Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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

WP:MFD

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

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

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

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
Files in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

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

Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]

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

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

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

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

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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

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

I.

Edit PageName:

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

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

or

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

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

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

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

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

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

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

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

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

III.

Add a line to MfD.

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

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

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

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

If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~
to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as
Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
If you are nominating a Portal, please make a note of your nomination here.
If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions[edit]

XFD backlog
V	Feb	Mar	Total
CfD	70	59	129
TfD	0	4	4
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	8	3	11
RfD	5	19	24
AfD	0	0	0

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

Archived discussions[edit]

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

Current discussions[edit]

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

March 17, 2022[edit]

Draft:Epic Jab[edit]

Possibly self-promotion lol1VNIO (talk • contribs) 20:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Vivek Verma[edit]

Vivek Verma

The reason why this draft should be deleted is not that so much that the subject is not notable, which is not in itself a reason to delete a draft, but that the title has not only been deleted from article space but salted. Because the title has been salted, and, in my opinion, the salting is correct, the resubmission of this draft is useless. The reviewers won't approve it, but they can't approve it even if they want to approve it. At least, they can't approve it without requesting unsalting, and there is no reason to request unsalting. See

The gaming of titles is characteristic of attempts by paid editors and sockpuppets to sneak articles into article space, bypassing consensus. There has already been consensus that the subject is not notable, and that re-creation of articles is a waste of time and electrons. This draft is another effort to waste the time of the reviewers, and should go into a bit bucket. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and CU the draft creator. And thank you to RobMcC for bringing this here (and not, for that matter, making three separate posts about it :P ) SN54129 20:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium chloride it I did a HUGE rewrite of the draft using the supposedly new reliable sources, but even then, the bulk of the information provided was still coming from Arun Budhathoki's two articles in The Diplomat. While The Diplomat paper is itself a WP:RSP green source, the article author Arun Budhathoki, as researched by Praxidicae, is EIC of the Wikipedia-banned Kathmandu Tribune, so his writeups are questionable for RS. Praxidicae has also chimed in on many of the other major sources as per the previous AFD. There's also an argument that The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle, and other mainstream papers are covering his career, so need a response on whether those should be discounted or considered.

As for Verma himself, he is at most a supporting crew/band member for Himesh Reshammiya. Yes, he shows up in the music video credits for soundtrack songs, so a salted redirect to Himesh's page would be as far as it goes. The other articles provided are mainly news announcements of released solo singles and "albums", none of which are critically reviewed or have made any notable splash in the industry. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see what the draft was before I got my hands on it, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Vivek_Verma&oldid=1076775568 AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a big mess when there are news articles that claim he composed a song, and then the actual music video showing that he was not credited at all. Same with claiming notability for an award given to a person who happened to share the same name, and that "fact" gets published in those articles. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 14, 2022[edit]

Template:User Nepal Maoists[edit]

Unused, and now contains a redlink (a now-deleted redirect). I would have simply fixed the wikilink if this Template was used by anyone Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I fixed the red link. Valid userbox to support an existing party. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 13, 2022[edit]

Draft:Obesity in South Korea[edit]

I might have issued a CSD for copyvio, but cannot trace the relevant sources, thus cannot trace the proportion of copyright material included. It seem safest, therefore, to bring it to XfD in order to seek to resolve this once and for all. If the draft is to be kept then the copyvios must be excised. Again the safest approach is the deletion of this draft, that it be rewritten from scratch Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete since, in addition to probable copyvio, this has been largely sitting around for a few years with mostly bot edits and tweaks. If someone wants to start this over, that would be good, but we don't need to burden them with this. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and re-write if possible.Well-made draft and is somewhat referenced. I would suggest to keep and rewrite the draft, but delete some of the photos as it may violate the non-free content criteria, except for the video that should have been a still picture that is fair use for educational and encyclopedic purpose. Text is referenced by academic research and journals and some reliable sources, some are presumably not- this forms as a basis for the rewriting. Xingqiu • Talk 02:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not delete as a copyvio without real evidence of it being a copyvio. I do not consider this excise to require revdeletion. Beware copyright paranoia. If the copyright issue is excessively close paraphrasing, that is not the sort of thing that needs revdeletion. Of what's there now, given the interspersed referencing throughout, I consider it unlikely to be serious copyvio. If deleted, re-create with the reference list (there can be no copyright claim on a reference list), to allow anyone to start again. Do not delete for being old. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pawri Ho Rahi Hai[edit]

As per AfC reviewer, the topic is not suitable for Wikipedia. Shinnosuke15, 06:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The review only declined. They didn't even reject, so this is terribly premature to bring to MfD. Worse, the draft has good sources. It has too many sources, and they are all recent, so it is not good enough for mainspace. Wait and see if something develops long term. This is what draftspace is for. It's a BLP, but I see no problems.

The draft claims a WP:NEOLOGISM. It takes time to see if it holds. Wait at least six months. This draft belongs and draft and definitely should not be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Category:Internet memes indicates 1000 plus articles on various memes seem to be there.

Though I started draft some newcomers submitted it in haste without my inputs and AfC review on a raw draft caused unfortunate hasty opinion. On basis hasty opinion listing it for deletion sounds too premature as earlier user noted.

Including me at least 2 experienced users are committed to the article, whenever we bring it to article namespace if you do not agree with all the way you can feel free to take it to AfD

But looking @ the trajectory mostly both if not both at least either as meme or in biographies if not at least merge–able for Indo–Pakistan relation, Meme and advertising communication information with reliable sources will be there in the draft.

It is already covered in Pakistan and India reliable media but also international media like BBC and Aljazeera have taken note of it.

After Feb 2021 This meme has been covered in middle of the year 2021 end of the year 2021, and latest Top Cricketer Sachin Tendulkar came in the news with meme most recently in last couple of weeks it's another version is in reliable media.

At least one (academic sort) paper is available online already available, (it studies advertising side more) and it's most likely than not likely to remain part of south Asian political commentaries for times to come as among rare examples of people to people level shared culture among Pakistan and India 21st century generation.

If still majority feels to delete then at least remain open minded for restarting it.

I am pinging @Vice regent, USaamo, and Redrose64: these other users who were in the discussion at talk page and or in contributions for their inputs.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It appears that this nomination is based on a reviewer saying that this was not suitable for Wikipedia, but the reviewer who declined it is now a blocked sockpuppet. This is a disruptive nomination. The nominator needs to stop worrying themselves and the community about keeping draftspace clean. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We do not delete drafts at Miscellany for Deletion on grounds of notability per WP:NMFD. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this meets WP:GNG.VR _talk 14:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NMFD. SK2242 (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User UkraineInvasion[edit]

This userbox promotes hatred towards Ukrainians: the Russian military symbol Z is often referred to as Russian swastika (see The Independent or The Telegraph, for example), while WP:UBCR forbids userboxes that are inflammatory. Wikisaurus (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the creator of this userbox, I have no problem to see it deleted if that's the result of a consensus of editors. Next, I have created it to be a polar opposite of User:Kaleeb18/Userboxes/NATO War Belarus and User:Kaleeb18/Userboxes/NATO War Russia, so please be sure to also delete other userboxes which promote/wants war, like these two. —Sundostund (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support this war or are you just trying to make a WP:POINT about other templates? Either way, this is not acceptable here. —Michael Z. 00:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My idea was simply to establish a kind of equal representation here, i.e. enabling supporters of this war to express their opinion, in the same way as supporters of a prospective war on Russia and Belarus already did, with the two other userboxes. —Sundostund (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion, alongside the two mentioned above by Sundostund A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:UBCR and WP:UPNOT, which says you can't advocate acts of violence in userspace. The same applies to the userboxes advocating that NATO invade countries. Hut 8.5 19:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have reworded this userbox and also the other two userboxes. @Sundostund:, @A. C. Santacruz:, @Hut 8.5: and @Wikisaurus: Catfurball (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have further reworded the two other userboxs, to make clearer avoidance of their previous propagation of war on Russia and Belarus. Also, if there's a consensus of editors to turn these three userboxes from pro-war into anti-war ones, instead of deleting them, I think that Template:User UkraineInvasion would need an image as part of it (maybe the Russian military symbol Z with an x-mark over it, like File:Flag of Taliban with X-Mark.jpg). —Sundostund (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Waht’s the point of bowdlerizing it? If anyone wants a different template, create a different template. Delete hate speech and calls to violence. Expunge their history. —Michael Z. 00:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive" per WP:UBCR. --Renat 02:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 12, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thecatcherintherye/sandbox/3

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: procedural close.

user sub-page has been tagged db-u1, making this request moot. (non-admin closure) SN54129 19: 26, 12 March 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) SN54129 19:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thecatcherintherye/sandbox/3[edit]

per users request Thecatcherintherye (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thecatcherintherye/sandbox/2

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 per U1. firefly ( t · c ) 19:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thecatcherintherye/sandbox/2[edit]

per users request Thecatcherintherye (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because we are here, but User:Thecatcherintherye should use U1 or G7 (which are equivalent). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thecatcherintherye/sandbox/1

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 per U1. firefly ( t · c ) 19:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thecatcherintherye/sandbox/1[edit]

per users request Thecatcherintherye (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because we are here, but User:Thecatcherintherye should use U1 or G7 (which are equivalent). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thecatcherintherye/sandbox/4

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 per U1. firefly ( t · c ) 19:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thecatcherintherye/sandbox/4[edit]

per users request Thecatcherintherye (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 11, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Quantum Holonomy Theory

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 deleted as a copyright violation (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Quantum Holonomy Theory[edit]

Someone (not me) wrote on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages: "some obscure primary sources, no significant secondary coverage; doesn't look wiki-notable". -- Beland (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep per WP:NDRAFT. Maybe if Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics had a guideline that this objectively failed, then MfD might delete it, but in general MfD is not for notability questions. Leave it for WP:G13. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This draft is a copyvio - it's made entirely from paragraphs that have been copy pasted from various sites around the internet. there's a paragraph copied from here [1] a paragraph copied from here [2] a paragraph copied from this reddit post [3] etc. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an strong opinion against deletion, but I think your argument doesn't hold as this is a mathematics/scientific theory and you should not author someone else's theory. in this case copy-paste is the right approach imo. Mim Armand (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are some serious papers about this ( 1 ), not sure who gets to validate how well-known should a scientific theory be before being wiki-notable, but I think it's good to have a place where experts can add/edit their thoughts.

That being said I don't have an strong opinion against deletion, I'm not an expert in the subject nor in Wikipedia policies, I was just researching the matter and thought Wikipedia should have a record of this subject.

Mim Armand (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC) mim[reply]

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

March 10, 2022[edit]

Draft:Cayley-Menger relations[edit]

This was created for a University of Florida class in 2020. It has a lot of broken formulas, and might be too technical for a general-interest encyclopedia? -- Beland (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a draft. It has a lot of broken formulas, and may be too technical. It should be tagged as having broken formulas, although that may not be necessary because the error messages jump out at the reader. If it is submitted in its current shape, it should be declined. It can be improved while in draft space. If it isn't edited in six months, it will be deleted as G13. If it is improved, then it can be kept in draft space for further improvement. Maybe the nominator is not familiar with how draft space is used. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are hidden comments in this draft. I have copied the comments to the draft talk page and unhidden them for the possible benefit of future editors. (It is too technical for me to understand. This is not higher math that I have forgotten in the past fifty years, because it is not higher math for chemists.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Cayley–Menger determinant. It shouldn’t be too hard to fix the broken formulae. On the other hand, I have noticed there is the article "Cayley–Menger determinant" in mainspace, which looks very closely related. Maybe we don’t need a separate article and in that case, the merger is in order. (I don’t know enough graph theory to know if a separate article is needed.) By the way, if this draft is too technical, then the mainspace article is too technical too. —- Taku (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Structural rigidity[edit]

Fork of Structural rigidity that was made for a class that has ended, User:David Eppstein found the new material too technical for Wikipedia. Beland (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least for now. I have tagged it to be merged into Structural rigidity, and have not tagged the article for merging from this draft. If a decision is made that the merging is complete or not making progress, it can be redirected to the article, Structural rigidity. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge: There is no need for deletion but the draft itself is also not needed; thus, it should be either redirected or merged if there is stuff to merge. -- Taku (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Structural rigidity. Tell W.sims.ufl (talk · contribs) that draftspace is not for forking content, and new pages do not subsume old pages, instead, new content goes over old pages, and the old page history stays intact in the history. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saint23john/sandbox[edit]

Abandoned autobiography of a non-notable actor, evidently a living person but no references provided. An attempt to create this article in mainspace at Saint John (actor) was prodded and deleted four years ago. Author is not active. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This would have been deleted as G13 in draft space. I see no need to preserve an unreferenced biography, regardless of whether the subject is a living person, for four years to see if a departed editor comes back to try to use Wikipedia for promotion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:MTR templates[edit]

This is a completely unnecessary page and an even worse precedent. Any templates related to this are found in Category:MTR templates. There is really no reason to create project pages for this, especially when it has 4 entries (and is obviously out of sync with the category). Gonnym (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Unmaintained and redundant to the category. Most of the templates that were originally listed on this page have since been deleted [4]. I don't see the benefit in having editors maintain two parallel template sorting systems, and due to the lack of maintenance this is incomplete and therefore of limited use to editors. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or tag historical, as I said in the previous nom, it's been around a lot longer than the category in its current form. There are also a few incoming links to it. It could be made into a redirect or soft redirect, but there's nothing harmful enough on the page that its history needs to be made inaccessible to non-admins. Graham87 13:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares that it was around longer? What a strange argument. Gonnym (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also checked the incoming links and literally none of those links are actually someone intentionally linking to this category and rather the links are from either database reports or deletion notices. Gonnym (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the page was created before the MTR template category shows that this page was once useful for gathering a list of MTR templates. We don't delete pages just because they are now relatively useless; we tag them as historical. Also re the incoming links, one exception is Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 29#Template:East Rail, but even I'll admit that's relatively weak. Graham87 06:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the historical pages guidelines at WP:HISPAGES pages are kept and marked as historical to give context to historical discussions and to inform future discussions on similar topics. For what possible reason would keeping this as a historical page be of benefit? It hasn't ever been discussed anywhere, there are no incoming links worth worrying about, it's not an old policy that people might need to refer to and there are no useful discussions on it's talk page that might need referencing to. The process of marking stuff as historical is intended to keep stuff around when there's a need to continue accessing it e.g. keeping a record of discussions about problems that may be relevant in the future or to keep a copy of old policies that were cited in discussions, it's not supposed to be a way of hoarding rubbish in project space just because it's old. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In case people might want to know which templates have been used in MTR articles, especially in the past; this revision, say, has many more templates than the current one. There's no reason I can think of why people might want to know this in the short term, but we can't predict the behaviour and motivations of future readers/editors. The existence of this page and the MFDs may well be all the documentation we ever need re this topic, but we can't be 100% sure of that. It seems that consensus might be against me though in this case. Graham87 09:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a record of which templates were used in articles in the past - it's called the page history. A list of redlinks is vastly inferior to the page history for that purpose - all the list shows is that the templates existed, it doesn't show if or where they were used. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This project page has no value and is merely a glorified, redundant category. 192.76.8.70 provides a convincing argument as to why this shouldn't be marked as historical. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 9, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2023 Formula 2 Championship

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2023 Formula 2 Championship[edit]

article written by a user only known for vandalism, WP:TOOSOON and completely unsourced. The topic doesn't even need a draft right now as absolutely nothing is known about the 2023 season and won't be known for months. H4MCHTR (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a draft. It would need declining if submitted now. The topic doesn't need a draft, but a draft doesn't need deleting either. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
U5 speedy delete - A quick look at the creator's edit history shows they are not here to build an encyclopedia. This is an obvious hoax to anyone who follows motorsport and to those who don't, the lack of sourcing combined with the edit history of adding unsourced misinformation into motorsport articles, they appear to be using wikipedia to create fantasy lineups (which is an issue I have come across before by many users). In my opinion this is a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and this draft should be U5'd. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 01:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – Per GhostOfDanGurney. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 7, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Deprecated docs

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 13:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated docs[edit]

Template:User WPVG/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User WP Mythology/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User WP Redirect/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User WP Wikipedia/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User WP Probability/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User WP Logic/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User WP Portals/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User WikiProject Userboxes/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

No transclusions. The parent pages use {{User WP/based}} for their documentation, so these /doc subpages are deprecated. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 02:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not archive? SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these template pages per WP:TFD#REASONS #3, not used and not usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused, outdated and obsolete template documentation pages. I see no archival value in half a dozen pages containing variants of "Add {{User WP Foo}} to your user page to add a user box for the Foo Wikiproject". 192.76.8.70 (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User WikiProject COVID-19/doc

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 13:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User WikiProject COVID-19/doc[edit]

No transclusions. The parent page uses {{User WP/based}} for its documentation, so this /doc subpage is not usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obsolete page. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User WP Templates/doc

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. Template deleted on request CSD G7. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User WP Templates/doc[edit]

No transclusions. The parent page uses {{User WP/based}} for its documentation, so this /doc subpage is not usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This template can be deleted. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 22:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Shin Japan Heroes Universe

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: procedural close – this page has been moved to mainspace, leaving us without a draft to review. The nominator may take the article to AfD if necessary. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Shin Japan Heroes Universe[edit]

Heavily reliant on WP:SYN. SHIN JAPAN HEROES UNIVERSE (SJHU) was not announced until February 2022 as a collaborative project, but most of the projects and films listed here were launched years before SJHU was a thing. The sources reveal that these projects had nothing to do with SJHU at the time of their releases. So Fico Puricelli is connecting dots to imply a conclusion.

Additionally, Fico Puricelli is jumping the gun here. The announcement did not reveal whether this is a now-canon cinematic universe or an ongoing film series. These sources (1, 2) confirm that details are "scant" and that more will be revealed later in the year. The only thing that's been confirmed is that the project will feature merchandise, special events and tie-ins (3).

This article should be deleted, or at the least, held off until more details emerge as to what this collaborative project really is. Keep in mind, Toho (the owners of Godzilla) and Khara (the owners of Evangelion) launched collaborative cross-over projects in the past such as GODZILLA X EVANGELION (4), a line of merchandise, and GODZILLA VS. EVANGELION (5), a 4-D ride at Universal Studios Japan. For all we know so far, this could be something similar rather than suddenly making these unrelated films (owned by separate studios) cinematically canon. Again, which the announcement did not confirm. Armegon (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a draft, and the nominator has given a good reason why the draft should be declined if submitted in the current form. Maybe the nominator isn't familiar with how draft space differs from article space. The nominator writes: This article should be deleted, or at the least, held off until more details emerge as to what this collaborative project really is. Yes. The way to hold off on a draft, which is not indexed and not normally seen by readers, is to defer submitting it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand now. I'm not familiar on how procedures with drafts are done. I had no idea whether they warrant deletion or not. But yes. It's best to hold off passing/approving this article until more is revealed about the nature of this collaboration. I feel Fico Puricelli only saw the word "universe" and jumped the gun thinking this is the Hideaki Anno equivalent of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Armegon (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:Armegon - If you are not an Articles for Creation reviewer, and have comments about a draft, I would advise entering them on the draft talk page. In this case, the draft has not yet been submitted for approval, and so it will be held off. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, mainspaced. I accepted the draft, it is obviously notable. The WP:SYNTH is an editing challenge and not a reason to delete. Disagree that it is reliant on the SYNTH. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 6, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:PDIdd

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 deleted as G5 by User:Materialscientist. (non-admin closure) —GMX^{^{(on the go!)}} 14:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:PDIdd[edit]

Blatant hoax. LockzZ (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't know whether this is a hoax, so it isn't blatant, but it is unreferenced, and the work of a sockpuppeteer, and we might as well get rid of it rather than wait six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The photos are literally of the Nintendo 64, so I believe that is enough to call it a hoax. LockzZ (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thank you for the explanation, User:NanoLock66. Sometimes puppetmasters lie and fabricate. In that case, I would change my !vote to Delete, but that isn't necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is a blatant hoax. -- Whpq (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Ridiculous hoax. Neocorelight (Talk) 19:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 4, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Andrew Kennedy (Ohio politician)

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Andrew Kennedy (Ohio politician)[edit]

Non-notable person, once ran for city council and didn't come close to winning. Pure self promotion by article subject whose Wikipedia edits are about trying to promote themselves. Canterbury Tail talk 16:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - This unsourced vanity autobiography would need rejecting if it were submitted for AFC review. There is a conflict between our standards for drafts and our standards for biographies of living persons. Our standards for drafts are very permissive. Our standards for BLPs are strict. I would rather not see MFDs for drafts that have not been submitted yet. (So, yes, I am arguing with myself.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but Drafts do specifically come under MfD's coverage area, and often otherwise Drafts would just sit there for a long time and often never get submitted. While they come under MfD, this is the right process to remove them if an editor doesn't think it's going to be of any value. It's not going to hit mainspace however you shake it. The only other real option here is to just speedy delete it as self promotion vanity, but I thought I'd throw it to the wolves as it were. Canterbury Tail talk 19:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying this was never submitted, despite centering around an election last year? This highlights a real issue with these differing standards. There's a clear pattern in draftspace of entries whose sole purpose is to promote a candidate, which are deleted once the election is over. Within the subset of content I'm familiar with, we had Alyse Galvin, a candidate who lost and then ran for the same office two years later. An admin restored the deleted draft without discussion once she announced her second campaign. Both times, the draft was deleted after the election. There was never a serious attempt to promote it to mainspace that entire time. Wikipedia should ABSOLUTELY NOT be used for such purposes, yet it is, under the pretense of "Why, they could be notable one of these years". There's no credibility in such a stance when Wikipedia has done such a piss-poor job of reflecting what's already notable simply because of sources that never made their way onto the web in the 21st century. Likewise, there's a real problem with draftspace existing as a walled garden at cross purposes with the goals of the encyclopedia as a whole, solely concerned about its own insular procedures. In an age when fake news is rampant and reader discernment is at an all-time low, did it ever occur to you that the continued existence of this draft could be used by its promoters as evidence of the subject's notability? With a user interface centered on dumbing people down through an abundance of style over substance, do you believe the average person will notice the leading "Draft:" and understand what it means? I don't. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it should be submitted to the Articles for Creation process. It's definitely just promotion now, but maybe an article can take shape. If not, it will be clear later on. Dege31 (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Cincinnati City Council certainly qualifies as a notable political office. Outside of AFC's walled garden, notability is clearly delineated between holders of notable offices and those who were merely candidates for such offices. Your argument is really about a small group of editors being able to control an entire namespace without regard for the benefit it offers the project as a whole. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not commented on the notability, only on its current reality as a draft. It is totally unsourced, so it can't yet be moved to mainspace. As for walled gardens, anyone can apply to be a reviewer in the AFC process if they so wish. I am not sure how it disregards the benefit to the project as a whole, since the process is a part of it and operates by the same policies and guidelines. Dege31 (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've realised you're trying to say it's not notable. Well, that's possible. I'm just saying that it doesn't need to be deleted prematurely if something can be made out of it. Dege31 (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please note it was sitting at User:Andrewekennedy123/sandbox until a few days ago when it was then copied over to draftspace. Also the primary editor is the subject in question / shares the same name. The bio was first created April 2021. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the draft updates have no election results and the newer edits were for links to more of his websites. So this may be bordering on U5 (web host) or G11 (advertising / promotion). AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a reference for the election results, they didn't win it. They weren't in the top 3 candidates. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a result and they've never actually been in politics it seems. Canterbury Tail talk 01:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Usually, draftspace/userspace should not be used as a shadow encyclopedia, but a sort of exception is candidate’s for election, where all coverage relates to them being a candidate for that election. Editors need a place to put the material, as it arises, in preparation for the candidate winning. When they don’t, and not even close, and still all coverage was pre-election candidate coverage, then it is appropriate to delete. Even if the person is approaching notability otherwise, WP:TNT applies, the election candidate draft will have been entirely focused on the candidate and is not a basis for an ongoing page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11 as a purely promotional page. In the state the draft is currently in, it is better to blow the draft up and start over.2601:647:5800:1A1F:CFD:F514:CDE6:9187 (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ritchie333/Userbox Boris

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. WP:G7, WP:IAR. No point having an argument about this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ritchie333/Userbox Boris[edit]

WP:G10, attack page on living subject that goes beyond reasonable criticism into deliberately inflammatory insult territory, and generally poor form from an admin. Dronebogus (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we are going to continue to permit political userboxes (I'd rather we didn't), the expression of a strong opinion that stops short of saying "X is a Y", as this one does, prefacing it with "This user thinks ..." should be permitted. I expect Ritchie333 to refrain from editing articles about the person in question; but I expect that of any editor who has such a strong opinion on a topic, positive or negative, admin or not. We do not forbid editors from holding strong opinions; we require editors to avoid topics on which they have such strong preferences that they cannot be neutral, and I regard this userbox as amounting to declaring such an insurmountable conflict. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- But this one doesn’t stop short, it literally says “X (BoJo) is a Y (nincompoop)”. I don’t give a crap about people’s opinions on this (and agree with the general sentiment) but name-calling in userboxes is childish behavior that runs foul of WP:BLPTALK. Dronebogus (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seriously? wikt:nincompoop: "(derogatory) A foolish or silly person." This archaic little epithet is something one might expect the Honourable Member for the 18th century to come out with. When I think of Johnson, a lot of other words, many of them four-letter ones, spring to mind. Not least is liar. I note that the hyperlink Ritchie uses in his pipe for "complete nincompoop" is a WP:RS that might readily be used in the article for Johnson. As per Yngvadottir, impartiality should be demonstrated (and checked if necessary) by which articles Ritchie choses not to edit. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC) p.s. I must remember to add a link, on my user page, to the wholly impartial article for that jolly ditty "Boris Johnson Is a Fucking Cunt."[reply]
- Your argument seems to be, if I am not mistaken, “I like it because Johnson sucks, nincompoop is a silly insult, there’s a Guardian link and also screw you JRM too lololol.” None of those are reasons I nominated this. I nominated it because it exists purely to insult a living person, and it is clearly an insult (albeit a very mild and informed one) and not an intelligently phrased criticism. Dronebogus (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I don't recall putting any of those words, including "screw you JRM too lololol." But yes, it's a "very mild and informed" insult. I think it's iNews not The Guardian. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pace Yngvadottir, but I think BLPTALK is the primary argument—and our primary responsibility—here. If we lose this box, we still wouldn't have to get rid of other political userboxes; I see a great deal of difference in saying This user identifies as a communist/Nazi/shunter and wheeltapper and saying This user thinks BLP is a nincompoop/asshole/mofo. It comes down to whether the claim is playing the man or the ball; BLP is based around the former and literally prevents us by policy from doing the latter. But this is what the box is doing: ad hom.
Incidentally, I consider this a different case to that of Ritchie's Trump userbox—also under discussion—as while that makes robust claims, they are specifically based on Trump's policies rather than merely insults.
Yngvaddottir, re. I expect Ritchie333 to refrain from editing articles about the person in question; possibly. But this (Boris Johnson) and this (Partygate), are from January. Hopefully deeper digging—for which I lack the time or energy—wouldn't bring raise more examples. SN54129 13:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, editors who dislike people get to edit their articles. But I think the much greater danger is the editing of those articles by editors who are big supporters, but who make no declaration of that fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ritchie333/Userbox Trump

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. WP:G7 WP:IAR. No point having an argument about this. I can't find an explicit reference at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive951#In_doubt but I believe I intended to remove them upon the first objection. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ritchie333/Userbox Trump[edit]

WP:G10, attack page on living subject that goes beyond reasonable criticism into deliberately inflammatory insult territory (not to mention Godwin's law), and generally poor form from an admin. Dronebogus (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don’t think G10 was intended to prevent people from declaring their political beliefs on their user page. Especially given current events I think we should err on the side of allowing editors to criticize powerful government leaders (past or present) on their user pages. 28bytes (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I come to this as someone who was born and spent a lot of time in the United Kingdom and now in my 80s I have spent a lot of time is Australia, so I ask myself what would happen if we had user boxes criticising politicians from many nations. This box is going too far. --Bduke (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we are going to continue to permit political userboxes (I'd rather we didn't), the expression of a strong personal opinion should be permitted. The verb used, "detests", refers to the user's opinion; the specific allegations are supported by links, although one is an interpretation, the other links to an opinion article. For absolute clarity, I would prefer the wording "This user detests Donald Trump, who he considers a neo-Nazi sympathizer who cares more about golf than human lives". I also expect Ritchie333 to refrain from editing articles about the person in question; but I expect that of any editor who has such a strong opinion on a topic, positive or negative, admin or not. We do not forbid editors from holding strong opinions; we require editors to avoid topics on which they have such strong preferences that they cannot be neutral, and I regard this userbox as amounting to declaring such an insurmountable conflict. My overall preference would be to ban all political userboxes, whether positive or negative, in support of our mission of writing a neutral encyclopedia and of community harmony; I prefer not to know what my colleagues think on political and social issues, what party they support, what politicians they like or dislike. But that isn't where we are, and this userbox stops short of saying "Donald Trump is a X who Y." Barely. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Yngvadottir. Although nice balance alongside the Johnson box (even if Trump makes our glorious leader look like Einstein by comparison). Again the descriptors seem to be piped to WP:RS sources (for which there are probably many more). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED and ha ha only serious. As Yngvadottir infers correctly, the primary purpose of the user box (for the purposes of writing and improving the encyclopedia) is that you should not ask me to edit or take any administrative actions on any articles relating to Donald Trump, broadly construed, as I have a self-declared bias against him and must recuse from doing so for the purposes of a neutral encyclopedia. I will also say the box is far less inflammatory than some of the things on User:EEng, which I believe a previous discussion reached consensus that they could stay. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addition - I'm not going to do it in order to avoid the appearance of canvassing, but somebody may wish to inform those who have transcluded the box on their user page of this discussion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- User:EEng’s page makes my page look sane and well-organized. Dronebogus (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Making others feel sane by comparison is one of my most crucial roles at Wikipedia, I've always thought. E Eng 15:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 3, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Avazina/Keith Olbermann

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 as Attack Page. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Avazina/Keith Olbermann[edit]

Gratuitously insults a living person and is only used on two userpages from long vanished users. I don’t think anything significant is going to be lost by chucking this. Dronebogus (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPTALK.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 28, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kadda Sheekoff (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: delete. ✗plicit 13:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kadda Sheekoff[edit]

Kadda Sheekoff

This draft has been in review repeatedly and has been rejected five times:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Kadda_Sheekoff&oldid=1023272727

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Kadda_Sheekoff&oldid=1042496949

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Kadda_Sheekoff&oldid=1033299048

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Kadda_Sheekoff&oldid=1037989278

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Kadda_Sheekoff&oldid=1061051093

The Reject messages were then stripped (although they say that they should not be removed):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Kadda_Sheekoff&type=revision&diff=1074102465&oldid=1061098309&diffmode=source

There may be paid editing or sockpuppetry, or the resubmission may simply be the work of ultras. It doesn't matter much.

An article by this name, Kadda Sheekoff, was created twice, twelve years ago, and was deleted as A7, no credible claim of significance, and was indefinitely salted at the time. While a great deal can change in twelve years, there is no indication that this person is more notable than they were in 2010, and the tendentious resubmission has resumed. This draft cannot be accepted without unsalting, and there is no reason to unsalt. So the resubmissions of the draft are a waste of time, and the draft should go where the article is, into a bit bucket. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kadda Sheekoff, which deleted a draft after an earlier rejection not shown. There is also a history of gaming of names to sneak this into article space under a variant of the title to avoid the salt. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Draft space is not a repository for pages that can't plausibly become Wikipedia articles, and all these resubmissions are wasting the time of AfC reviewers and other good-faith editors. --bonadea contributions talk 18:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GAMENAME and tendentious resubmission after rejection without improving the article. It still has the same problems as the previous MFD. Nothing has happened in the past two years since previous MFD that warrants him having an article now. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 27, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sonny wright/sandbox/Cole

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: keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sonny wright/sandbox/Cole[edit]

WP:FANCRUFT crap from a WP:NOTHERE user Dronebogus (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a sandbox. At this point the editor has not edited constructively, but this nomination is biting a newbie. Give the editor a chance to edit constructively and play at the same time. This nomination is ragpicking. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Agree with Robert McClenon above. Sandboxes should generally not be deleted, unless there is a very good reason to do so. If the user was trying to promote themselves in the sandbox, the result might be different. This just seems like the user is having fun creating material on fictional characters. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:CFD:F514:CDE6:9187 (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sonny wright/sandbox

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sonny wright/sandbox[edit]

WP:FANCRUFT crap from a WP:NOTHERE user Dronebogus (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a sandbox. At this point the editor has not edited constructively, but this nomination is biting a newbie. Give the editor a chance to edit constructively and play at the same time. This nomination is ragpicking. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sonny wright/sandbox/Tienshinhan

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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sonny wright/sandbox/Tienshinhan[edit]

WP:FANCRUFT crap from a WP:NOTHERE user Dronebogus (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a sandbox. At this point the editor has not edited constructively, but this nomination is biting a newbie. Give the editor a chance to edit constructively and play at the same time. This nomination is ragpicking. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 26, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black (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: keep. I don't see a consensus to delete here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black[edit]

This page gives great advice for editors acting purely in self-interest. It does not improve the encyclopedia. While this essay rightfully advises editors to examine their own behavior, the net result of applying this essay is that two editors guilty of misconduct are not brought into the scrutinizing eye of the community. We *want* the pot to call the kettle black (report policy violating behavior), because the net result will be that misconduct on both sides is dealt with. This essay is essentially advocating in favor of co-conspiracy. "I won't report you, and you won't report me, so we can both continue to be disruptive". MarshallKe (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a very good essay even if it’s in good faith. Normally this wouldn’t be a serious issue, but when it explicitly says you should practice honor among WikiCriminals by not snitching on another equally or even more disruptive user it’s doing more harm than good. If anything it’d be better to encourage disruptive users snitching each other by giving them more lenient “sentences” as a reward. It’s also using a rather dated metaphor that sounds really bad in regards to its use of “blackness” to mean “badness”. Dronebogus (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the message of the essay is dubious in advocating non-reporting of potentially disruptive behaviour. The metaphor is also offensive in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy at the most – whoa, whoa, whoa! This is a widely cited and historically important essay. Per this search generated by the script User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js, the base page alone is linked to 93 times and its shortcuts are linked to more often than that. The essay's creator was well-respected for his policy and guideline editing; [[his barnstars page shows a taste of this. I seem to recall he comes from the Netherlands, the home of Zwarte Piet, which has become more and more controversial since he became inactive here. The previous MFD (which I've linked above) suggested merging it with Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot, which I'm OK with; removing the essay from navigation templates that it's on such as {{Wikipedia essays}} would also be fine with me. But deletion is a step too far. Graham87 09:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to support marking historical with Template:Historical, or redirect to Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot rather than deletion. In the case of redirect, a note could be added explaining what the old adage means. MarshallKe (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with MarshallKe. As I’ve said before, old doesn’t equal good. Dronebogus (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe it's a generational thing, but I think that the essay has been misunderstood in terms of thinking about the saying "don't call the kettle black" as a literal action (i.e. keep quiet about wrongdoing), when in fact it is meant to describe a certain mindset that disruptive users often employ, that the wrongdoings of another necessarily absolve themselves of their own. It's about the nature of hypocrisy, not about sweeping issues under the rug. Nowadays, I notice that we tend to refer to these situations using WP:BOOMERANG; we're much better at calling out this kind of behavior. But back in 2006, when Radiant! first wrote this, this kind of crap ran rampant (just take a look at the arbitration cases that year, for some context), and we needed some vocabulary as a community to identify this specific brand of disruption, which tried to turn WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF as bludgeons to use during disputes. If you must, userfy this, but I find the inability to look beyond the literal saying and not at the heart of the content and the context that birthed it baffling. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How dare you all try to get this deleted, when the points within are nothing if not valid and this essay has even been actively linked to. At the very least this needs to be userfied. The angle of the current MFD atmosphere to try and look for things to delete that run contrary to certain viewpoints seems somewhat iconoclastic to me.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
”How dare you”? “Iconoclasm”? *So what, is this essay the gospel of Wikipedia now? Dronebogus (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Essays and the essay template in general - "Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." Why exactly are we -- and you -- going out of our way to delete these? WaltCip-(talk) 21:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I’m not “going out of my way”, I just saw the discussion and agreed with it. Dronebogus (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have described my reasons why I proposed deletion, and I think I described them and their basis in policy sufficiently. Your implication of some ulterior motive is WP:ABF-y. There is probably some cabal of editors editing on an ideological basis, but I am not a member of them. MarshallKe (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WaltCip but the way they phrased it is kinda silly Washing Machine (alt) (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep - Recognizing that concerns have been expressed as to why to delete this essay, but, first, it doesn't encourage incivility, so much as discourages an uncivil editor from complaining about the incivility of others, and, second, not everything in project space has strong support, and minority views are permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Discourages an uncivil editor from complaining about the incivility of others" is precisely why this should be deleted. MarshallKe (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to tell if you're calling for this essay to be deleted as contradictory to policy, or if you are instead trying to tell Wikipedians that they are not allowed to think along these lines, similar to all those political userboxes that got nominated for deletion (which you yourself defended keeping). One is objective and can be backed up with policy (which I haven't seen an attempt at yet), while the other is hugely subjective and not what WP:MFD is for. WaltCip-(talk) 15:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reasonable essay concerning editor interactions. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a reasonable essay, but it could be rewritten it and renamed to something like "Don't be a hypocrite" so the old metaphor isn't there. Washing Machine (alt) (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Walter Görlitz

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: withdrawn. Graham87 09:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Walter Görlitz[edit]

Could we please delete, or at least change the visibility, of the edits made to my talk page between 2022-02-26T18:33:30‎ and 2022-02-26T18:35:41‎? They are insulting, degrading, and offensive, and were an attempt by the editor to be disruptive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the visibility of several clearly disruptive edits today. Too much? BusterD (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to withdraw this process since you are an experienced wikipedian and know this is not the appropriate forum to request visibility changes? I'm happy to discuss this further on talk or complete our discussion here before this MfD topic gets archived. BusterD (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Thanks, although, a few too many revisions were removed. I don't mind them being gone.

BTW, what is the best place to get content like this deleted? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it were me, and it's been me before, I'd call on any uninvolved admin. Call on me if you see my timestamp close by. Happy to help. Worst case scenario, send a brief note asking for an uninvolved admin at ANI. If you want to keep it quieter flag me on my talk. I'm boring. Nobody follows me. BusterD (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: Follow the instructions at WP:REVDELREQUEST or WP:RFO depending upon if you want the material rev-delled or oversighted. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Steps to way

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 close, wrong venue, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steps to way[edit]

Mis-created unnecessary re-direct PepperBeast (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Unused Migrated Userboxes

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 12:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Unused Migrated Userboxes[edit]

All unused and have since been converted into userboxes using the proper namespace of "User". All I assume were created in the template space because these are templates, but a specific type of templates, by mistake or by default to then later change into the proper namespace. But they are now converted or migrated userboxes that are being used across user pages. No point in keeping them in the template space. Can be redirected if users wish to see that. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, I did that. ~~The specific type of template is called a userbox.~~ The process that I'm following is called migration and is described here and here. I realize you might not have seen it yourself, but there have been a lot of these MfDs (and, incorrectly, TfDs) lately, such as this one, and this one, and this one. I've been rather patient and just !voted delete each time, but I want to reiterate that these should be speedy deleted once all transclusions are updated. That's why there a maintenance category for it. Going forward, there shouldn't be any need to blow up my talk page with a dozen notification templates at a time (though I do appreciate singular notices, of course). Also, since you bring up the suggestion of redirects, I'll reiterate that I oppose redirects because most of these userboxes never should have been in the template namespace to begin with, so they certainly don't deserve a redirect from template space to user space. Thanks. — voidxor 01:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Editors won't know of this MfD like they didn't about the others (just as I didn't know before I nominated one myself). For future templates, you could just nominate these as speedy yourself to save you having to receive notifications. Gonnym (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that occurred to me and I'll probably start doing it because it's obvious that no admin is watching the maintenance category. Anybody can tag them for speedy deletion, though; it doesn't have to be me.

I recognized above that the nom may not have known about the others, but they obviously didn't do their homework before opening this one. A simple glance at my user talk page, the first link within the template under discussion, or the documentation thereof would have provided some of the needed background, such as what a userbox is or about the userbox migration. In general, I think nominating something (or several things) for deletion without bothering to understand what it is first is a bad idea.

Also, the first editor to bomb my user talk page has a history. Others are blindly following that bad precedent. This nom didn't even use Twinkle so there really is no excuse for not grouping it into one notice. This is a single MfD, after all. — voidxor 22:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry with all those notifications, you can remove them from your talk page, instead of keep going on about them. Second, these were nominated from an unused database report and all are or soon to be were under Category:Migrated userbox stubs. So it's not fair to say I didn't do my homework before starting this nomination. I'm aware of the userbox migration and its history from previous discussions either at Tfd's or Mfd's. And lastly, I choose not to use Twinkle. I'd like to do it manually and that's my choice. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fine. Most of my frustration isn't with you specifically, but the rather the sudden onslaught of TfDs and MfDs and the lack of admin support when I'm just following the documented process. Sorry, but I respectfully disagree about whether you did your homework. Your request was all over the map. By your own admission, you don't know what these are, why these were created, or why they were moved. You clearly didn't bother to check their history, my talk page, recent TfDs, or the documentation of the very template used on all of these "specific type of template". If you have experience with the userbox migration, you could have been more specific instead of assuming. The notices on my talk page will eventually be automatically archived; I was not "going on about them" as much as I was venting the fourth time it happened and then responding to Gonnym's suggestion. Lastly, my mention of Twinkle wasn't a criticism as much as an observation that you can't blame automation for the quantity on my talk page (as others have). — voidxor 00:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I didn't know what these were, then I wouldn't have nominated them. Clearly false. And you're reading the nomination all wrong. But nonetheless, the matter has been dealt with. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. I have updated the template's documentation nonetheless. This isn't 2007 anymore; the dust from the migration has settled. — voidxor 15:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and agree with voidxor about opposing leaving these as redirects. Gonnym (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Komito Analytics

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 12:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Komito Analytics[edit]

As part of WP:FOSS I was patrolling and found this article. Although this topic is very much in our field of intereest, this software has no chance to pass Notability since the source code development ceased 1 year ago and this is just a blackhat SEO effort GavriilaDmitriev (talk • they/them) 05:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because we are here, but this would have been deleted, maybe later today, as having been an abandoned draft for six months, except that it was nominated on what might have been its last day anyway. It isn't necessary or useful to nominate abandoned drafts for deletion. They expire in six months. If the draft is being diddled with, e.g., by a promoter, then deletion may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page was due to be deleted today as a CSD G13 stale draft. But instead, it's been nominated at MFD which will take another week and if the decision is to keep it and there is no further editing on the page, it won't be eligible for G13 status again until September 2022. FYI, you should check the page history on drafts and, if you think they should be deleted, see if it is close to its 6 month expiration date before initiating a MFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only because the draft would otherwise have been G13'd. I agree entirely with Robert and Liz that it is not helpful to nominate stale drafts at MfD: see WP:NMFD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the widespread criticism. I understand the issue and I'm sorry for what I have caused. But I would like to ask all participants here if this isn't a typical case of WP:Snowball_clause? I made a mistake but it's fixable and I see no reason to further over complicate things while noone spoke in favor of the draft GavriilaDmitriev (talk • they/them) 06:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 25, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File talk:Aardakh 1944.jpg

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: Moved to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 February 26#File:Aardakh 1944.jpg (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File talk:Aardakh 1944.jpg[edit]

The indicated source is not super-high-quality (Rambler (portal)) and doesn't give details on original source and author of the photograph.
The trucks on the picture were only produced after 1946 and so could not be used for the deportation of the Chechen (see more details here).
The same image can be found on the internet as depicting the deportation of Ukrainians in 1947, which is consistent with the model and licence plates of the lorries. Alaexis_¿question? 12:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid nomination. WP:FFD is third door on the right. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Internet/Memes

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 12:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Internet/Memes[edit]

Empty userbox category, more Twentytwoaug/Copperwidth cruft. --Finngall ^talk 01:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pointless work by pointless user. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Language/Phrases

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 12:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Language/Phrases[edit]

Unused userbox category whose creator has been blocked per WP:NOTHERE for devoting most of their energy producing cruft like this in projectspace rather than actually improving the encyclopedia (and for socking). --Finngall ^talk 01:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Useless work of useless editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 23, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force/archieve template

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 12:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force/archieve template[edit]

the page is not used since 13 years and the task force it was intended for Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Software/Free_and_open-source_software_task_force uses the MiszaBot as can be seen here.

Linked archives here stay in use but their old redirects should also be removed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Free_Software/Archive_1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Software/Free_Software/Archive_2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Software/Free_Software/Archive_3 GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as per nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages

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: keep. RL0919 (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages[edit]

I'm proposing this be a redirect to Category:Draft-Class mathematics articles. I already implemented this after dropping all the deleted drafts and making sure all the listed drafts were tagged to show up in the category. But TakuyaMurata reverted and noted on my user talk page:

"...the list actually has useful information not covered in categories; list of red links. The deletion of drafts is automated and it is important to request undeletion of drafts on topics not covered in mainspace yet. Of course, I can just have the list in my user page but putting the list in the wikiproject page can invite contributors from the others too. So, can we agree to have this list instead of/besides categories?"

Mark viking also deleted all the redlinks on this list, and TakuyaMurata reverted that. Note that TakuyaMurata has a topic ban on draftspace per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive292#Topic Ban for TakuyaMurata and this was brought up again at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314#Topic_Ban_Request: TakuyaMurata. This activity appears to violate that ban. This is currently under appeal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Topic ban appeal. Regardless, I thought it would be worthwhile to establish consensus on what we want to do here.

I would argue the following about draft procedures in general:

Undeletion is not a process that should be depended upon to work upon request. It causes overhead for admins, and should not be a routine part of WikiProject activities. Repeated undeletion is the worst.
Because they have no way to see the content, there's no way for non-admins to tell if a specific draft *should* be undeleted or if it was deleted because it was not useful.
If an editor intends to work on a draft more than 6 months in the future, they should probably move it into their userspace (as I have done myself in the past).
If other editors are needed to work on the draft, it can be tagged {{promising draft}}, though if you ask me, it would be better to simply move it into article space and tag whatever problems it has with referencing or incompleteness. At worst, anyone who cares so much about the topic they don't want it forgotten could create the shortest of stubs, with just a clean defining sentence. Whatever can be saved from the messy draft can be put on the talk page as suggested improvements for an expert to take a look at. As this will start showing up in public search engines, it will almost certainly attract more expert editor attention and useful contributions than a messy draft, and will certainly get more attention than a maybe-to-be-undeleted deleted draft.
If no one intends to work on a draft enough to move it into their own userspace, and the text is in bad enough shape that it can't be moved into a problem-tagged article or even trimmed down to a clean one-sentence definition for a stub, then after 6 months the right thing is indeed probably to delete the draft. If the topic is notable, someone will eventually start an article, and if the previous contributions were a mess, it's not necessarily a bad thing that they are starting from scratch.

In this specific case, it appears that this list of drafts was not being maintained, and thus is not fulfilling its intended purpose. The category has 131 drafts, so the list is missing something like 80% of them. Userspace drafts are included in the category. Any annotations on specific drafts made on this page would be better made on the draft's talk page, so all editors interested in the draft could see it. -- Beland (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the past there were a number of us intermittently maintaining this page, as it was a convenient common spot for looking for math-oriented drafts to work on. Personally, I like that the drafts were partitioned into categories of mathematical topics and that the occasional notes beside the links sometimes helped with understanding the rationale behind the drafts. It's true that it is being less well-maintained these days. If this page goes away, I would recommend creating subcats under Category:Draft-Class mathematics articles corresponding to the categories in the list, or something along those lines. It isn't always apparent what the topic being proposed just from the draft title--is Draft talk:Lagrangians in Graphs about graph theory, or mathematical physics? --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (note this is just a list in the wikiproject page and so is not within the scope of my topic ban). My argument would be: is having this page harmful in anyway? As I said above, anyone can have a list like this in their user page after all. This list was put in the wikiproject so it can benefit from edits from other editors. About up-to-date: so for the past several months, I have been quite busy, but I (and hopefully others) still intend to update the list. About comprehensive: the list is not complete; that’s a feature not a bug since there are many low-quality drafts that we don’t need to keep track of. Again the need for the deletion seems very unclear to me and the original poster has failed to elaborate on the need. —— Taku (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I personally use Category:Draft-Class mathematics articles for keeping track of mathematics-related drafts, I don't see why other editors shouldn't make use of a list in project space if they find it helpful. Subcategorising Category:Draft-Class mathematics articles seems more cumbersome to me than an ad hoc list that can be quickly adapted to whatever people on the project find useful.

Felix QW (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Harmless, and more useful than a category (this page can say, for example, why a person might be wiki-notable). It's likely to go for longish stretches without modification because, well, this is a highly technical area and thus a low-traffic part of the encyclopedia. It's not out of line for the task of encyclopedia-building, though. XOR'easter (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Via this list, I found Draft:Ruler function, tidied and referenced it and resubmitted it to AfC (since I don't know the etiquette for moving AfC drafts into mainspace once they've been improved). I think it's easier to do that sort of thing when drafts are sorted by topic and have auxiliary information. XOR'easter (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think that the drafts on the list on this page may be sent to MfD and then deleted instead of being deleted after 6 months. If consensus for that can be get through this discussion, I think that reduce the burden on the administrators. --SilverMatsu (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Chapter 1: Stranger in a Strange Land

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 redirect. ✗plicit 12:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Chapter 1: Stranger in a Strange Land[edit]

I dont know if I am supposed to ask for a speedy deletion, but I did not see an option fitting this. There is already an article of this in mainspace and I merged the two articles so now it can be deleted ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to the article. User:Kaleeb18 - Drafts are redirected rather than deleted when there is an article. Now you know. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: ah thank you! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 22:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of draft pages on science and engineering

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of draft pages on science and engineering[edit]

This is not kept up to date, and subcategories of Category:Draft articles perform the same role and are up-to-date. Nothing really links here so I thought deleting would probably be cleaner than redirecting somewhere. Note the creator of this page has a topic ban on the Draft namespace and related discussions according to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive292#Topic Ban for TakuyaMurata and this was brought up again at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314#Topic_Ban_Request: TakuyaMurata. -- Beland (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment Clarification - the topic ban applies to talking about the draft space, and MFDs for drafts. So this particular page is not within the topic ban. The creator could add to this page, but there is so much for him to do, that I can see why it is not maintained. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain: Given the topic ban, it would be safe for me to refrain from making a comment on this particular deletion. But I want to mention that a list has an advantage that it can contain red links. So, generally speaking, I *personally* prefer lists to categories in order to keep track of draft articles. (I mainly work on math drafts, so even though I created this page, I don’t actively edit this page.) —- Taku (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This page appears to be useless. It seems to be a very incomplete list, and at least partly the result of a long-standing topic-ban on User:TakuyuMurata that should probably be revisited and ended. I never understood the topic-ban well, but it was largely the result of conflict between Taku and two other editors who wanted to keep draft space clean, User:Hasteur and User:Legacypac, neither of whom is a current editor, and we should be looking to lifting the topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the page was created as a counterpart of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages. Like said above, I don't track on science topics in the draftspace; the hope was someone like me in the non-math science area will keep it up-to-date date but that didn't happen and (I don't mind it is deleted or redirected therefore). -- Taku (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Math-drafts

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. I've moved all of the non-redirect subpages to the Draft namespace, and then deleted all remaining subpages of User:Math-drafts and User talk:Math-drafts. (I also inadvertently listed the wrong MfD in the edit summaries for all of the page moves and deletions, sorry about that. Hopefully that doesn't cause a major problem, it doesn't seem to be an easily fixable mistake.) New pages in the Draft namespace are:

—⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Math-drafts[edit]

There's no reason for there to be a "community" user draft space, and certainly not one specifically for math; that's what the Draft namespace is for. Users who are working on drafts themselves can keep them under their own accounts. I have tagged all the subpages with {{userspace draft}} so presumably they will end up there eventually. (Or if there is consensus, perhaps they can just be draftified now?) I have also tagged all of the subpages (other than redirects) so that they Category:Draft-Class mathematics articles. Note the creator of this account has a topic ban on the Draft namespace and related discussions according to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive292#Topic Ban for TakuyaMurata and this was brought up again at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314#Topic_Ban_Request: TakuyaMurata. -- Beland (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Abstain: Some context: this page exists for historical reasons: some community members wished to move math draft pages out of the draft space (see the discussion in the second link above). I do prefer drafts to be placed in the draft space; this page was born out of compromise. —- Taku (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep for a moment: I agree with the original poster (User:Beland)'s argument that the user page is redundant given there is the draftspace. But the outright deletion seems a bit disruptive in that there are subpages. I suggest we gradually non-disruptively move the subpages to the draftspace; once that is done, the user page can be safely deleted, redirected or etc. --- Taku (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Move the subpages and delete this page works for me. -- Beland (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - As User:TakuyaMurata notes, this page exists for historical reasons. I never fully understood the nature of the quarrel, but there was a quarrel about the use of draft space by Taku that resulted in the topic-ban. The other editors of whom I was aware being involved in the quarrel wished to keep draft space clean, and apparently to avoid polluting it with what I thought was draft-like stuff, but I never understood the issue. One was User:Hasteur, who tragically died of covid, and one was User:Legacypac, whose indef has become a de facto ban. I think that the least complicated thing to do at this point would be to go to WP:AN and have the topic-ban lifted, but I never understood what the issue was. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already started the appeal at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic_ban_appeal. (I didn't know Hasteur passed away; I certainly disliked him but didn't have to be gone out of our world.) -- Taku (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Back files * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: does the deletion of this user page mean the deletion of subpages as well? It seems to me the original poster User:Beland is suggesting the draft pages be moved to the draft space not deleted. — Taku (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Move the subpages and delete this page works for me. -- Beland (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Beland and TakuyaMurata: In order to execute Beland's suggestion, I think we need to replace the username (User:Math-drafts) with a random string first. (For the method, see Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing) --SilverMatsu (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 21, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Matthew Medney

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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Matthew Medney[edit]

This page has been created likely in return for undisclosed amounts of money, if you ask an admin, you can see that the creators user page (now deleted) even admits that they work with Matthew Medney, as I recall, the user page said they worked with or for Matthew Medney. Zippybonzo (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May I also add that the page was rejected at AFC because the draft had few reliable sources and did not meet notability guidelines. Zippybonzo (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This draft was not rejected at AFC, but declined. Some editors prefer precision in usage. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Needed declining or rejecting, and was declined. The sanctions for undisclosed paid editing do not normally include quick deletion of drafts, because Wikipedia requires that work by paid editors be reviewed, not blackholed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Qwertyfish11/WikiProject Graphic Plugin

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 00:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Qwertyfish11/WikiProject Graphic Plugin[edit]

Fake WikiProject created in userspace in 2009. user has no other edits of note. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be an abandoned page by a departed user. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 20, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pathan (film)

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Pathan (film) and Pathan (2022 film have both been salted. The authors can make as many drafts as they want, but it seems rather clear that they're not going to make it into mainspace anytime soon. Recommend continuing to reject the drafts if they are submitted for review, and escalating blocks for the author(s) if they continue making forks in draft space. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pathan (film)[edit]

~~It is a rejected draft which won't be accepted anymore. Also the mainspace article about the same topic has been deleted after an discussion. Shinnosuke15, 10:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Redirect to the article. The content of this draft seems to be copied entirely without attribution to create the mainspace article. So this should be a redirect to preserve page history with attribution on the talk page. -- Ab207 (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't know that the article is restored and isn't CSDed as per deletion review.Shinnosuke15, 12:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pathan (film) as per Ab207. Shinnosuke15, 12:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it looks like a copy/paste: cross-page diff. One hint is that the refs all have access-date=5 October 2021. Since the revisions are non-overlapping except for the MfD tag, listing at WP:Requests for history merge would repair the history best. There are a few other pages that need to be cleaned up: Pathan(2022) (already deleted), Draft:Pathan(2022), Draft:Draft:Pathan(film), Pathan(film), and Pathan (Film). I warned the re-creator, User:OE1995, with {{uw-c&pmove}}. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, its better if there's a histmerge since this was clear copy-paste move. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be clear, I will file the history merge request if this MfD is closed without fixing the problem, as it is out of scope. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in draft space. It appears that the promoters of the film are, mostly successfully, trying to confuse the jury and create an article in article space, after two AFDs have deleted the article, most recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathan (film) (2nd nomination). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Admin action or title blacklisting may be needed at this point. We do not need a history merge, which would just put a whitewash on the article that should be in the black hole. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that merging Pathan (film)'s history into Draft:Pathan (film) produces a cleaner single history, but I don't have a strong opinion. The other pages should all be deleted. Flatscan (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathan (film) (3rd nomination). AFD, like MFD, is a content forum. Can we keep this at a content forum, or does it need to go to WP:ANI? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You were given this link already on your talk page, but for other readers: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Re-creation of deleted articles by OE1995. Flatscan (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - OE1995 has been blocked for two weeks for disruptively re-creating deleted articles. Pathan (film) has been nominated for deletion from article space a third time. This MFD was started on 20 February, and the AFD was started on 22 February. I am asking that the closer Relist this MFD on 27 February to see what the result of the AFD is (unless there is snow). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Pathan (2022 film) was created before the block and needs deletion too. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - User:Flatscan In my opinion, that, and any other drafts, should be redirected to the draft that is under discussion, which, as I have said, should be kept, because the film might come out this summer. Then again, it might not. The film seems to be in post-production limbo. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The issue with redirecting instead of deleting is that the histories – Special:PageHistory/Draft:Pathan(2022) and Special:PageHistory/Draft:Pathan (2022 film) – contain unattributed copies that need to be repaired per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution. If {{copied}} templates are used, they must not be removed. Edit summaries are tamper-proof, but their links break if the source page is moved. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 19, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Max808/Liz Sloan

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Max808/Liz Sloan[edit]

WP:STALEDRAFT of an article previously deleted in 2011. Wouldn't survive given that only source is a personal blog Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a copy of the article that was deleted? If so, delete, otherwise keep because STALEDRAFT isn't met. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Dave Schwep has an article, of which this seems to be a copy. Liz Sloan had an article but it was deleted some time ago. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does "seems to be" mean? Whether it's a copy is the basis for my !vote. Barring unusual circumstances, users are allowed to create drafts of topics which have previously been deleted -- just not copies of the articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Crud by long-departed user. (Someone may say that we should leave this in case the long-departed user comes back.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Comparison of number bases

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Comparison of number bases[edit]

This draft is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of both Radix#In numeral systems and List of numeral systems#Standard positional numeral systems. Moreover, the small part of the draft that is not in the articles seems WP:OR.

Therefore, even with major improvements, there is no chance that this draft becomes eventually an article in the main space. So, it is better to apply immediately the WP:Snowball clause, and delete it immediately. D.Lazard (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the one who originally PRODDED the article. At first, it read like an essay, and had original research problems. The original title was Best number base. I suggested the move to Draft:Comparison of number bases and created the template for the current form of the draft. I can see how the WP:OR concerns still stand, as much of the content still has a similar style to the old article, but the redundancy I didn't foresee when the article was moved. The problem is that there are not enough reliable sources explicitly comparing the number bases, so it's hard to create a comparison article on this topic. I think this draft could still be salvageable, but it would take a lot of work to fix. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3162:853D:E27:61C2 (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was the one who added {{prod2}} to the originall form of the article, under WP:NOTESSAY. I agree with nom per my comments at the talkpage. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 22:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably biased, but I do agree that the draft should be salvageable. Username142857 (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and transwiki to Fandom Based on other arguments over here, I think it would be better if this page was deleted. However, it might find a better home at a Fandom wiki. Fandom wikis have different standards for inclusion, so the article could find a home there. I suggested to the user who created this page that they transwiki it to Googology Wiki, and User:Skarmory suggested it should be transwikied to Wikiversity. Based on the discussion on the talk page, the best thing to do would be to delete the page and transwiki it, most likely to Fandom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3162:853D:E27:61C2 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I saw Wikiversity's wikiversity:Help:Essay page; does this cover the original idea of this draft? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw this mentioned over at WT:MATH, checked it out, and concluded that it was a WP:NOR-violating essay attempt that, even if completely overhauled, would be redundant with radix. I know there can be a sentiment against deleting drafts at MfD rather than letting them expire, but when a draft is never going to be an article, it's better to get the matter over with. XOR'easter (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could argue that radix is redundant with mathematics. But if 'redundant with radix' is the problem, can the article be incorporated with radix? Username142857 (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, radix is not redundant with mathematics by any stretch of the imagination. And as I said, the problem is not just that it is currently redundant, but that it would be redundant even if all its other problems were fixed. The content is opinionated soapboxing, which is not suitable for an encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PatrickR2 (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The author of the draft edits it actively (at least 18 edits today). It seems that this is for making it deliberately less encyclopedic, for example by using systematically base 6 instead of the common decimal base: It also uses senary everywhere except the table of contents. D.Lazard (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Come on! This is why base 6 should be preferred over base 10. Please stop! Username142857 (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The primary editor apparently has a good motive --- helping readers understand why someone might choose one base over another. But the article is written like an opinion piece. Crucially, it does not proceed from reliable sources. It is written in an informal, non-encyclopedic style. That can be fixed later, but it would take some work. My recommendation is that the primary editor spend a while improving the related Wikipedia articles (Radix, List of numeral systems, etc.), learn what the common practices are, and then decide whether another article is warranted. Mgnbar (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's warranted as the other articles, despite claims, don't quite fit with the scope of what I'm trying to do. Username142857 (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research/opinion piece with no hope of being accepted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've been going at me for a while now. Is that the real reason, or is it because I written the article? Username142857 (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you don't cast aspersions at other editors. As it stands, your draft article is headed for deletion. The reasons have been stated over and over again. Nobody has a vendetta against you. User:Username142857, I'd suggest you back down and try to understand what the experienced editors around here are saying to you. If you don't do this, you may end up being blocked indefinitely for not getting the point. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3942:60E9:D569:2E31 (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joke Username3021213 (Username142857 converted to senary) has converted the page to senary. GeoffreyT13132 (GeoffreyT2000 converted to senary) (talk) 34:044, 32 February 13210 (22:28, 20 February 2022 converted to senary) (UTC)

Anyway,

Delete Unlikely to become notable with a fully-fledged article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean fledged? :) 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3942:60E9:D569:2E31 (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haved fixed the typo. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article creator has been indefinitely blocked by Bbb23 for not being here to build an encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should we close this as WP:SNOW, based on the uniform support for deletion? 2601:647:5800:1A1F:51BE:AD2B:DA8:B1FC (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as needing to be blown up and started over if there is hope for this. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Any further discussion can go to the likely block review. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category talk:AfC submissions by date/17 January 2021

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:AfC submissions by date/17 January 2021[edit]

This category talk page is useless because it is like a draft article Vitaium (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a copy of a declined AFC submission. Neocorelight (Talk) 06:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and Hat - Entering a declined draft on a category talk page was a blunder, but that doesn't require deleting the page (even if the page did not previously exist). Stupid stuff on talk pages should be collapsed, or in extreme cases redacted. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have hatted the relevant section. It might be helpful to replace the current content with a talk page header, as this is still a valid talk page. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3162:853D:E27:61C2 (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the talk page of a dated maintenance category - there is no legitimate need to have any discussions at all on the talk page. Once all the submissions in the category have been processed the category is simply deleted. If kept this should be blanked rather than hatted as it is currently polluting the AFC categories. This could arguably have been WP:G6'd as a duplicate page created in the wrong namespace. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 18, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:2A00:23C4:139C:DB01:ACA5:9B2E:BB41:36B4/Sample page

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 deleted. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) 94rain ^Talk 22:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:2A00:23C4:139C:DB01:ACA5:9B2E:BB41:36B4/Sample page[edit]

userspace subpage of an IP address, nonsense 94rain ^Talk 22:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:94rain, next time just tag that as db-g3. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:DaftPunkTeachersLyric1

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DaftPunkTeachersLyric1[edit]

Series of userboxes made by now-blocked editor that are unused except on userbox directories. Suggest userfying as userboxes "in Template: or Wikipedia: namespaces [are] expected to adhere more tightly with certain policies and guidelines, especially Neutral point of view and What Wikipedia is not" (WP:UBXNS) and WP:NOTFORUM - these have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. (Also, they do not start with "User" as templatespace userboxes are supposed to.) eviolite (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to user:UBX not remotely offensive or disruptive even if it’s in the wrong namespace and created by a blocked user. Going through and deleting everything they ever did to unperson them is gratuitous WP:RAGPICKING. Dronebogus (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in my nomination, I suggest userfying them rather than deleting everything they ever did. eviolite (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused and unlikely to be used userbox by a socking editor. Whpq (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A great amount of these are left forever unused. These specifically were created by a blocked user, so they won't be using them and serve no real collaboration effort. Gonnym (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TwentyTwoAug/fishyuserboxhehelol

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 00:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:TwentyTwoAug/fishyuserboxhehelol[edit]

Zero color contrast, rickroll boxes surely already exist Dronebogus (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete preferably ASAP, as the creator has since been blocked for socking (note "since": G5 is not officially an option) so the spirit of WP:DENY should apply. SN54129 16:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - useless userbox Whpq (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/Sussybakauserbox

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 00:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:UBX/Sussybakauserbox[edit]

Zero text-to-background contrast, Missing image (due to copyright violation) and generally a stupid meme nobody above the age of 12 finds funny. Dronebogus (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, though I personally know some 13- and 14-year-olds who think it's hilarious. Also worth noting that this was created by a now-blocked sockpuppet. Firefangledfeathers 16:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - useless userbox Whpq (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

heh, sussy baka. Delete as a userbox for fans of among us might be better suited for the encyclopedia, and this is not that. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 13:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User DanTDM fan

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: userfy. ✗plicit 00:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User DanTDM fan[edit]

Unused. Created by a a now blocked user who littered Wikipedia with ill thought out templates and other crap. Whpq (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and userfy totally harmless, the userbox is not guilty of the sins of the creator. Dronebogus (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - no reason to stay in templatespace per WP:NOTFORUM eviolite (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused, created by a blocked editor and has no real collaboration value. Gonnym (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Userfy as a harmless userbox that isn't useless or misleading. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 21:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User YouTube channel

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 00:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User YouTube channel[edit]

Unused and inferior to {{User YouTube}}. Created by a a now blocked user who littered Wikipedia with ill thought out templates and other crap. Whpq (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dronebogus (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dalton shaw, the 30th president of the usa

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 deleted (G3) by Anthony Bradbury (non-admin closure) — csc^-1 16:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dalton shaw, the 30th president of the usa[edit]

This draft seems to be a hoax because the content tells Dalton Shaw is the 30th president of USA, the actual 30th president of USA is Calvin Coolidge. Vitaium (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as ~~hoax~~ event in the Berenstein Universe Dronebogus (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. This page is a bad joke. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So this is here because a reviewer came along and couldn't be bothered to tag it for speedy deletion themselves? You know, that happens a lot. Why are we giving them a pass on showing any responsibility in blatantly obvious cases? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator seems to make a lot of questionable edits in project space. I have no idea how they came across a month and a half old hoax, or why they decided it needed an MFD discussion. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged it for G3 deletion as an obvious hoax/vandalism. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:ASCII Art

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 per author request. ✗plicit 12:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:ASCII Art[edit]

Incorrectly placed article template on redirect page's talk page C933103 (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@C933103: I've tagged this for speedy deletion under criteria G7 as an author request, and G6 as a page created in error. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Adil Teli

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: keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Adil Teli[edit]

not reliable source and written like advertisement AlexandruAAlu (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nowhere near the level of terribleness that would be required for deletion as a draft. It needs a lot of clean-up and is likely to be the work of UPE, but that alone isn't reason to delete - it might be possible for an editor to clean it up into something publishable. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there are enough sources for this to be published as is. (I removed one unsourced promotional statement). Better that many of the sports stubs in existence. MB 16:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a draft. No good reason to accept and no good reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Working from home for American office-based employees during the COVID-19 pandemic

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: soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Working from home for American office-based employees during the COVID-19 pandemic[edit]

An abandoned draft, the image deletions on commons reset the 6 month clock NOT ESSAY and a snowballs chance of making it to mainspace Gbawden (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Should have been left alone for another six months anyway, but we are here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Firas Zahabi

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: keep. (non-admin closure) Imcdc (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Firas Zahabi[edit]

Main article has been created for Firas Zahabi. Draft page no longer needed Imcdc (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect And I advised to do what we usually do with draft articles that have been moved to main space, turn it into a redirect. We have tens of thousands of redirects from Draft space to main space. That would have been much simpler than starting a week-long discussion over a draft article. Deletion isn't the solution to what really isn't a problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Jigsie Awards

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 01:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Jigsie Awards[edit]

Redundant award page created as one of several weird projectspace pages by author who has since been indef'd for sockpuppetry and per WP:NOTHERE. --Finngall ^talk 00:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no clear purpose. Is there a way to bulk handle all these vanity projects from the same user? _signed,Willondon (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as useless gameplaying, and of no value in project space (or anywhere else), and as work of an abusive user. Yes, nominations at MFD, like at other deletion forums, can be bundled. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TwentytwoAugcruft, including all connected and related pages. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no benefit to writing or improving an encyclopaedia. Can't speedy per WP:G5 as it was created hours before the creator was indef blocked. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- useless and nothing of value will have been lost. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense that is doing nothing for Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just more crap from a now blocked editor Whpq (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletw ~~until the relevant discussion at TFD has run its course. If it does turn out in favor of deleting, then~~ Delete per 192.76.8.77 ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 11:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Plutonical: I think you have your arguments back to front there. The templates exist to support the project space page, not the other way round. It should be decided whether the idea of the Jigsie rewards is worth keeping here, at which point the fate of the templates is basically set. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Of the TwentytwoAug/Copperwidth project space creations this is probably the least objectionable in that it seems to actually be related to Wikipedia editing and makes some kind of sense. That being said do we really need a duplicate of barnstars? Probably not. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Amogus

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: keep. ✗plicit 01:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Amogus[edit]

This page is excessive content unrelated to Wikipedia. -³²²UbnBr₂ (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 00:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and hat. Stupid or irrelevant material on talk pages is normally dealt with by hatting, or in extreme cases by redaction. In this case, redaction is not required, and collapsing is sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and blank. It is extremely rare for user talk pages to be deleted, this does not seem to be a case where deletion is required. Remove the stupid IP comments and leave it since there is a user with this name. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; no apparent reason why deletion would be necessary. Feel free to blank or hat if you must, although I fail to see why it wouldn't just be best to let sleeping dogs lie. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 17, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Madan Gowri

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 01:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Madan Gowri[edit]

This is getting absurd, the creator has no intention of imporving said draft and it has been deleted nearly a dozen times in mainspace and as a draft. Creator (and a sock) continue to edit tendentiously, repeatedly submitting after decline, rejection, afds, deletion. This is just becoming a honeypot for a spammer and isn't notable as decided numerous times. CUPIDICAE💕 16:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, @Praxidicae, The creator of this draft is User:APPU. I had expanded it thinking the subject is notable but did not move to main space since I could not find more reliable english sources. I think a better option would be to indefinitely protect it. The subject is one of the most popular youtubers in Southern India and there are sources with WP:SIGCOV in Tamil language. I'm planning to expand it when I have time. - SUN EYE 1 17:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree there is sigcov, as with much of Indian media, it's puffery, churnalism and blatant paid for publications. In fact, the top sources for him are simply interviews, and not independent coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 17:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae, I said there are sigcov in Tamil Language. - SUN EYE 1 17:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that changes anything that I said. CUPIDICAE💕 17:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae The subject publishes his videos in Tamil language and there is more coverage in Tamil than english. I'll just create it again when I find it notable then. - SUN EYE 1 17:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that doesn't change my statement. Churnalism exists in all languages. Tamil is no different. Also please do not ping me for every response. Thanks. CUPIDICAE💕 17:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt. Repeat spam. The number of subscribers, views, likes, etc don't affect notability – unless there is independent and secondary discussion of it. --bonadea contributions talk 21:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete as already determined to be not notable as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madan Gowri (2nd nomination). It is also too promotional. Forbid recreation anywhere, unless limited to listing WP:THREE, not more, sources, and getting agreement that yes the person is now notable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A finding by consensus at AfD that the topic is not notable is a valid prejudice against drafting in draftspace. MfD can does and should take note of the AfD consensus. AfD is the forum for testing notability and should be respected for that.

If a topic advocate wants to overturn the AfD consensus, the method is WP:THREE, not pedestrian re-creation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the combination of deletion from article space, tendentious submission after rejection, and sockpuppetry. (Deletion from article space is not in itself a reason to delete a draft, but tendentious resubmission is.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tendentious resubmission is not a sufficient reason to delete a draft on a notable topic. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 16, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:CASCADE (disambiguation)

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 03:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:CASCADE (disambiguation)[edit]

Pointless disambiguation page in Wikipedia space. Whpq (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless page. The only link here that is actually reasonable to have on a dab page is WP:CASCADE, the link to the list of cascade protected items is already in a hat note at the redirect target, and the link to the mountain article does not belong on a project space dab page. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a draft in the wrong namespace (see page history). — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 02:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @J947: The creator seems to be using fake edit summaries to pretend that they're using a script, e.g. see this edit: [5]. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a useless and distracting DAB in project space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:PageCDN

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 03:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:PageCDN[edit]

advertisement for non-notable software-- no substantial reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 11:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOTPROMOTION SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as a promotional draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Robert Clinton Bogard

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 03:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Robert Clinton Bogard[edit]

This is a personalized political biography of a small town politician, designed for the promotion of the subject and the promulagation of his views. It has no place in an encyclopedia--It's a misuse of WP. The sources are listings and routine local new items.

If he ever were to become notable, it would need to be started over by someone without the blatant and obvious conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 11:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete in view of the history, which is that the editor maintains this, so that it doesn't expire. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bangor HS "Boob" Scandal

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 deleted (G10) by Athaenara (non-admin closure) — csc^-1 14:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bangor HS "Boob" Scandal[edit]

Unencyclopedic content, not notable subject. TL | The Legend ^talk 00:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced BLP. — SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. I've tagged it for G10 deletion as a completely negative and completely unsourced article about some children getting in trouble at school. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Alfred Edward "Michael" Cota-Moch

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 as G5. ✗plicit 00:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Alfred Edward "Michael" Cota-Moch[edit]

Unsourced self-referential draft from an editor who's been indeffed for sockpuppetry, edit warring and making legal threats. Violates WP:V, WP:GNG, WP:COI. Wikipedia isn't a roleplaying game where you get to publish articles of your own fantasy life. Ravenswing 00:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is G5-eligible as the user was evading a block from 2009. I've tagged as such. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Existential risk

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: redirect to Global catastrophic risk. Whether it's deleted or redirected doesn't make much difference. I'm opting to redirect as the least destructive method, and to keep the page history intact. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Existential risk[edit]

It looks like this content has been integrated into Global catastrophic risk. -- Beland (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to above article. Delete Dronebogus (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see a reason to redirect a Draft page to mainspace, in this case. -- GreenC 02:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ob, right, I didn’t think about that. Dronebogus (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Global catastrophic risk. I declined this as mostly duplicating the article one-and-one-half years ago, and said it should be merged. It has been deleted as G13 since then, and rescued from extinction. We don't need it drifting around forever. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, a draft can be redirected to an article. It is done all the time, whenever a draft is accepted. Occasionally that is done to a different title, if the reviewer changes the article title, e.g., to disambiguate it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 15, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:1975 in Nagaland

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: keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:1975 in Nagaland[edit]

No hope of becoming a legit page, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1964 in Nagaland. This one page was coincidentally moved before the AFD, and thus avoided the group nom. Geschichte (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Deletion from article space does not establish a need for deletion from draft space. This would need declining or rejecting if submitted. This is a real year in the past in a real place. Leave it alone until August 2022 in Nagaland. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is completely acceptable to use draft space to have another go at creating/improving articles that were deleted at AFD. The topic here is a plausible article (although it might be better organised by decade if the individual year pages were a bit sparse) and in no way reaches the standard that would be required for deletion as a draft. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The NFT wars

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The NFT wars[edit]

This draft context is about NFT wars in Cryptoland on November 16 2034 but we don't know it will happen or not. And remember, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Vitaium (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since it's been brought here, but this really did not need an MFD discussion and should have been left for G13. This is obviously made-up, but WP:A11 only applies to articles, and I'm not sure WP:G3 is really a good fit. This was declined by a reviewer, which is the correct way of dealing with these drafts, I don't see why it was felt necessary to also MFD it? That being said this has a 0% chance of ever becoming an article, so we may as well delete it while it's here. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this event only happens in the Berenstein Universe and obviously ended up here via a massive quantum tunneling incident. Dronebogus (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This is stupid, and needed rejecting, and was declined. Since we are here, we might as well delete it, but it need not have come here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could be deleted as a hoax. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G1 C933103 (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedian Peace Treatment Organization

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedian Peace Treatment Organization[edit]

Unclear what the "Wikipedian Treatment Peace Organization" is supposed to be or do. In case it's a Wikiproject this should probably moved to Wikiproject space – if we deem that this is useful. So far it appears that the page doesn't serve any purpose other than being a playground for two editors who have created similarly useless pages in project space, e.g. Wikipedia:Entertainment theater or Wikipedia:GAMEtxt – NJD-DE (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move to projectspace~~ Keep it’s harmless, good-narured and at least appears to have a vaguely defined goal (which is um… peace). No real reason to delete it over other similarly dumb abortive projects like WP:concordia or the WP:volunteer fire department. Dronebogus (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page is already located in project space and it doesn't belong there IMO since it seems to have little connection to Wikipedia. Both those pages you link to are ancient and date to the point when we were still figuring out how to run this place, both of them are also shut down and marked historical. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And if you were proposing to turn this into a wikiproject - new wikiprojects really should go through the WP:WikiProject Council, who I am 99.99% sure would decline this for being complete and utter nonsense. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was thinking of nominating this myself actually. This is another weird project space page made by TwentytwoAug/Copperwidth (I'm fairly certain both accounts are the same person) that seems to have no relation to Wikipedia and is borderline patent nonsense. This particular page seems to be some kind of crossover between a wikiproject, dispute resolution and wikilove? The text of the main page consists of a dictionary definition of what peace means, some famous peace related quotes and a selection of userboxes. There's no explanation at all what this organisation is actually supposed to be doing (apart from vague "spread the peace" rubbish) or why it's related to Wikipedia. The remaining subpages are almost completely blank and also contain no context as to what on earth this is supposed to be about, e.g. what on earth are you supposed to be pledging to do? I see no real reason to keep it, and the creator needs to stop making these odd pages in wikipedia space. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting for the record that Dronebogus has bypassed this MFD and copy-pasted the content to User:Dronebogus/Basement. This probably complicates this MFD, because despite there being a consensus to delete it here it will now probably have to be kept in some form for attribution/copyright purposes. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Move it to userspace and redirect it. Dronebogus (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you understand how copyright works when dealing with other people's contributions on wikipedia? You cannot just copy and paste other people's work - you need to provide proper attribution following the instructions at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Even ignoring the copyright concerns your actions here are objectionable - if a deletion discussion is heading towards deleting something you want kept then copying and pasting it into your user space so that it cannot be deleted is purely disruptive. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did not intended it to be disruptive. I’ve deleted 90% of the content so now it presumably is fine under copyright requirements. Feel free to delete it. Dronebogus (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as harmless. It is unlikely to reduce existing conflicts in Wikipedia, which are due largely to nationalism, but it is even more unlikely to worsen existing conflicts in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with 192.76 on the reasoning. I have no objection to userfying this if the originator actually put some real effort into defining what this is. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 192.76.8.70. Article creator appears to be more interested in creating weird new pages in projectspace than in building the actual encyclopedia. TwentytwoAug/Copperwidth has been blocked for socking and per WP:NOTHERE. --Finngall ^talk 00:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nonsense page, per the reasons above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 14, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Entertainment theater

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 12:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Entertainment theater[edit]

Brand new project space page that seems to be trying to be a cross between the teahouse, a wikiproject and the community portal. The text at the top of the page is near nonsensical, and a look through the page history makes it clear that even the creator isn't even sure what this is supposed to be. This is redundant to the teahouse, wikiproject entertainment and the community portal which do much better jobs of being a place for newcomers to ask questions, discuss entertainment related articles and link to community resources respectively. I can see no reason to have this odd hybrid page, it serves no useful function while having the potential to confuse newcomers and as such should be deleted.

MfD listing filed by SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2022 for 192.76.8.70 (talk · contribs) [6]

Delete If anything, the vague purpose seems to be shaping up as a place to discuss entertainment, not Wikipedia articles about entertainment. A place where you can make, think, and talk about entertainment! Wikipedia simply isn't for making entertainment. The first (empty) section I see here is named "Trivia, Questions, etc." It's definitely not within the scope of the Wikipedia project. I also note that the vast majority of the creator's edits are to their user space, to build this project, to work on Template:Explosive Dog, and make experimental (if harmless) edits to add redundancy to a Wikilink [7], template a Help page as {{Edit semi-protected}} [8] then immediately remove the template, etc. I'm not saying there aren't improvements in any of the mainspace edits, but this has been created by and large by a tinkerer (nothing wrong with that per se), who doesn't seem to be entirely motivated by buiding the project. My two cents. _signed,Willondon (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The creator appears to have tried to make an edit notice for this page which seems to be a knock-off of the teahouse edit notice, which is why I suspected it was supposed to be a tea house equivalent.Template:ETEN. If this page is deleted the template should be G8'd. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - serves no clear purpose. -- Whpq (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments ― Levi_OP^Talk 18:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this theater is structurally unstable, below code, needs to be torn down like the Wp:Beerhouse. Dronebogus (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant to the things the nominator mentions. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant; fails WP:NOTFORUM. Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 13:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per above comments. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one of several weird projectspace pages created by this entity. Creator has been blocked for socking and per WP:NOTHERE. --Finngall ^talk 00:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:GDB-Klausur 2020/2021

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 deletion as an attack page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:GDB-Klausur 2020/2021[edit]

This looks like a misuse of the draft space as a webhost to me. For the benefit of those who don't speak German, the draft is about an IT exam, and consists mostly of the author complaining about the fact that the marks for the exam haven't been posted yet. The original author has made no attempt to get the draft into a publishable state, even after having the content restored following a WP:G13 deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the content is what the nom says it is. As the undeleter, I should have checked what the page is about, before undeleting. Jay (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on a Google translation, this is not the draft of an article nor will it ever be. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY - Wikipedia is not the place to publish rants about how unfair your exams were. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 13, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/pro-NK

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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:UBX/pro-NK[edit]

WP:NONAZIS, the DPRK has one of the worst human rights records on the planet and everything it stands for is in direct opposition to the values of freedom and human dignity that Wikimedia strives to promote. Edit: As Plutonical has pointed out, the regime is also racist, a stronger case of WP:NONAZIS Dronebogus (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn’t explain why. This isn’t a ballot. Dronebogus (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  You’re overreaching. Wikipedia does not take a position against national governments. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, how is it overreacting to suggest a user supporting a government that seems to be based on Nineteen Eighty-Four is a violation of WP:NONAZIS, WP:UCOC, and WP:UBX (“inflammatory or divisive”)? If Wikipedia doesn’t take a position on national governments why have Neo-Confederate boxes been deleted? Why have Neo-British Imperialism boxes been deleted? After all, they’re “only” supporting the government and not whatever atrocities the government engaged in! This isn’t a matter of what “Wikipedia the organization” thinks, it’s a matter of what “Wikipedia the community” thinks. Dronebogus (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about making moral judgements in userspace. This is dangerous territory for the perceived neutrality of Wikipedia. I think the line to not cross is to make overt judgements on the morality of a current internationally recognised national government. The other examples are in the past. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    
    The North Korean government is still pretty universally hated among governments for its appalling human rights record. I feel like if you’re endorsing it you’re trying to be an edgelord, and if you’re serious you’re probably someone who would fit the spirit of WP:NONAZIS. I mean, the Taliban is broadly recognized as the current ruling government of Afghanistan, but that doesn’t mean we have to tolerate a pro-Taliban Userbox. Dronebogus (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Dronebogus (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Edgelord? There has to be a boundary, and edge cases are ugly. I don't want to be seen to endorse it, I prefer to say that Wikipedia should be silent on user's putting up this one. I'm open to an RfC to discuss all political userboxes. You are probing for an edge, and I have responded "keep" on this one.
    
    A difference between the NK and the Taliban:
    
    The article Foreign relations of Afghanistan says: "...and no country has recognised the new regime."
    
    Foreign relations of North Korea shows lots of countries recognising North Korea. Not including the USA, but an awful lot.
    
    This is a can or worms. How many nations recognise Taiwan? More than do North Korea. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Taliban is stated to be accepted as the de facto government of Afghanistan, which is what I meant by “broadly recognized”, but that’s not really here nor there. Dronebogus (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe:This is not a moral issue. North Korea uses racist concepts like Koreans being a pure race, and "dangerous racial contamination" in its propaganda. This is a valid issue per WP:NONAZIS as people using this userbox may have collaboration problems with non-koreans. Hell, this is more valid than the Stalin userbox deletion, as at least Stalin wasn't openly racist and whether the holodomor was ethnically targeted is still a subject of debate (meaning someone with that userbox is still not likely to be a racist, as their viewpoint could be different). ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 12:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This is about making moral judgments in userspace. Some moral judgments in userspace result in battlegrounds in user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, yes, another no-argument voter. Dronebogus (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  No argument needs to be made. The deletion argument for this is not based in policy. WaltCip-(talk) 14:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  How about WP:UBX “inflammatory or divisive” and the WP:UCOC as explained by Plutonical below? Dronebogus (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not an overreach of WP:NONAZIS. Supporting the government of a country known for using narratives of "pure races" and "racial contamination" means the user is somewhat likely to have collaboration issues with users of non-korean ethnicity. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 19:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ As I observed, there are quite a number of North Korea sympathizer in countries like South Korea and Japan, not because they endorse brutal actions by the North Korean government, but because they have firm and ignorant believe in North Korea is actually a good country, that bad reports against the state all over the world are merely propaganda effort. C933103 (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is solid and reasonable, but I’d recommend you reconsider based on Plutonical‘s strong case that the NK government is not only an ideologically extremist regime but also a patently racist one, which is a gross violation of WP’s conduct policies. Dronebogus (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see, then I can support the deletion of this template. But, would it be more useful to leave this template as such, and conduct action against users who use such templates?C933103 (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - If I may chime in, templates aren't supposed to be used to fish for problem users. We don't look for trouble where there is none, and keeping a userbox which would create such trouble (especially in the case of editors who simply don't know better and probably won't run afoul of the No Nazis policy) is exactly that. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 15:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I see a slippery slope here, regarding deleting a userbox supporting a certain country's government. If we're going to start with a specific country, the DPRK would probably be the one to start with (hence the "weak" here), but where do we draw the line? Myanmar? Syria? Iran? The People's Republic of China? Israel or Palestine or both? A certain great power that might be about to invade a neighboring country? I really doubt that anyone saying they support the DPRK government is proceeding in good faith, but I also don't want to open the door to "Anyone who supports the Israeli government is endorsing genocide" and "Anyone who supports the Palestinian government is endorsing terrorism" getting shot back and forth at MfD. As an aside, this was not a template usefied as part of the Great Userbox Migration, and as such should not be a subpage of User:UBX. If kept, move it to its creator's userspace. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AdorableRuffian/Userboxes/YesTorture

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 rough consensus to delete. Substantive policy-based arguments in this discussion focused mostly on WP:UBX's prohibition of inflammatory or substantially divisive userboxes. Some editors in support of deleting the page either simply assert that the infobox is substantially inflammatory. Dronebogus argued that torture is inherently incompatible with human dignity, citing the UDHR, and thus argued that support for torture in some circumstances inherently meets the "substantially inflammatory or divisive" guideline. Tamzin expressed a general preference for deleting all political userboxes, though expresses skepticism at deleting particular userboxes containing views within the scope of reasonable people. Others argue that abstract support for torture, per se, is not substantially inflammatory or divisive; they find it to be an academically arguable position that does not specifically target any specific group or person. The nominator pointed to WP:NONAZIS, but didn't explain why, and editors who responded to that point secifically did not think that the essay applies in this scope. The nominator also pointed at WP:UCOC but did not make an argument as to why this userbox was prohibited in that light, rendering it a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Viewing the strength of these arguments in light of Wikipedia's policies, editors did not achieve a rough consensus to delete the userbox. As a result, the userbox should not be deleted at this time. (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:AdorableRuffian/Userboxes/YesTorture[edit]

Um… no. WP:NONAZIS, WP:UCOC, WP:UBX (“inflammatory or divisive”) and general “WTF is wrong with you”. Dronebogus (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Inflammatory and divisive. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inflammatory and divisive, but I disagree with the misuse of WP:NONAZIS. WP:NONAZIS is meant to prevent people entering the community who would be unwilling to collaborate with someone else because they see them as racially/ethnically/genderically (is that even a word?)/religiously inferior and therefore not worth their time. This userbox is not going to have an effect on collaboration, especially sense they don't have any racial, misogynist, religious, or ethnic beliefs expressed here. WP:NONAZIS is being used outside of its original point as just a method of filtering out beliefs that an editor doesn't like, which just happen to align with nazism even though they're used outside of that point of view (for example, the ultra-egalitarianism of communist regimes, or the USA's treatment of suspected terrorists during the war on terror with "enhanced interrogation techniques"). Overall, this userbox expresses way too wide of a view to be identified with any sort of collaboration issue. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 19:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel like NONAZIS could be expanded, or a new template should be created, to mean “no messed-up extremism”, and could apply to basically anything that encourages the extreme debasement of human dignity and life like “this user thinks women are property” “this user supported operation condor” “this user thinks Pol Pot did nothing wrong” (though Pol Pot was pretty racist so he’d probably count under current guidelines) etc. Dronebogus (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to write your own essay like NONAZIS. It's not like you're writing policy. MarshallKe (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Intentionally inflammatory and edgy. Curbon7 (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence has been provided by Delete-voting editors that division or inflammation has occurred. The "WTF is wrong with you" comment by the proposer suggests this is about censoring disliked speech rather than enforcing policy. MarshallKe (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- MarshallKe, we’ve been over this. You’ve established that your view on the subject is essentially “don’t like don’t read” which isn’t how it works on Wikipedia. If a box is likely to come across as an attempt at inflammation (whether intentionally or not) then it needs to go. Dronebogus (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a gross mischaracterization of my argument, and I recommend you strike it out. "Likely to come across as an attempt at inflammation" is not the userbox standard. "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive" is. My position has always been that verifiable proof of substantial inflammation or division is necessary to meet this standard. MarshallKe (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is so vague we’re both pretty much legitimate in our views, which is why we need a stronger and clearer policy on this. Dronebogus (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in hopes that nominator and others can get a clue: This is a positively mainstream view on the order of 30 to 50%, and you can verify this fact by looking up Gallup polls. The fact that you find this offensive is irrelevant because policy doesn't say that we can remove user content just because somebody finds it offensive, or even if the majority of Wikipedia finds it offensive. "Substantially divisive and inflammatory" is a high bar that mere offense does not meet. The idea that editors are sent into a fit of rage by the mere reminder that some people believe torture is sometimes justified is actually very insulting to the maturity of the people in the Wikipedia community. We are not this fragile. MarshallKe (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MashallKe, your tone is getting into insult territory. It doesn’t matter how popular torturing people for “good” reasons is in America (as implied by the Gallup ref). Most people in, say, Ethiopia view homosexuality as vile and unacceptable but that doesn’t mean we tolerate “this user despises gays” boxes either. Torture is an insult to human dignity that goes against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”, see: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights), to say nothing of Wikipedia’s basic demands for civility and respect towards other human beings. Dronebogus (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Sometimes justified"? That's an opinion I've heard expressed by some pretty reasonable minds, e.g. Richard Posner according to Ticking time bomb scenario § Views in favor of accepting torture in emergencies. I don't see this as significantly more divisive or inflammatory than, say, pro-choice or pro-life userboxen, which in the eyes of their opponents are respectively either pro-murder or pro-nonconsensual-pregnancy. The obvious solution is we should delete all or most userboxen about political issues. (Personally I'd favor drawing a line at "This user is a member of the X Party" is OK [obvious exceptions aside], "This user supports the X movement" reviewed case-by-case, and "This user believes/supports X" disallowed [with maybe an exception for beliefs related to building an encyclopedia, like "... believes in freedom of speech" or "supports copyright abolition", assuming we're okay with allowing the opposite viewpoints too].) But this is a debate the community's been having 15 years, and probably won't get resolved anytime soon. So until there's a consensus to ban all political userboxen, keep this one, although I wouldn't oppose renaming to something other than "YesTorture", since that's not the sentiment the 'box conveys. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wish Jimbo's opinion that we can agree decentrally that political userboxes don't belong here had caught on, but a centralized discussion and push for ban would be the next best bet. I'm considering starting a Village Pump discussion about it after I research and document the history of this conflict. MarshallKe (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support Tamzin‘s proposal. It’s very thoughtful, considerate, and careful not to swing wildly to pro-politics or anti-politics. Dronebogus (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The concept of torture is not universally inflammatory or divisive. WP:NONAZIS doesn't really apply here per Plutonical. I don't really see the need for all of the "userbox cleansing" going on lately. With some obvious exceptions, we don't need to rid Wikipedia of belief systems that don't match our own. In many cases, it's beneficial (from an editing perspective) to know about a user's extreme biases. Disallowing someone from posting a userbox about X isn't going to change their views on X. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Tamzin and Scottywong. It espouses support for a contentious but relatively-popular position that does not specifically or inflammatorily target any group or person, Wikipedian or otherwise. Finding a userbox's position offensive or extremist does not make it immediately liable for deletion IMO. Sanix (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject to it leading to an actual problem. It is an academically arguable position, and it is part of a self-description from a single user-persona. To the extent that it is not OK, ignore it per WP:DENY. To the extent that it has any value, such as serving to declare an editor POV, "Keep". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So does deletion of this ubx mean that it's okay and NPOV not to delete this user's complementary ubx? I think if we delete this one, then that one should go, too. Since when did Wikipedians start living in a black and white world? Isn't gray truth? and truth gray? Tear it up. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 20:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User junta

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User junta[edit]

WP:NONAZIS, if someone can provide evidence of a military junta that wasn’t a bloody godawful dictatorship then I’ll gladly withdraw. Dronebogus (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not used on any page, and irrelevant to the goal of building an encyclopedia. Geschichte (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Interesting fact: There have been historical analyses that some military coups, predominately in Africa, can be precursors to democracy. That is to say, the military overthrew a dictator and within a decade commit to a transition to democracy. Obviously that's not the intent of this ubx, which is just edgy for the sake of being edgy. Curbon7 (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Free France something that can be said as junta?C933103 (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like the above mentioned “military overthrows dictatorship” deal— desperate times call for desperate measures. It was set up during a time of war after the government had fallen to a fascist dictatorship, not during peacetime “because it’s just better” which is what this box seems to advocate. So yes I’d say juntas are sometimes necessary transitional regimes during periods of chaos, but if you support a permanent junta you’re probably some sort of weirdo who walks around with a “free helicopter rides for commies” T-shirt. Dronebogus (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The world is not in a peaceful state now, a handful of countries have long ongoing wars. Given that Wikipedia have users from all over the world, it is almost certain that some of the users could be from countries with even more worse state of governance. There are also nuance in a number of different countries, for example in Turkey, in the past military intervention have been considered an important tool to prevent the rise of theocratic government in the country, according to my understanding. Hence it might not be appropriate to consider all Wikipedia users to be living in an era that can be describe as "during peacetime". C933103 (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  An interesting difference in perspectives. Here in the West, “junta” conjures up images of banana republics and Operation Condor, which is why I assumed this was mainly an edgy appeal to Alt-Right bros. Dronebogus (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Maoist

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: keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Maoist[edit]

Per present established in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Gnosandes/userboxes/Stalinist, endorsing the political philosophies of ruthless authoritarians who slaughtered thousands if not millions in the name of said philosophy is incompatible with the spirit of WP:NONAZIS and Wikimedia in general. Dronebogus (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maoism has reasonable supporters. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete - Although Maoism has reasonable supporters, Maoism is even more divisive to Wikipedia than Nazism.
- - The largest AFD discussion ever conducted in Wikipedia was completed about a month ago, of Mass killings under communist regimes, and two of the three usually cited examples of mass killings by communists were the Great Chinese Famine and the Cambodian genocide, both of which are attributed to Maoists (Mao Zedong himself and Pol Pot). I am not taking a position at this time on whether those links are correct. However, the controversy in Wikipedia was the result largely of the brigading of a very large number of new editors whose interest in Wikipedia was to ensure that it documented that there have been atrocities committed by communists. So: Maoism, and an argument about Maoism, caused great division within Wikipedia.
  - We don't need user boxes that will restart previous battles in Wikipedia.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine invoking WP:BATTLEGROUND to justify continued userbox warring. WP:BATTLEGROUND opposes a delete vote, and it's discouraging that the Wikipedia community continues to fold under the pressure of obvious feigned outrage. It's time to grow up and realize that a mature, reasonable person doesn't care about a Maoist userbox. Nobody wants to say this, but a Wikipedia editor must not be this thin skinned. It's time to stop enabling perpetual childhood. MarshallKe (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Dronebogus wrapped the above comment in a show/hide tag claiming it was unconstructive, despite it containing more than one argument based on guidelines. 1) BATTLEGROUND supports ending the userbox wars 2) a mature, reasonable editor is not bothered by this userbox, so it doesn't fall afoul of the userbox standards and 3) Wikipedia editors need to have maturity. This one is less guideline based and more precedent based, as maturity has been a factor invoked in many discussions about banning users. Dronebogus, you done messed up by trying to hide a valid argument. Take the trout. MarshallKe (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning for "divisive" is not valid. It is not sufficient that the general topic around a userbox has been a divisive issue in Wikipedia. This reasoning would demand the deletion of an anti-Maoist userbox, as well. What else has divided Wikipedia? Deletionism versus inclusionism. Yet, nobody is going to MfD these. You should have to prove that this userbox itself will cause substantial chaos in the Wikipedia community, and an MfD discussion with four whole participants who disagree with each other doesn't count as proof. MarshallKe (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“substantially divisive” IS actually written into userbox policy, believe it or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content_restrictions Deletionism v. Inclusionism is pure WP:OTHERSTUFF, nobody cares. The Anti-Maoism thing is Whataboutism. Dronebogus (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editors who use the box have been pinged, so it’s as fair as we can manage. “It hasn’t offended anyone yet, and if they are offended they’re babies and need to grow up” is a bad argument. We can’t poll everyone in the damn wiki so we have an open debate. That is how it works. If you disagree with userbox policy then this is not the place to complain about it. Dronebogus (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to be educated about userbox policy. I am aware of "substantially divisive". My argument is that this userbox isn't, and it quite obviously isn't substantially divisive, and no valid evidence has been provided to the contrary. WP:OTHERSTUFF is about deletion discussions and is massively abused as a bludgeon to dismiss valid comparisons. Cries of whataboutism are also similarly abused in Wikipedia to bully users who have an intuitive style of thought, and to avoid addressing those users concerns. I never said we needed to poll the entire wiki, I said that those who want to delete a userbox have the burden of proof to provide valid evidence that the userbox policy has been violated. It is not valid evidence to cite the fact that the mass killings article was debated extensively, because debate is not equivalent to division. MarshallKe (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a serious deletion discussion on arguably reasonable self-expression, I think that all the stakeholders, namely the editors transcluding the userbox, must be invited to the discussion. I therefore am pinging them below.

User:Doodlepoodle

User:Bolegash

User:Gr8opinionater

User:SomeDudeWithAUserName

Everyone should know that this discussion is not a vote, and the above pinged transcluders are to be expected to all be pro the userbox. Nevertheless, they may have something meaningful to say, and have the right to say it, before their self-expression is censored from their userpages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- The following users have been inactive for at least a year, so don’t expect any response from them:

user:SomeDudeWithAUserName

user:Doodlepoodle

user:Bolegash

user:Luckyfuy User:נוביסלב ז'אליץ' user:Excharlie and user:Apeiramon have also barely made any edits so I’m not sure we should expect a response from them either. Dronebogus (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if at least one of them could explain why they choose to label themselves with the user box. User:Apeiramon, for example, self declares/asserts that they are a communist, a Marxian interpreter of economics, a Marxian generally, and a Maoist. There is a clear philosophical theme here, and it is not fair to insist that being a Maoist means being a supporter of bad things that happened under Mao's leadership of China. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Maoist" as I understand, generally endorse Mao's actions in China as being good for the country. C933103 (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that modern Maoists support Mao’s philosophy, without explicit comment on specific actions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POINT. Not inflammatory. Not divisive. People who are mature enough to edit Wikipedia are not going to be substantially upset by merely seeing this userbox. Get real. The Userbox Wars are about WP:POINT. MarshallKe (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MarshallKe, that isn’t how you use WP:POINT. POINT is about gaming the system to try and get what you want, or to bludgeon an existing argument elsewhere on the wiki, not nominating something for deletion based on policy. There’s nothing here going on out-of-order, and the discussion was completely civil and reasonable until you showed up making thinly veiled ad hominem attacks about other editors being thin-skinned and immature. If anyone is being “POINTy”, it’s you, since you not only posted twice in this debate to say “userbox deletion sucks” but have also already done this at the stalinbox MfD. Dronebogus (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I see here is an editor who plays victim while bullying other editors who have differing beliefs. I am merely inclined to debate in this MfD. This isn't bludgeoning (I have seen real bludgeoning. It's bad), uncivil, or attacking, and honestly I'm feeling bullied right now. If you have concerns about my behavior, I beg you, go straight to AN/I. MarshallKe (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You posted an unnecessary comment, it’s bludgeoning. I’m angry because your “keep” arguments seem more like passive-aggressive complaining about userbox policy than anything about this particular box, which is all I wanted an opinion on. Dronebogus (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m also unimpressed by an editor who talks about how nobody should be thin-skinned on WP but then immediately turns around and complains about being “bullied” because someone disagrees with them and criticizes their behavior. Dronebogus (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your points have already been addressed by another editor during https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Gnosandes/userboxes/Stalinist so I’m not going to bother trying to reiterate their respones. Dronebogus (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: One of the main political parties in Nepal is the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), so there is some legitimacy to Maoism in the general political sphere, as opposed to Nazism. Additionally, some of our editors from the PRC may legitimately identify with this purview. All that said, I wouldn't complain if it was ultimately deleted, as I see where the argument to delete comes from. Curbon7 (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid deletion policy cited in rationale. I uniformly question the motives behind it.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I can cite WP:UBX “inflammatory and divisive”. Dronebogus (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  As mentioned by another !voter in another MFD, "inflammatory and divisive" is highly subjective when it comes to a userbox of this sort. It is doubtful that identifying as a Maoist meets even the most liberal application of that subjective standard. WaltCip-(talk) 15:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The ideology have modern followings, including modern political parties, is not an argument that it might be better than Nazi or not. C933103 (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any evidence here that someone identifying as a Maoist is tantamount to saying they support Mao's actions. Maybe that is the case. I won't claim to be an expert in that branch of politics. But it's a logical leap. If the delete !voters want this to be held as akin to supporting Nazism, they need to show that being a Maoist is the same as being a Mao apologist. Maybe they can show that, but they haven't so far, so keep unless someone can make that case. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Translator 2/doc

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Translator 2/doc[edit]

No transclusions. This template's parent uses another template's doc page for its documentation, so this page is not usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect. Now redirected to Template:User Translator/doc, the template that is in use, to deter recreation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and unneeded. We don't need /doc redirects hanging around as they serve absolutely no one and no one is searching for them. Gonnym (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 11, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User ltg-5/doc

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 12:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ltg-5/doc[edit]

Not needed. Parent template uses the standard {{User x}} for its documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - First, I don't understand what the issue is, other than that there are 11 of these. Could there be an explanation of what this is about? Second, could these be bundled? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: These days babel userboxes use a standardised doccumentation message generated by Template:User x since the documentation is the same regardless of the language or level. These /doc subpages are relics left over from before Template:User x was created, when each babel box had to maintain its own doccumentation subpage. None of these /doc subpages are in use anymore because they've all been replaced with the standard templates. I agree these should have been bundled though. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obsolete, unused and outdated template documentation subpage. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused and unneeded. --Gonnym (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User kk-3/doc

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. See IP's explanation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User ltg-5/doc. ✗plicit 12:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User kk-3/doc[edit]

Not needed. Parent template uses the standard {{User x}} for its documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then yeah, +1. —Firespeaker (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention, the reason I created this page is that things were done differently back then, and not standardised much. Glad to see that things have changed for the better. —Firespeaker (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - First, I don't understand what the issue is, other than that there are 11 of these. Could there be an explanation of what this is about? Second, could these be bundled? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and unneeded. Gonnym (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User gom-1/doc

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. See IP's explanation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User ltg-5/doc. ✗plicit 12:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User gom-1/doc[edit]

Not needed. Parent template uses the standard {{User x}} for its documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - First, I don't understand what the issue is, other than that there are 11 of these. Could there be an explanation of what this is about? Second, could these be bundled? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and unneeded. Gonnym (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User gom-0/doc

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. See IP's explanation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User ltg-5/doc. ✗plicit 12:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User gom-0/doc[edit]

Not needed. Parent template uses the standard {{User x}} for its documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - First, I don't understand what the issue is, other than that there are 11 of these. Could there be an explanation of what this is about? Second, could these be bundled? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and unneeded. Gonnym (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User en/doc

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. See IP's explanation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User ltg-5/doc. ✗plicit 12:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User en/doc[edit]

Not needed. Parent template uses the standard {{User x}} for its documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - First, I don't understand what the issue is, other than that there are 11 of these. Could there be an explanation of what this is about? Second, could these be bundled? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Robert McClenon. This {{User en/doc}} template has been unused since this edit from March 2014. It now uses Template:User x for consolidated documentation. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
September 2007, dang. Seems fine to delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and unneeded. Gonnym (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User en-lk/doc

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. See IP's explanation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User ltg-5/doc. ✗plicit 12:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User en-lk/doc[edit]

Not needed. Parent template uses the standard {{User x}} for its documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - First, I don't understand what the issue is, other than that there are 11 of these. Could there be an explanation of what this is about? Second, could these be bundled? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Feel free to bundle them or point me to the instructions on how to merge nominations. The way that the parent page is set up makes it more difficult to bundle them than the way that TFD is set up. As for the issue, it is that all of these templates share a single template for their documentation, so there is no need for a dedicated /doc subpage for each template. The dedicated /doc subpages are not usable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and unneeded. Gonnym (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User din-0/doc

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. See IP's explanation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User ltg-5/doc. ✗plicit 12:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User din-0/doc[edit]

Not needed. Parent template uses the standard {{User x}} for its documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - First, I don't understand what the issue is, other than that there are 11 of these. Could there be an explanation of what this is about? Second, could these be bundled? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and unneeded. Gonnym (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User bo-5/doc

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. See IP's explanation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User ltg-5/doc. ✗plicit 12:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User bo-5/doc[edit]

Not needed. Parent template uses the standard {{User x}} for its documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - First, I don't understand what the issue is, other than that there are 11 of these. Could there be an explanation of what this is about? Second, could these be bundled? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and unneeded. Gonnym (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User at-1/doc

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. See IP's explanation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User ltg-5/doc. ✗plicit 12:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User at-1/doc[edit]

Not needed. Parent template uses the standard {{User x}} for its documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - First, I don't understand what the issue is, other than that there are 11 of these. Could there be an explanation of what this is about? Second, could these be bundled? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and unneeded. Gonnym (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User ar/doc

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. See IP's explanation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User ltg-5/doc. ✗plicit 12:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ar/doc[edit]

Not needed. Parent template uses the standard {{User x}} for its documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - First, I don't understand what the issue is, other than that there are 11 of these. Could there be an explanation of what this is about? Second, could these be bundled? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and unneeded. Gonnym (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User syr-2/doc

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. See IP's explanation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User ltg-5/doc. ✗plicit 12:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User syr-2/doc[edit]

Not needed. Parent template uses the standard {{User x}} for its documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - First, I don't understand what the issue is, other than that there are 11 of these. Could there be an explanation of what this is about? Second, could these be bundled? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unused and unneeded. Gonnym (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/Trump Supporter

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: keep. ✗plicit 12:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:UBX/Trump Supporter[edit]

Clear violation of WP:PROFRINGE, in that it’s promoting the dangerous conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was rigged/fake/whatever ~~bullshit~~ silly nonsense. Also fails WP:UBX as grossly inflammatory. Dronebogus (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: as nom said, it promotes misinformation. Template:User pro-Trump and Template:User Donald Trump 2020 does the job better. Gerald WL 03:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotes an opinion that is contrary to what is reported by the most reliable reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could be fixed with a quick edit to remove " and believes the 2020 election was rigged and erroneous". – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence - It's wrong, foolish, and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to wear a badge telling Wikipedians about one's poor information literacy skills (or, I guess, uncritical reverence for the dear leader). It should call into question any edit someone with this box made to a controversial area. ...But WP:RS doesn't apply to userboxes. Userboxes can be wrong. If someone had a userbox that said e.g. "this user believes in the healing power of crystals" or "the moon is cheese", those aren't backed up by RS either, but I doubt we'd find them at MfD. The question is whether it's WP:POLEMIC or "inflammatory or substantially divisive". Given the nature of Donald Trump and attitudes about him, everything Trump-related is pretty divisive, but I don't think we should nominate the entire Category:Donald_Trump_user_templates, either. So the question is whether the language about the "rigged election" is sufficiently divisive beyond umpteen other things Trump has done, and I'm not sure. It's an egregious, toxic, antidemocratic thing, but I'd say people are less divided about the rigged election than about most of the rest of Trump's presidency (which is to say, it's a far-right fringe thing rather than a typical polarized left/right issue). I will say that I don't see the point in modifying it, since again we already have a lot of Trump userboxes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undecided~~ - I can't find myself calling for this to be deleted unless we also find some way to ensure there is a balanced consensus in deleting political userboxes. Despite Trump's overwhelming propensity for spreading falsehoods, the very nature of politics here on Wikipedia means that we'd be hard-pressed to find a justification for getting rid of this that doesn't simply read as "We don't like Trump", even while recognizing that these are spreading lies.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: @WaltCip: the reason I nominated it is because it’s essentially saying US democracy is now illegitimate and therefore endorsing whatever fucked-up means people use to “restore order”— which could easily be interpreted as a de facto endorsement of the 2021 Capitol Riot. This isn’t nonsense about crystal healing or flat earth, or just “orange man bad delet this”, this is borderline advocacy for insurrection. Rhondodendrites, you even outright stated it was an “egregious, toxic, antidemocratic thing” Dronebogus (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The other TrumpBoxen are nowhere near as bad as this, which also emphasizes that this is an extremist outlier. Dronebogus (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a violation of WP:PROFRINGE since it's not in article space. You're misapplying the policy here; WP:PROFRINGE applies to people that go on articles or talk pages to promote fringe theories, not those who do so in their userspace. This is also a widely held belief in the USA and on a pragmatic basis banning politically mainstream opinions just alienates large portions of the population in ways that banning non-mainstream opinions does not.

On another note, let's examine exactly what's wrong with this userbox. More or less, you say that "the reason I nominated it is because it’s essentially saying US democracy is now illegitimate". So let's extend this logic for a bit and look at other templates that are implicitly against democracy. What about Category:Communism user templates? The key tenet of Leninism is that a Leninist vanguard party must take over the state and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. Does this mean we should delete all Leninist templates, given that they also call for the destruction of democracy? Perhaps some do not believe in destroying American democracy, but what makes the US so special? Is this a new standard that being against democracy is not allowed? I have quite a few userboxes I'd love to nominate under this new standard.

All this of course assumes the template is truly against democracy. Leaving aside the fact that due to the United States Electoral College the Presidential election is not entirely democratic, all the template says is that the user "believes the 2020 election was rigged and erroneous" and seeks to have it overturned (as evidenced by the wikilink). But yet, there are plenty of userboxes that were against Donald Trump when he was elected in 2016 and implied his "reign" was illegitimate. We have User:UBX/Huge mistake which claims the election was a "huge mistake", User:UBX/Trump misguided which compares him to totalitarian dictators that illegitimately seized power, and User:UBX/Trumpism which "seeks to eradicate Trumpism". Implying Trump is a dictator along the lines of Hitler or Mussolini is saying he seized power illegitimately, much like this userbox implicitly alleges Joe Biden took power illegitimately. Likewise, calling an election "erroneous" isn't that much different from saying it was a "huge mistake". And isn't calling for the "eradication" of an entire political ideology anti-democratic, since how else would this be done but through anti-democratic means? There is a difference between referring to democracy as an institution is illegitimate and saying that specific instances of democracy are illegitimate, and all this userbox says is that one particular instance of democracy was illegitimate.

Applying the standard against claiming specific instances of democracy are illegitimate will cast an even broader net than being against democracy in general and be even more difficult to apply in legitimately disputed elections. What about the 2013 Venezuelan presidential election or the 2018 Venezuelan presidential election? Or when in the 2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute opposition parties sought to overthrow Stephen Harper using tactics possibly against constitutional conventions despite him winning the most votes? Or what about the Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election who sought to overturn the election of Donald Trump? What is the "correct" opinion in these cases? Are we going to do this on an ad hoc basis depending on what side MfD !voters take, or do we define some threshold where if enough people in the mainstream agree an election is legitimate you can't say it wasn't on Wikipedia anymore? Perhaps I just violated this standard by saying MfD is WP:NOTAVOTE and that we're not actually "voting" here.

Anyways, I'm going to !vote keep. I wrote all this stuff above to make a point about adjudicating the legitimacy of userboxes and deleting this userbox either makes us a) hypocrites or b) means we have to develop a complicated standard for userboxes to be allowable. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've given me a lot to think about, Chess. Thank you for your well-thought out rationale. WaltCip-(talk) 19:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a mainstream view is expressed. It really won't help the divisive nature of the world or the left lean of Wikipedia to delete this despite it being a pretty common viewpoint. Plus, if someone with this viewpoint becomes a major contributor to Wikipedia they are fairly likely to realise that this is misinformation – whereas the lack of userboxen representing this viewpoint in comparison to a plethora representing a view on the opposite side of the political spectrum a similar distance from the centre will only cause them to move extremer and view this 'supposedly neutral' site negatively.
FWIW, in my (certainly not right-wing) eyes this discussion screams "echo-chamber". And I don't like it. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that we have to have this discussion about whether you have the right to WP:SOAPBOX extreme antidemocratic fringe positions (either left or right) is a good case for purging political userboxes, unless they’re for broad issues that WM explicitly takes a side on like LGBT rights (for) or climate change (against) or maybe generic self-identifications like “this user is liberal”. Plus if you believe this junk you’re more likely here to right WP:GREATWRONGS than build an encyclopedia. Political userboxes are something that very clearly violates WP:UBX but Wikipedia tolerates because there’s more important crap to deal with. But dealing with boxes on a case-by-case basis based solely on editor discretion seems more divisive than just saying “no you can’t have this end of story”. My only concern is borderline cases (i.e. is Black Lives Matter an uncontroversial statement of human rights or a political slogan?) Dronebogus (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also WP:OTHERSTUFF isn’t a good argument. I never said I supported LeninBoxen or OverthrowTrumpBoxen or ProUtopistaniCoupOf2015Boxen, and would easily support deleting all of them. Dronebogus (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are plenty of inflammatory userboxes out there, and I haven't seen any evidence that this one violates any particular policy that would require its removal. Furthermore, if a WP editor is brainwashed enough to actually sincerely believe that the 2020 election was "rigged and erroneous" (and dumb enough to proudly sport a userbox to broadcast that belief), I'd much rather know that about the editor than not. Anyone who displays this userbox is essentially admitting to a rather extreme bias when it comes to US politics, and their personal views can be taken into consideration when it comes to making editing decisions in articles. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- lol yup, that’s actually a really good point. Dronebogus (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chess' excellent detailed reasoning. In a number of other userbox MfDs we've deleted on a wildly imbalanced basis, and avoiding that should be an aim. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chess's !vote. That and the OP is pushing quite hard to delete this, even stretching some arguments beyond reason and badgering... one has to wonder if this is personal. - wolf 17:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm ultimately swayed per Chess's rationale. The whole process of going about and deleting these userboxes is taking on a cliquish undercurrent.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many good keep arguments have been advanced here, and there’s no point in letting this drone on any longer. I withdraw and recommend WP:SNOW closure. Dronebogus (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 9, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:KraftwerkASCII

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: userfy. ✗plicit 03:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:KraftwerkASCII[edit]

Wikipedia is not a webhost for your ascii art. Whpq (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Robert McClenon (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- User space is also not webhost space. Whpq (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Robert and WP:BITE.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, along with the creator's other two Wikipedia space creations Wikipedia:Thispageisglitched and Wikipedia:ProtocolFullyActivated. None of this stuff is really suitable for project space, but would be fine in userspace. We do give some latitude to allow stuff unrelated to encyclopedia building in userspace (see 99% of userboxes), and the creator of these has both contributed to article space (they've even written a new article) and is a relative newbie, at this point deletion is IMO unnecessary and slightly WP:BITEY. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've userfied the two pages mentioned here. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll !vote userfy. Pretty funny. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 8, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:शिवम झा(उन्मत्ताधीश)

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:शिवम झा(उन्मत्ताधीश)[edit]

Per WP:NOTFREEWEBHOST. Personal musings by a non-contributor. Kleuske (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The machine translation from Hindi is almost as incomprehensible as the original. However, this is an unsubmitted draft. Unsubmitted drafts should be ignored, and will be deleted in six months, or should be declined or rejected when submitted. Leave this alone and it will go away in August. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since it's been brought here, but I echo the above that this is a waste of time. A week long MFD discussion is going to take significantly more editor time than this is worth and it should have been left for G13. That being said since this has 0 chance of ever becoming an article since it is fundamentally at odds with WP:What wikipedia is not and is written in the wrong language, and leaving this for 6 months so it can be deleted under a different process is just pointless bureaucracy. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Keep. I don't bother deleting unsubmitted drafts unless that fall into G11 or G3, and I do rescue some articles from them at 6 months. Not that I can rescue this, but we shouldn't bother removing them. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per our anonymous friend. I don't think we should nominate things like this at MfD, but in the specific case of NOT violations I'm inclined to support a deletion if it does land here. Keeping and resetting the deletion clock is more bureaucratic than I'm inclined to support, even if it should be made clear MfD isn't a catchall bad-draft-trap. Vaticidalprophet 06:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though this didn't need MfD and in my opinion this is why we need a WP:DRAFTPROD. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 7, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:131.161.77.174/Sandbox for user warnings

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:131.161.77.174/Sandbox for user warnings[edit]

The address is not a reserved address and should be removed. Q28 has 5K edits *ଘ(੭*ˊᵕˋ)੭* ੈ✩‧₊˚ 07:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could be misleading to editors wishing to test warnings. Proper page is User talk:192.0.2.16. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old business[edit]

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 21:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC) ended today on 17 March 2022. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

Closed discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates