This was nearly ten years ago, but it seems that I tagged it as such based on the PROD's deletion summary, which states, "verifiability, notability, and see talk page". The talk page contains the somewhat lengthy reason why the article was nominated for deletion in the first place. Keeping the talk page brings no harm, but deleting it could. ✗plicit 03:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I fail to see how keeping an orphaned talk page from nearly a decade ago is remotely useful. Should’ve just been deleted with the parent article. A deletion notice is warning enough. Dronebogus (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Deleted articles are recreated all the time, and this is a special case. I fail to see how depriving editors of useful information is helpful. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 05:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Move to Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Thomas L. Short. There’s an argument for keeping, no harm in putting it here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Note that Thomas L. Short was only WP:PRODded, and it might be REFUNDed at any time on anyone’s request. If sent to AfD, the talk page comment should be noted in the AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Don't be a dick

Template:Don't be a dick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

It's no use. Did Q28 make a mess today? 00:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 19#Template:Don't be a dick * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as unused. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Was it self-referencing humour? "This user humbly requests that you not be a dick in interactions with them", but written in WP:Accessibility failing contrast. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Inappropriate language and tone for engaging with fellow Wikipedians. Bermicourt (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Userfy It's unused but it shouldn't necessarily be deleted. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Nhlarry/Work-in-Progress/Cummings Research Park

User:Nhlarry/Work-in-Progress/Cummings Research Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

A mostly unreferenced user space subpage that cannot be moved to draft space due to Cummings Research Park already having an article. The content here is better than the current article, but it is ultimately unreferenced. The page was created in 2013 and the user last edited in 2019. SL93 (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I just tagged it for speedy deletion. Sorry for my mistake. SL93 (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Working on articles in one's userspace is perfectly normal, and helpful for any one who wants to improve the article. This is WP:RAGPICKING. Doesn't qualify for speedy deletion either. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @J947: It isn't ragpicking. I came across it on accident in "What links here" in an article that I was reading. I may have made a mistake, but that is no reason to assume stuff. SL93 (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree that it was hasty of me to call it ragpicking, but the main point of my link there is to show my argument constructed in a better manner. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I just get upset when false assumptions are made. I had an admin say that I have coprophilia years ago in an AfD when I wanted to keep a notable book about animal feces due to it passing WP:BOOK - so long ago that I don't remember the admin's username. An editor said I was sexist within the past year or so due to me not having the sections arranged the way they wanted in an article about a notable woman that I created - not even a content issue, but a order of when sections appeared issue (weird). I guess I can be thankful that this assumption isn't even close to those. SL93 (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Sure, delete. I don't necessarily agree with WP:UP#COPIES but I'm not going to complain. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 23:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy keep WP:SK#1, no rationale for deletion. Feel free to attempt to merge, but note that "mostly unreferenced" is a problem flag. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  Delete per WP:UP#COPIES per Whpq below. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:UP#COPIES. This is an unattributed copy of the Cummings Research Park article from 2013. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It's not an exact copy, the user did add a fair bit of stuff to it. I reckon it's better just to keep it (or blank with {{Userpage blanked}}) rather than the potential hassle of deleting it and undeleting if the user comes back and wants to work on it. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

    Userspace sandboxing is ok only for short term use, and then it should be merged back to the article, but the user. Whether used or not, the copy should be deleted, but it is an attribution-compliance hazard. Sandboxing as an editing method should be an exception for an editor dedicated to the specific task, in general, edits should be done to the article directly, all edits recorded in the history of one page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

    @J947: Can you point out what the fair bit of stuff is? As best as I can tell, it was just an addition of an infobox. Whpq (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

November 18, 2021

Talk:Ali Fadhul/Archive 1

Talk:Ali Fadhul/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

created by accident. Qwirkle (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G7. Qwirkle in the future you can accomplish this yourself by adding {{db-g7}}/{{db-author}} to a page you create by accident. {{db-error}} also works if you notice someone else has created a page by accident. Also for future reference Talk pages go to WP:MFD, not WP:AFD, but in this case it doesn't make a difference WP:NOTBURO etc. Regards, 95.67.131.232 (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep and Wrong forum. Firstly this should be at MfD if anywhere, but secondly and more importantly a talk page archive is not subject to G7 speedy deletion and really shouldn't be deleted at all. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  So, in your opinion, every time someone makes a fatfingered mistake, it must be preserved eternally, per omnia saecula saeculorum, simply because of where it was made?

  Further proof that “Not a Bureaucracy!!!” is up there with “the check’s in the mail!” Qwirkle (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• IP 95/79 inquired on my talk why this speedy was declined. They had no way of knowing that I'd !vote here, or which way I'd come down if so, so I think there's no WP:CANVASS violation for me to !vote. On that note... easy speedy delete G7 per 95/79. Liz and Thryduulf, I think you may have overlooked the history here:
  • Qwirkle accidentally clicked the 1CA button.
  • Qwirkle self-reverted the revertable half, a minute later, restoring that content to the parent talk page.
  • Qwirkle nominated the archive for deletion 11 days later. At this point, there was nothing in the archive that was not also on the parent talk page.
  • Because the nomination was in the wrong venue and was covered by a CSD criterion, IP 95/79 tagged for speedy deletion under G7.
  • Liz reverted without explanation.
• This is a pretty straightforward G7 due to a misclick. There is no reason to maintain an archive of a thread that someone didn't mean to archive (a still-open thread filed only 12 days ago, at that), when it has already been restored to the parent talk page. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Ah yes I didn't realise that this was a duplicate of the still-open talk page. That makes it OK for G6 but it's still not a G7. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

All of this information would have been useful to know yesterday. First, it was nominated for an AFD deletion, despite being a talk page archive, and speedy deletion neither of which seemed appropriate. I have never seen a talk page archive page nominated for a deletion discussion. If there had been a comment that the content had been returned to the regular talk page, I would have deleted the page. But on the face of it, this was a peculiar and unusual deletion request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I read the history. Sometimes little accidents escalate into a bigger mess and a bigger dustpan is helpful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Riyaz Aly

Draft:Riyaz Aly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Failing the notability criteria WP:NACTOR. ManaliJain (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, but not because of the notability criteria. Drafts are not deleted for lack of notability, and this draft was not resubmitted after the rejection. There are two other problems. First, the draft was created by a sockpuppeteer, but the timing has missed the criteria for G5. Second, the nominator has restarted the clock on G13 by nominating this draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per WP:NDRAFT, unless you find another reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

November 17, 2021

Draft:Kevin the Carrot

Draft:Kevin the Carrot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Appears to be a petition, or at the very least advertising. In either case, WP:SOAPBOX applies. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not Change.org, a guerrilla marketing campaign, The Daily Mail, or the Kevin the Carrot fan club. Nothing that can’t be covered in the Aldi article, though there are surely more important things to write about than yet another “fans furious about random nonsense” incident. Dronebogus (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, the line about the “entire Wikipedia community” being on team Kevin is amusingly ridiculous. Dronebogus (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, what do you suppose this is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kevin_The_Carrot Dronebogus (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Appears like a joke article. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as per above editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete and rewrite: I found this ages ago and intended to put a WP:SOAP notice up but not nominate its deletion because I think Kevin has gotten significant news coverage (last article I could find was published two days ago) to at least have his own section in the Aldi article. I think this could be written in a neutral point of view with "Aldi received backlash over" as long as there is sources to back it up and it's not just the opinion of [[User_talk:Carolinebryson|Carolinebryson], but that wouldn't be worth it seen as the draft is so small and most of it is anti-Ebanana propaganda anyways. --- Mullafacation {talk page|user page} 18:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User:UBX/CPL-FCE

User:UBX/CPL-FCE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unusused userbox that is inconsistent with the established naming convention of "CanPL-Team name". Also appears that "UBX/CPL-Team name" is used for a minor league baseball league. Nothing wrong with the template, but since it is unused and conflicted with another naming convention I felt for consistency sake this could be deleted. Jay eyem (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect to User:UBX/CanPL-FCE. No need for two FCE userboxes, but I want people who use this one to still have a UBX displayed. Tom Danson (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Do not delete. This is an unappealing userbox ("not" things are not useful), and userbox guidlines could be tightened. Bold redirecting to a better version should be encouraged, but MfD does not exist to support this sort of thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• I am confused as to why this is a problematic proposal. In the "Information on the process" section it includes userboxes, and this is one that is unused and breaks the current naming convention, both of which I know are common rationales for deletion (for templates at least). Where else would I have brought this discussion if not MfD? Jay eyem (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  You are OK to bring this to MfD because you are asking for deletion. I argue against because I don't think you have exhausted WP:ATD options, and I do not see deletion as justified. (but note that the stakes involved are trivially small)

  By default, I think the standard for deletion is that it was wrong to have made it in the first place. Otherwise, archive, or archive by redirection, or do nothing.

  The thing that I mean MfD is not for is deciding which userbox should be redirected to which other userbox. There may be other options. One problem with having that discussion in a formal MfD discussion is that later, if someone objects, it is too easy for some people to thnk that the MfD discussion with its formal close carries heavy weight. So, on the question of what gets redirected where, discuss that on one of the userbox talk pages.

  I don't mean to tell you that this is a "problematic proposal". SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ok cool, I just wasn't really sure because I've only made a few MfD nominations in the past. Thanks! Jay eyem (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Airhogs777/Wikipedia: The Musical

User:Airhogs777/Wikipedia: The Musical (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Missed this my bulk nomination of everything involving this MfD:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JulieMinkai/Planning for seventh Wikipedia movie. Dronebogus (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete This is pure WP:UP#GAMES, not to mention the inappropiateness of writing fan-fiction about real Wikipedia editors. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 22:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. It is creative reflection on the project, and so has educational value relevant to the project. The header humor tag is not perfect, it need not be humorous, and there are serious educational uses for reflective creativity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete This clearly constitutes writings [...] not closely related to Wikipedia's goals (quote from Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?), and thus not an acceptable use of userspace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:George Cervantes

Draft:George Cervantes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Sometimes we reach a point where the continued massaging of a draft which is a hopeless case should be stopped. Cervantes has no notability in a Wikipedia sense. He may, at some unspecified future date, generate some. At that point let us have a good new draft. Until then the work is pointless. Let us call a halt to it, please

It is worth referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Cervantes. I have lost track entirely of the similarities and differences between the draft and the deleted mainspace article, and I do not have admin goggles. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hello Tim - I didn't submit the page for review. I was just adding new information that my assistant provided to me. I just saw a comment that really got to me because he took his own personal views on Cervantes. His own personal opinion shoudln't matter when making an executive decision such as editing or approving a page. I was just adding new content that my assistant provided me today and then she notified me that someone made a personal comment about Cervantes. I was told to continue working on the page without clicking the "submit for review" button and that's exactly what I have been doing. Attorney Goldstein II (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hello Tim - If you want to go ahead and delete, then I will accept it. I am not getting payment or anything from Cervantes. I trust your professional advice. Attorney Goldstein II (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Attorney Goldstein II IT is not my desire to delete it. I have nominated it. There will one a discussion for a reasonable period until consensus is reached. There is more than one key on the deletion trigger, something which pleases me a lot Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• I was told to work on the draft at my own speed and that's exaclty what I have been doing, but that guy keeps making personal remarks towards Cervantes and that will not be accepted and shoudldn't be accepted here on Wikipedia. Attorney Goldstein II (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I have not given any personal opinions on Cervantes, I would not be so presumptuous, please don’t suggest that I have. Theroadislong (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Attorney Goldstein II I will keep any personal remarks out of this. I have no interest in anything other than article quality and time spent doing things that are not likely to be productive. I mean this for you as well as for Wikipedia editors. I know that I have been unable to find any sources that meet our needs for Cervantes. For the avoidance of doubt this is what we need:

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

If you can find three such references then there is a probability that Cervantes warrants an article. If you cannot then he certainly does not. When you can it is likely that he will.

The work and time issue is important. You will recognise that doing the same thing one has always done and expecting different results is a path no-one should follow. I am trying to save you from that path, and also to save Cervantes the obvious embarrassment of people saying repeatedly that, in a Wikipedia sense, he is not notable. I recognise that he has notability for those who like and love him and for those who are impressed with his work. Wikipedia, though, requires he passes WP:BIO, which is a tough thing to do, and something that I View him as not yet achieving. It's a different take on 'notability'. I have looked for sources myself and failed. We call this WP:BEFORE.

I stand by what I have said in the nomination. Paraphrased, it means "Do the work when he is notable. Until then simply stop." Assuming you are an attorney (rather than it being a user name, I do not say that to be in any way disparaging) you will recognise that as advice you will give your clients from time to time. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Cervantes wants consumers to use Yelp to gauge the reputation of the company " we have zero interest in what Cervantes wants! Theroadislong (talk) 14:07, 17

That's your personal views on Cervantes...correct? So, you did give you personal opinion and views on Cervantes. Attorney Goldstein II (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I got that from the comment you left on the draft. Attorney Goldstein II (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

That is NOT a personal opinion, "We" = Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Attorney Goldstein II That sentiment is expressed accurately and all reviewers understand it. There is a lesson for us all here in phrasing, though. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep There is no harm in others working on this to establish notability, though I find it rather intimidating that his attorney has been drawn in to edit? Theroadislong (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Theroadislong I think it may have been a poor choice of user name, whether Corky Goldstein be a real life attorney or no. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  There is a real life Corky Goldstein attorney, so I am keeping well away from now on. Theroadislong (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Different full name, and seemingly the wrong state, though, making me strongly suspect this is someone's delusions of grandeur based on a name he saw in an ad somewhere. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Contributors to this discussion should read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marcorubiocali please, and draw whatever conclusions they deem appropriate from it Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) In light of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marcorubiocali, keep, but only to keep future sox out of mainspace. Better the devil you know. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. This hasn't reached the point where keeping it in draftspace is both an unreasonable time sink and an ineffective finger plugging up the dam. I'm also somewhat sceptical that Cervantes' lawyer would come near a country mile of this due to ethical issues. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - As I said previously concerning Cervantes, I think it is likely that Cervantes is biographically notable, but that his flack is acting as a hindrance rather than a help. This draft is not being tendentiously resubmitted, and there is no other reason why it needs to be deleted. It might be a good idea to ECP-protect it to prevent sockpuppets from editing it, but that is a different issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon Requested just now. Good suggestion Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  Unfortunately it isn't just his flack that's the issue. I've never been able to find anything resembling usable sources, and I've looked multiple times (string: "george cervantes" matchmaker). I'm willing to buy that it's possible sources will show up at some point; they just aren't yet a thing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 15:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Discuss at Draft talk:George Cervantes, not here. Consider WP:DUD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

November 16, 2021

Portal:Critique of political economy

Portal:Critique of political economy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Topic is not nearly broad enough for a portal, while WP:P2 doesn't apply, everything is better explained and presented in the article Critique of political economy. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to make it broader.

Pauloroboto (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

November 14, 2021

User:JulieMinkai/Planning for seventh Wikipedia movie

User:JulieMinkai/Planning for seventh Wikipedia movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be some sort of inappropriate fan-fiction about Wikipedia users. It has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia, violates WP:DENY, and verges on harassment insofar as it involves writing nonsense about real Wikipedia editors without their consent. See this post by the page creator on my talk page for more context. Spicy (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I will not !vote per WP:COI, but I feel you should know there are already multiple Wikipedia movies. See below:

Wikipedia I: The Movie

Wikipedia II: The Users Strike Back

Wikipedia III: Revenge of Jimbo

Wikipedia IV: Attack of the Vandals

Wikipedia V: Brambleberry's Journey

Wikipedia VI: The Last Editor

Rogue Vandal: A Wikipedian Story

Wikipedia: The Musical

Movies in bold are completed; movies in italics are still under construction.

Spinoffs:

User:Double sharp/Wikipedia III: Revenge of Jimbo

I also removed any mention of Sportstir, since you found it troublesome. A ding ding ding... is already an established villain in the Wikipedia movie canon. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 16:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Delete – not what userspace is meant for (NOTSOCIAL/NOTWEBHOST/NOTESSAY), especially when it involves real users and sockpuppets. Regardless, I'd encourage JulieMinkai to read what userspace is and isn't. (Full disclosure: I TPS Spicy and posted in that thread so I an not an uninvolved voice here.) Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  And re the other pages, while I haven't looked at them deeply I imagine the fact that they are multiple years old each (some over a decade!) make them somewhat eligible for the grandfather clause. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  Wikipedia doesn’t need more embarrassing dreck from ye bad olde days of Esperanza, the Pokemon Test, and Steven Colbert vandalism. I get more than enough of that in the talk page archives. Dronebogus (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  In response to some of those commenting below, I'm not suggesting that we set a precedent of trawling through people's userspace looking for things to delete, but this is a userspace page that contains false information on real, editing Wikipedians. I enjoy humor on Wikipedia, but this is too much of a userspace guideline violation for me (and arguably all wikihumor is a violation to some extent). Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 09:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, for the sake of people's privacy. I don't mind innocent things in this category, but since it's a fan fiction involving real people then I believe you get the idea. I would be uncomfortable to find out that I'm an antagonist in a fanfic. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete all: With a courtesy hold, in case the creator would like to move all of these stories into another platform, like Archive of Our Own. Curbon7 (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Curbon7: I already moved the planning into a Google doc. You'll have to ask the other users about the other pages. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 21:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Pinging @Raul654, Drahcir, Brambleberry of RiverClan, Fcbcampnou, Airhogs777, and Double sharp to alert them to this discussion. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧ Averted crashes} 22:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Feel free to get rid of the one in my userspace, at least; I outgrew this stuff many years ago. :) Double sharp (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Brambleberry of RiverClan moved to @GhostRiver. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 18:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
        • In favor of deletion. I was an actual child when I was working on these and was half under the belief they'd already been deleted. — GhostRiver 19:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
      • The following users have been inactive for over a year, so don’t expect any response from them: Drahcir (last edit 2012) Fcbcampnou (LE 2020) Airhogs777 (LE 2015) Dronebogus (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete All - The list of cabals is humor. These 'movies' do not qualify as humor and are inappropriate with respect to the policies on biographies of living persons. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - It appears that this was going on for an extended period until one of the authors asked a question that gave away the existence of their cabal. If you have a cabal, it is supposed to be secret. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete all. Looks like a few editors using our free software to create a rather boring fantasy world which does nothing to improve the encyclopedia and is unlikely ever to so do. – Athaenara ✉ 18:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete all the titles are very slightly amusing and largely inoffensive in a vacuum, but who the hell thinks it’s funny or okay to write fanfiction about real users on the platform they’re writing on?! A dumb one-off joke that got way out of hand. Dronebogus (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • (PS why couldn’t these have just been about the Wiki-sisters and other stock Wikimedia characters like the generic villain guy, Wikipede, and the cabals? Wouldn’t that be way funnier and more logical?) Dronebogus (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Preserving “Vandals in Scene 15 - Uncyclopedians unaware that they are acting in Wikipedia the Movie” because it’s the only thing I actually thought was funny. Dronebogus (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Nitpick, but Attack of the Vandals has an infobox for a fictional battle in a clear violation of Wikipedia’s policy on in-universe writing [sarcasm]. Dronebogus (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
        • That's only a policy for articles, though. Double sharp (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I was kidding. Dronebogus (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep the old ones, at leastUpdate: see below - There are two separate issues brought up: one is that it's a WP:NOT or UPNOT issue, the other that it's a BLP/civility issue. On the first count, we have a ton of old goofy humor from the first ten years of the project, and as long as the people involved are otherwise WP:HERE, I don't see a problem with retaining it. Not my cup of tea, but these have been widely linked, widely mentioned, and a corner of Wikipedia culture. I remember coming across them when I was lurking/researching in ~2008 as one of many examples of a particular kind of at least somewhat endearing, geeky humor -- evidence that there was in fact a community of people who like each other here rather than a bunch of anonymous drones. User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie has been edited by 192 different people! As for BLP, yes certainly we should not host any attacks on people, and if anyone objects to being part of it they shouldn't be part of it. Could someone identify attacks or objections from people who wanted to be removed but weren't? I don't have a strong opinion on this most recent one, being the work of one person, but it also only mentions two Wikipedians. One is a sockmaster and meh, maybe remove. The other is Jimbo, who of course features prominently in many (all?) of these? So I wonder if Jimbo Wales would be interested to comment? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Note: I added a neutral pointer to Wikipedia talk:Department of Fun, given these have their own section of that project. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Nostalgia doesn’t trump a clear consensus that these are blatantly inappropriate crap that doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Consensus is what we're figuring out here. Also, you need to tag the other pages if they're to be included in the nomination FYI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
      • You should probably tell the original nom about that, especially since I fully admit to sucking at manual deletion anything. Dronebogus (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Also, I’ll admit to jumping the gun on declaring consensus, but this is a slow-moving, uncontentious MfD with 6 “delete” votes and 1 “keep” vote. Forecast is a little chilly. Dronebogus (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
        • A better comparison would be an uphill battle. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 18:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - I see no practical purpose to its existence. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Procedural objection. There are multiple "delete all" !votes here, but only the newest title is nominated for deletion. The combined history of these pages goes back over a decade, so I don't think it's fair to delete the older ones without properly tagging them. The first one, for instance, has 40 watchers who might have something to say were it tagged. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Could you do that please? I’m terrible at manual deletion listings. Dronebogus (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Deleting this page on its own without nominating the others seems like we're not really giving it a fighting chance. There are people who have watched the other entires in the series. We shouldn't call consensus just yet until those people are notified and have the chance to add their voices to the discussion. Alright, seems fine to me. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 11:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I listed all the others so we can stop debating the technicalities. Dronebogus (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are now other nominations for the other movies. Further discussion here is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Proposal I believe there should be an immediate WP:SNOW delete of all entries from III onwards (chronologically), after which this MfD should be closed and the two remaining MfDs should be allowed to run their separate courses due to objections of the pages in question being historical in nature due to their age and large number of contributors. Dronebogus (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • (note: my personal opinion hasn’t changed, I still think the whole lot should be deleted) Dronebogus (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I disagree with this proposal. jp×g 21:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I would rather all the pages be kept, but if push comes to shove I will accept this proposal. The first two Wikipedia movies have nothing to do with the overarching storyline of movies III onwards, can be enjoyed on their own, and are humorous, focusing more on the everyday travails of editors rather than a grand war between contributors and vandals. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 22:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and Remove names of inactive users or anyone who objects, because otherwise why should we care about some goofy sandbox page? - now that the other ones are no longer [ostensibly/hypothetically?] part of this nomination, I'll revisit. If this were created by someone WP:NOTHERE (which does happen with this "humor" content sometimes), then I'd probably suggest deleting, but it's just a bit of goofiness in userspace, where one is allowed to be goofy, experiment with wikicode, collect userboxes, be part of the Wikipedia community, etc. as long as you're otherwise here for the right reasons. The main thrust of the deletion arguments seem to be about the names of real users involved here. It seems like fine practice not to include the names of inactive/banned users, and certainly anyone active who objects to being included or is cast in a negative light should be excluded, but otherwise, what is the deletion rationale for this vs any other "asdfasdf" sandbox? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not an article. It is a Wikipedia page. It does not need to establish notability to exist. I will say the same thing every time a joke page is up for deletion: it is not serious, but it is important. Editor retention has been a concern of the community for a long time -- there are many depressing graphs to this effect. Every couple months there will be some doomer writeup in the Signpost, or some grim talk page discussion, about how the editor base continues to shrink. Most people who make accounts do not stick around for more than a few edits, and editors frequently abandon the project never to return. Why? I'm sure there are many reasons. However, having created and/or operated a number of Internet communities over the last couple decades, I will say that morale is probably the most important thing in keeping a place running. People will hang out on a website for years -- decades, even -- if they feel like they belong there, and they have fun when they go there. The website can be stupid, or pointless, or hard to navigate, or filled with assholes, and people will keep coming back if they feel like their contributions to the culture are meaningful and appreciated. If you destroy this, you drive a knife through the heart of posting. Do barnstars improve the encyclopedia? Do FAs improve the encyclopedia? Sure -- we can sit on an ivory tower and say that the only meaningful contributions are to write GAs about obscure river islands or argue about semicolons or make threads on the drama boards. But that does not constitute a community. That is not the stuff that really gets the blood flowing. People like to pal around with their friends. They like to have friends. They like to make goofy little in-jokes with their friends. Surely, if someone spent all of their time giving out barnstars, they wouldn't be improving much. But they exist anyway: because they make the place tolerable to be around. jp×g 21:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This isn't going to help user retention. Hell, the person who made it didn't really care anymore. It's pretty obscure and this story that starts with Jimbo Wales getting kicked in the nuts isn't going to keep productive users on the site. If we start letting these pages that are clearly unencyclopedic and don't help in any way (unlike humor essays) stay, how long until we revert to Esperanza? ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 15:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I’ll admit the visual of the opening line “ fades in to a slo-mo extreme close-up of Jimbo Wales getting kicked in the nuts, hard, by a sad clown/man with an afro puff wig.” (Emphasis theirs) is hard not to smirk at if you have an immature sense of humor (like me). But at least I try to keep my lame nut jokes off WP even if it’s sometimes tempting. Dronebogus (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• I’ve notified Jimbo that this discussion is going on since he’s the star of the fanfics. And gets kicked in the nuts in the first sentence. Dronebogus (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• I put a U1 tag on the one in my userspace, since as I said "I outgrew this stuff many years ago". :) Double sharp (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete all - If we needed to get rid of WP:BJAODN, then it's fair we get rid of this and similar pages, not to mention potential privacy issues. --MuZemike 02:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • We don’t need to kill all humor on WP, this set is just an exceptional case because of the real people issue. Dronebogus (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm greatly moved by JPxG's rationale. We can do better things with our time than trawling through Wiki-space looking for things to delete. --WaltCip-(talk) 14:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per WaltCip, so we all can write a Wikipedia film. The ones presented seem kind of dark, complicated, the edging touched by the recent culture I assume. Many could do better, and maybe Jimbo will write one. Maybe limited to this one topic to allow at least one userspace page and topic for creative writing. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Randy's proposal. On further reflection, the first Wikipedia movie is poor-quality, and Randy's proposal allows us to restart with a clean slate, albeit with the backbone I've supplied. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 16:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I already mentioned the idea of “no real people” version above, so if we do decide to WP:TNT the series I think there should be a clause that states No real people except maybe Jimbo since he’s kind of an unofficial mascot / wiki-character by this point. Dronebogus (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Dronebogus: Almost all the named non-vandal characters appear to be self-inserts. I think in this case self-inserts are fine since people generally like writing about their reactions to hypothetical situations (that's how I feel about self-inserts, anyway). (TPK is pretty close to being a Mary Sue, tho...) Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 20:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
      • “bad” users get mocked/demonized, “good” users turn into mary sues, it doesn’t matter. WP isn’t a place for real-person fics. Dronebogus (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Delete all This is clearly writings [...] not closely related to Wikipedia's goals (quote from Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?), and thus not an acceptable use of userspace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  See also on that same page: "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants." WaltCip-(talk) 17:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, as it does no harm in user space, and humor should not be totally purgedf rom Wikipedia.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Note the individual movies were all recently closed as “no consensus”. However since there were few if any new contributors who were against deletion I’d say that’s simply a confirmation that none of the pages’ watchers really care anymore. Dronebogus (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I’m also seeing a lot of WP:ITSHARMLESS votes, which on top of just being plain bad arguments are also clearly at odds with WP:BLP. Even silly things from 15 years ago shouldn’t violate such a strong, well-founded policy. Dronebogus (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

    I suggest you let the MFD run its course rather than trying to dissect each vote that runs contrary to your interpretation of consensus. WaltCip-(talk) 16:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Keep and mark humor. It does not harm as long as it stays in the userspace. Bobherry Talk Edits 03:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as humor (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

November 13, 2021

Wikipedia:AFD8

Wikipedia:AFD8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old can be used instead, and the parser function {{#time:}} breaks the redirect. Qwerfjkltalk 18:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. As a soft redirect, it's still a better shortcut than clicking through to WP:AFDO. If there is some technical reason why that is harmful, then altering the redirect is still better than deletion. czar 19:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Old business

November 13, 2021

Template:User 10 edits

Template:User 10 edits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unnecessary service award. The official Wikipedia:Service awards don't have an award for this few edits, and I don't see the need for such an award. Same applies to Template:User 100 edits and probably the 1000 edits one too. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete or Userfy to the user space of the creator per nom. Not an official service award so it doesn't really belong in template space, and the idea of giving out awards for completing ten edits does seem a bit daft to me. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I've now seen that the Wikipedia:Incremental service awards (Ribbons)#Registered_Editor (or Signator) has intermediate awards for small numbers of edits, so this template would seem to duplicate what we already have. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Xjenxranx/sandbox

Wikipedia:Xjenxranx/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Userfy, the creator accidentally put his sandbox into the project namespace. Did Q28 make a mess today? 04:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete the redirect I userfied the sandbox. All that needs to be done is deleting the redirect I created from it. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @WaddlesJP13: You may want to request the Wikipedia:Page mover right, which allows moving without leaving a redirect. IMO best to leave this sort of task to others with that right (or admins) because leaving this behind means we now need an admin to delete it, or otherwise someone else has to move it back and redo what you've already done without leaving a redirect. FYI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Rhododendrites: Haven't considered that user right before, but I'll request it now since I do a lot of page moving when reviewing pages and it will also prevent this situation in the future. Thank you for the suggestion. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

November 12, 2021

User:Amirrezaparvahan

User:Amirrezaparvahan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Usercopy of an old revision of Marco Reus from 2017. Per WP:COPIES, copies of old revisions are not allowed in userspace. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was never transcluded to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as a fake article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete fake article/illegal revision saving from single-edit user. Dronebogus (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

November 10, 2021

Wikipedia:Defunct request. Please Don't Consider!

Wikipedia:Defunct request. Please Don't Consider! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Apparently a failed attempt to create a request for adminship Lunacats (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Unfortunately yes! This was a failed attempt of mine to create a request for adminship. Please delete this page as soon as possibe. Thanks, SSG123 (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• No comments on the merits of the deletion request, just a note that the history of the talk page likely makes this ineligible for G7. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Revert move, close as withdrawn, and courtesy-blank. Regarding the content on talk: SSG123 has said they will not loutsock in the future, and I appreciate that; however, the RfA does still serve as an important record of an incident that led to a serious warning, and one which may recur as an issue since they do appear to still be editing from that IP range (currnetly in a manner allowed by policy, but just barely). Thus I think the most equitable solution is to preserve in the history but cblank, at the original title. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Revert move and Courtesy blank per Tamzin. Normally we would delete this kind of stuff under G6 or G7, but I agree that the fact that the creator tried to sock and support their own RFA should be preserved because it is highly relevant information that should be kept in mind when considering giving this user advanced rights. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Revert move and courtesy blank per the above: this strikes the right balance between preserving a record of this incident and preventing unnecessary embarrassment. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Fcbcampnou/Rogue Vandal: A Wikipedian Story

User:Fcbcampnou/Rogue Vandal: A Wikipedian Story (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per reasons listed by nom at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:JulieMinkai/Planning_for_seventh_Wikipedia_movie. It’s been stated multiple times that this should be bundled with that one because of multiple “delete all” votes but since I barely know how to do that and nobody else is doing it I’m individually nominating this and all the others. Dronebogus (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, per my comments at the other MfDs in this series. Jokes are not serious, but they are important. jp×g 21:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete This clearly constitutes writings [...] not closely related to Wikipedia's goals (quote from Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?), and thus not an acceptable use of userspace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Whoop whoop pull up/Wikipedia VI: The Last Editor

User:Whoop whoop pull up/Wikipedia VI: The Last Editor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per reasons listed by nom at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:JulieMinkai/Planning_for_seventh_Wikipedia_movie. It’s been stated multiple times that this should be bundled with that one because of multiple “delete all” votes but since I barely know how to do that and nobody else is doing it I’m individually nominating this and all the others. Dronebogus (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, per my "keep" at the original nomination for this batch. jp×g 22:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete This clearly constitutes writings [...] not closely related to Wikipedia's goals (quote from Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?), and thus not an acceptable use of userspace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Brambleberry of RiverClan/Wikipedia V: Brambleberry's Journey

User:Brambleberry of RiverClan/Wikipedia V: Brambleberry's Journey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per reasons listed by nom at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:JulieMinkai/Planning_for_seventh_Wikipedia_movie. It’s been stated multiple times that this should be bundled with that one because of multiple “delete all” votes but since I barely know how to do that and nobody else is doing it I’m individually nominating this and all the others. Dronebogus (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, per my "keep" at the original nomination for this batch. jp×g 22:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete This clearly constitutes writings [...] not closely related to Wikipedia's goals (quote from Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?), and thus not an acceptable use of userspace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Whoop whoop pull up/Wikipedia IV: Attack of the Vandals

User:Whoop whoop pull up/Wikipedia IV: Attack of the Vandals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per reasons listed by nom at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:JulieMinkai/Planning_for_seventh_Wikipedia_movie. It’s been stated multiple times that this should be bundled with that one because of multiple “delete all” votes but since I barely know how to do that and nobody else is doing it I’m individually nominating this and all the others. Dronebogus (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per linked discussion in "Planning for 7th Wikipedia movie". Unlike the first two, this is not a charming bit of Wikipedia cultural lore from the earliest days, but rather made by just two major authors years after such projects could have moved to Uncyclopedia or AO3 or the like. SnowFire (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, per my "keep" at the original nomination for this batch: the fact that this one isn't very good still does not justify its destruction to me (surely we've got better things to do than be the Funny Police). jp×g 22:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete This clearly constitutes writings [...] not closely related to Wikipedia's goals (quote from Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?), and thus not an acceptable use of userspace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Whoop whoop pull up/Wikipedia III: Revenge of Jimbo

User:Whoop whoop pull up/Wikipedia III: Revenge of Jimbo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per reasons listed by nom at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:JulieMinkai/Planning_for_seventh_Wikipedia_movie. It’s been stated multiple times that this should be bundled with that one because of multiple “delete all” votes but since I barely know how to do that and nobody else is doing it I’m individually nominating this and all the others. Dronebogus (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per discussion in "Planning for 7th Wikipedia movie". Unlike the first two, this appears to be unfunny self-insert fanfic that only has two major authors, and was created years after Wikipedia became a bit more "serious", so jokes involving real people as vandals are a bit less of a good idea. Go ahead and delete this & the later movies for reasons described in the main MFD. (Also, this & later ones are in violation of this guideline, but that's obviously not controlling on Wikipedia.). SnowFire (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, per my "keep" at the original nomination for this batch. Whether or not it violates HTBFANJS (and, boy howdy, does it): the fact that someone made a joke that we think is stupid doesn't, to me, seem worth destroying it. After all, I'm sure that for any joke you can find a half dozen people who think it is stupid. jp×g 22:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete This clearly constitutes writings [...] not closely related to Wikipedia's goals (quote from Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?), and thus not an acceptable use of userspace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drahcir/Wikipedia II: The Users Strike Back

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: no consensus defaulting to keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC) User:Drahcir/Wikipedia II: The Users Strike Back User:Drahcir/Wikipedia II: The Users Strike Back (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Per reasons listed by nom at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:JulieMinkai/Planning_for_seventh_Wikipedia_movie. It’s been stated multiple times that this should be bundled with that one because of multiple “delete all” votes but since I barely know how to do that and nobody else is doing it I’m individually nominating this and all the others. Dronebogus (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC) Weak Keep. This is an old piece of ancient Wikipedia culture that had a decent number of contributors. As a record of old Wikipedia, it's harmless. Just leave it be. SnowFire (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Keep, per my "keep" at the original nomination for this batch. jp×g 22:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Delete This clearly constitutes writings [...] not closely related to Wikipedia's goals (quote from Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?), and thus not an acceptable use of userspace. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: no consensus defaulting to keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC) User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Per reasons listed by nom at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:JulieMinkai/Planning_for_seventh_Wikipedia_movie. It’s been stated multiple times that this should be bundled with that one because of multiple “delete all” votes but since I barely know how to do that and nobody else is doing it I’m individually nominating this and all the others. Dronebogus (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC) Keep. This is a very old piece of ancient Wikipedia culture that had a lot of contributors. As a record of old Wikipedia, it's harmless. Just leave it be. SnowFire (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Keep, per my "keep" on the other one, which I'll reproduce here: This is not an article. It is a Wikipedia page. It does not need to establish notability to exist. I will say the same thing every time a joke page is up for deletion: it is not serious, but it is important. Editor retention has been a concern of the community for a long time -- there are many depressing graphs to this effect. Every couple months there will be some doomer writeup in the Signpost, or some grim talk page discussion, about how the editor base continues to shrink. Most people who make accounts do not stick around for more than a few edits, and editors frequently abandon the project never to return. Why? I'm sure there are many reasons. However, having created and/or operated a number of Internet communities over the last couple decades, I will say that morale is probably the most important thing in keeping a place running. People will hang out on a website for years -- decades, even -- if they feel like they belong there, and they have fun when they go there. The website can be stupid, or pointless, or hard to navigate, or filled with assholes, and people will keep coming back if they feel like their contributions to the culture are meaningful and appreciated. If you destroy this, you drive a knife through the heart of posting. Do barnstars improve the encyclopedia? Do FAs improve the encyclopedia? Sure -- we can sit on an ivory tower and say that the only meaningful contributions are to write GAs about obscure river islands or argue about semicolons or make threads on the drama boards. But that does not constitute a community. That is not the stuff that really gets the blood flowing. People like to pal around with their friends. They like to have friends. They like to make goofy little in-jokes with their friends. Surely, if someone spent all of their time giving out barnstars, they wouldn't be improving much. But they exist anyway: because they make the place tolerable to be around. Additionally, this has been on Wikipedia for nearly sixteen years, and doesn't seem to have done gratuitous harm in that time, so I don't know why it would suddenly become an issue now. jp×g 21:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Delete This clearly constitutes writings [...] not closely related to Wikipedia's goals (quote from Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?), and thus not an acceptable use of userspace. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

November 4, 2021

User:Faster than Thunder/Sandbox/Wikihavior subpages

User:Faster than Thunder/Sandbox/Wikihavior/Template:NotWikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

User:Faster than Thunder/Sandbox/Wikihavior/Protection messages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

User:Faster than Thunder/Sandbox/Wikihavior/Template:Timeline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

User:Faster than Thunder/Sandbox/Wikihavior/Template:Vandalism-1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

User:Faster than Thunder/Sandbox/Wikihavior/Template:Vandalism-2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

User:Faster than Thunder/Sandbox/Wikihavior/Template:Vandalism-3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

User:Faster than Thunder/Sandbox/Wikihavior/Template:Vandalism-4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:NOTWEBHOST -- this is explicitly not Wikipedia, as User:Faster than Thunder/Sandbox/Wikihavior/Template:NotWikipedia explains. None of these pages are useful to the project. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and the user's history of hatnote changes suggest they may need additional scrutiny. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• I'd be curious to hear from Faster than Thunder -- what are these? If these are in fact templates for use on some other wiki, then I'd probably agree with the nominator. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • These are for Wikihavior, a Wikimedia wiki about Wikipedia subject behaviors that is currently in discussion. If it is rejected, these pages can be deleted. Faster than Thunder (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete user is jumping the gun making stuff for a project that doesn’t yet exist. These… things are just confusing to everyone except the creator. Dronebogus (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment User has a history of bad page creations, although they're obviously well-meaning and not trying to disrupt the encyclopedia. What should we do about him? ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 18:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Meta, as they are relevant to a proposal there. I don't see a snowball's chance in Hell of that proposal being accepted, but Meta does not follow that enwiki norm, so we should defer to their local norms and let them have these pages. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Meta for the reasons Tamzin laid out. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ 19:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree. Move them to Meta. Faster than Thunder (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Meta: per those above. If the proposal fails there, meta may handle these under their local deletion policy if applicable. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete IMO these are outside of Meta's project scope as well, as isn't typical to provides examples of pages for un-created projects on Meta-Wiki itself. From my experience, what is going to happen to the page on meta is absolutely nothing, since m:Proposals for new projects is entirely inactive aside from me occasionally closing stale and unanimously-opposed proposals, and even proposals with a clear consensus in favor of implementing, like WikiJournal go nowhere. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Note that Meta appears to be deleting has deleted a similar set of pages at m:Meta:Requests for deletion#Pages in Category:GlobalWiki test wiki pages * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  If these are transwikied to meta, I will immiedately nominate them for deletion there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• We'll find out if and when Wikihavior is rejected. Faster than Thunder (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Out of scope here and out of scope at meta. There is no need to make example pages when proposing a new project, and even if you were going to make an example page it should probably contains some content that explains what the project actually is, rather than just vandalism templates. Unambiguous WP:NOTWEBHOST violation - Wikipedia is not for hosting other wiki projects. (I also can't be the only one who's slightly confused as to what Wikihavior is supposed to be? It sounds like it's designed to be a wiki for documenting the behaviour of editors, which seems like a recipe for harassment.) 192.76.8.91 (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

October 29, 2021

Draft:Isaiah Oluwatobiloba

Draft:Isaiah Oluwatobiloba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

was copied to mainspace at Icepondis so this is a duplicate. Further, mainspace article has been prodded for gng failure, sockpuppetry involved in the creation of this-but user wasn't bolcked prior to this creation so g4 not met Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Update nom: sockpuppetry was to avoid scrutiny over coi and paid on the masters account thus, this draft was created in violation of COI and PAID. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep to see whether the mainspace article is deleted. If the article is deleted, the draft can continue to be kept. If the article is kept, this draft can be redirected, or moved into mainspace and redirected. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - This is yet another misguided good-faith nomination to delete a draft because there is an article, when the procedure should be to redirect the draft (which does not require a discussion). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon:, If the article is deleted for gng failure and the draft kept, the draft will only end up being deleted as abandoned though. This also could make it seem like the sockpuppetry involved was not dealt with, the master account was blocked for username issues, with promo, paid and coi concerns, this draft was created by a sock essentially in violation of said policies (I should have put that in the nomination tbh rather than just saying "sockpuppetry involved"). Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    • see here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Africa boyz/Archive. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
      • If the article is deleted for GNG failure, the draft is kept for six months in case GNG can be established. There is no need to rush to get rid of drafts that will expire anyway. Some editors like to push to keep draft space and user space free of junk. All that does is to create work for the volunteers who act as the regular editors at MFD. I know you are trying to help. I know you are trying to help. It doesn't help the encyclopedia. All it does is create work for those of us who participate in MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
        • And the sockpuppetry violations with COI and paid violations? 17:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
          • Given that sockpuppetry was involved in its creation, there is a chance the creator will continue to violate sock meaning the draft may never be elligible for 613. 11:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• comment Article now up for afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icepondis. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• pinging ppl from that afd for the view on the draft: @Princess of Ara and Celestina007:. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping @Lavalizard101, I have no prejudice against the draft being kept for now but I doubt that It'll be quiet enough for a G13 in future due to the persistent sock puppetry.
  Princess of Ara 07:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah that's one of my worries that it will never be elligible for g13 if socks start popping up again.

  @Robert McClenon: what's you opinion on the sockpuppetry matter seeing as you haven't talked about it above. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, as the mainspace article is likely to be deleted.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete draft because both draft and article are work of sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Nb. The Icepondis article was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icepondis. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Icepondis. Add COI tag unless it's been neutralized. Other than the excessive bolding, which can be removed, I don't see enough for G11 yet. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Its not being g11'd (as that would be a speedy delete rather than discussion). Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

October 25, 2021

Template:User Family History=she

Template:User Family History=she (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unnecessary fork of User:Scepia/family history. See related listings with today's date stamp. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect/Merge per nom. But it might be good to move Scepia's into the template mainspace if we're going to point things to it. I know that I tend to prefer transcluding template pages to user pages, personally. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:User Family History=he

Template:User Family History=he (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Unnecessary fork of User:Scepia/family history. Replace the two transclusions of this template with direct transclusions (I would normally call this substing, but I do not know if this template is directly subst-able), and then delete this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect/Merge per nom. But it might be good to move Scepia's into the template mainspace if we're going to point things to it. I know that I tend to prefer transcluding template pages to user pages, personally. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Morgan695/family history

User:Morgan695/family history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Merge to User:Scepia/family history. I recommend keeping the User:Scepia version, which has automation to pick the editor's preferred pronoun. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Either Redirect or Decategorize - No need for duplicates in the userbox categories, but there's no reason someone can't have their own slightly modified version in userspace. There are transclusions, though, so if it's redirected someone will need to replace all of them with this version of the Scepia template. What confuses me is why someone created this in Morgan695's userspace. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

October 18, 2021

User:Gita See/David Bartlett

User:Gita See/David Bartlett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Either he's notable enough and this can be moved to mainspace, or it need to be deleted as a stale WP:FAKEARTICLE. P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - This is an abandoned inadequately sourced draft BLP. He is probably notable, but this would never pass review as a draft BLP due to inadequate sourcing. If it were moved to draft space, it should be declined and then allowed to expire, so delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep and Blank - if it's not promotional enough or otherwise problematic enough to qualify for CSD, there's no need to take it to MfD. Blanking in such circumstances is permitted, and a promotional, poorly sourced BLP seems like a good candidate. You can use {{Userpage blanked}}. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Rename to User:Gita See/David Bartlett (filmmaker) to make it easier for others to find, noting David Bartlett (disambiguation), and use {{Userpage blanked}}. Do not delete, and do not move to draft or AfC (aka slow delete). The content is the same as uploaded on other sites, and there are no BLP problems with it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Retain in some form as above per WP:STALE; not problematic in a way to warrant discussion or deletion here. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

October 3, 2021

User:Gloriamarie/The Hedonistic Imperative

User:Gloriamarie/The Hedonistic Imperative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

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)

  • Delete this draft it belongs to a user who was last active in 2015. Catfurball (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates