Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:MFD" redirects here. For media for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion. For modules for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.


Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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

Filtered versions of the page are available at

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: and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
  • Pages 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.
Duplications in draftspace?
  • Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD
  • Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

Shortcut

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

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

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

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

I.
Edit PageName:

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

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

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.
If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.
Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
  • Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
  • Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
  • Save the page
II.
Create its MfD subpage.

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

  • Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
  • Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
III.
Add a line to MfD.

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

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".
  • Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
    Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
  • If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add
{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.
  • If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
    For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

    {{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~

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

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

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

Administrator instructions[edit]

XFD backlog
V Feb Mar Apr May Total
CfD 0 0 36 2 38
TfD 0 0 0 6 6
MfD 0 0 3 0 3
FfD 0 0 3 1 4
RfD 0 0 52 30 82
AfD 0 0 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.

May 9, 2024[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2024 Hollister tornado
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. CSD G7 Liz Read! Talk! 21:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2024 Hollister tornado[edit]

Draft:2024 Hollister tornado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Honestly not as notable as it was put out to be. As the creator and main contributor to this draft, I'm honestly fine with it being deleted. MemeGod ._. (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Seeing as you created this draft and want to be deleted, you can just place {{db-g7}} on that page instead of nominating it for MDF. JuniperChill (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Thanks :) MemeGod ._. (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

User talk:216.15.18.224[edit]

User talk:216.15.18.224 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Talk page for IP who has never edited. Only has a help me request from a logged in editor. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 00:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No harm. I’ve followed the help request poster. Deleting their edit history is a negative. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confused, I said Talk page for IP who has never edited thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as WP:U2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlwoodwa (talk • contribs) 07:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as WP:U2, No reason for the talkpage to exist given the IP's not made one contribution here. –Davey2010Talk 13:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagged. Thanks! thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 14:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Speedy Delete as U2. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm with SmokeyJoe on this. It is a perfectly legitimate request for help, posted by a new editor who accidentally posted it in the wrong place. Moving it to somewhere else, such as that editor's user talk space, would make sense, but deleting it would confer no benefit whatever, and would lose editing history of the editor's attempt to get help. JBW (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done moved[1], I've also include the IP in the edit summary, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag with {{moved to}}. Per JBW, deleting the page would lose the edit history of the editor who posted there for help, while deleting it wouldn't provide a benefit that I can see. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 23:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 6, 2024[edit]

Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh[edit]

Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The BLP is already in the main NS at Amina Hassan. This draft lacks citations and contains WP:OR. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History merge. User:Saqib mistates the history. The draft was already there first. Awesimf (talk · contribs) gets the new article credit, and should not have their contribution history deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about which page was created first, it's about which one aligns with WP:V. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Failing WP:V is not a deletion reason, especially not now that you have found sources. You should have improved the draft, not create a content fork. Which page was created first is important. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only found out about this draft yesterday. If I'd known earlier, I would've definitely worked on improving it. Further, there's WP:OR and WP:PROMO content in there which it's a clear violation of WP:BLP. Anyway, I don't have strong feelings about it. The closing admin can do whatever they want with it. I'm not concerned about getting credit for merely creating a BLP. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see a justification to revdelete anything if it was already in the history. So I support a history merge to fix the accidental fork, even if it is a small thing. Redirecting the draft to the article is a middle solution. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This nomination is vexatious. Drafts are not deleted simply because an article exists. The usual way of dealing with a draft when there is also an article is to Speedy Redirect the draft to the article, not to delete the draft and its history. This appears to be an effort to deprive a previous contributor of credit and so obtain credit to which the nominator is not entitled. The good faith assumption has to be that the nominator is unaware of the usual practice when a draft and an article both exist, in which case the nominator should not be nominating drafts for deletion. In this case, as SmokeyJoe explains, a history merge is in order rather than a Speedy Redirect. The nominator should not be nominating drafts for deletion if they don't know about Speedy Redirection. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect draft to article. Thanks to Awesimf for writing the draft, and to Saqib for writing a referenced stub. Perhaps they and/or others could see which of the currently unreferenced additional bits in the draft could be referenced and added to the article? Beyond that, I see no particular reason to delete this draft and its history, nor do I see any particular reason to not assume good faith regarding anyone's motivations here. Martinp (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:UfD[edit]

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

The first item has had its target changed to the second item, so this is now virtually a two-item disambiguation (the third item is a proposal to split userboxes from MFD which was the previous target). I think this should be redirected to the Users for deletion joke page. Xeroctic (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. April fools jokes should not lead to preserved redirects or WP DAB pages.
Original this was for Wikipedia:Userboxes for discussion, a serious proposal that failed in 2006. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This page was viewed 40 times in calendar year 2023, which is less than one view per week. It has been viewed 56 times in calendar year 2024, but 17 of those views were on 6 May 2024 because of this nomination. There is very little attention paid to this page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:ANI without a hatnote per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Userboxes for deletion only has gotten 31 views in the last 2 years and has no relevance today. Ca talk to me! 01:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The redirect to ANI was retargeted last month, which now redirects to the recurring April Fools' joke page; the discussion mentioned that the Users for deletion redirect going there may not have fitted well. Xeroctic (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 5, 2024[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Faizan
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 to Faizan. (non-admin closure) jlwoodwa (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Faizan[edit]

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

main space page already exists Faizan; page Draft:Faizan has been deleted twice before (G2: Test page) Drdpw (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Redirect to Faizan. It doesn't matter what the history of the title is in draft space. Draft titles can always be redirected to article titles, even if the article did not originate as a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect as per Robert McClenon. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Concur, as proposer, and implemented. Drdpw (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

User:Khadija Serraf[edit]

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

Spammy, untranslatable Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's Tifinagh script. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore until an actual problem is identified. Do not create busywork. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UP#GOALS bullet point #4. This is someone's personal project as noted in the edit summary when they say "First article in..." [2]. It's not going to ever be used here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Edit summary was "Create first article in tachlhit". This should be treated as an active userspace draft intended for Tachelhit Wikipedia. Flounder fillet (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words[edit]

Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The advice is based on false premises: "Stress marks don't belong in any Belarusian, Russian, or Ukrainian word". Yes stress marks belong to Russian orthography and covered in Russian orthography books. It instructed to use them in dictionaties and in texts intended to teach Russian. They may be used selectively when stress is ambiguous (до́роги/доро́ги), for little known words, such as personal name (Конакри́, Фе́рми) etc. Therefore I say the page must be nuked as ignorant. - Altenmann >talk 00:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is the RfC where the thing had been talked through and out, nothing more to say.
And thank you for reminding me of a Soviet cartoon of my childhood, The Bremen Town Musicians, where the stress goes ambiguous intentionally:
This is exactly what is mentioned in the essay as "very special cases".
And, as I've already told you, if you think that the RfC was "malformed and an imprpoperly closed" you are always welcome to open your own one. — Mike Novikoff 01:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not "very special cases", these are quite common cases. And the "nutshell" is plain false. - Altenmann >talk 07:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Resolve this on the talk page and update the project page to make it correct. MfD is not for resolving policy dispute, including this page, whatever the tag. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The is not a policy, it is an ignorant opinion of a single person. I would let it be, but some people mistook it for policy (just like you) and started making massive changes in Wikipedia, which IMO is inadmissible. - Altenmann >talk 07:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s an essay on how to do things, in mainspace. That’s definitely on the small p end of policy.
    Project-related essays should not be deleted, but fixed. If only the author supports it, it can be userfied.
    Project space essays do carry weight and will influence editors. If the essay is wrong, it is important to fix, but mfd is not the forum for fixing essays. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to fix it (by adding a warning), but the owner reverts my changes. - Altenmann >talk 15:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Take this problem to Wikipedia talk:Stress marks in East Slavic words. The two of you there seem to be at an impasse. Summarise the conflict, and then list it at WP:3O. Should that fail to resolve the problem, start a WP:RFC. Should that fail to solve the problem, except to demonstrate that it is at best a waste of time, then consider bringing it to MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, disagreed. There is no "conflict". The page is based on the provably false premise, see the top here; hence, MfD. - Altenmann >talk 05:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see only an assertion. Not proof. Not consensus. I see a dispute between two editors about something. There is no valid reason to delete. Keep. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Not proof" - Nonsense. Right here I cited a Russian source for punctuation which describes the usage of "nonexisting" stress marks. - Altenmann >talk 17:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2, 2024[edit]

User:UBX/Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany[edit]

User:UBX/Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I think this userbox crosses the line into controversial and unacceptable. And it is morally offensive. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provocative Userboxes can be defended on the basis that they are self declarations of the user’s extreme POV. This one is complicated. We understand the emotion, we can see the simple grab for provocative hyperbole, but I think this one needs fixing, it can’t stay like that. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From the perspective of those who use this userbox, this wouldn't be a provocative hyperbole, they believe the comparison of the two is legitimate. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I understand that my userbox may be controversial and evoke strong reactions. However, as a Wikipedian, I believe in fostering diverse perspectives and allowing users to express their beliefs within the bounds of neutrality. This userbox reflects my personal viewpoint. I respectfully request that it be allowed to remain as an expression of my beliefs. Thank you for your understanding! Lionel Messi Lover (talk)
"I understand that my userbox may be controversial and evoke strong reactions." Then that would mean it probably violates WP:POLEMIC, right? ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany are very common, with several notable people having compared the two. This is someone's relatively common point of view, and it's best to declare it. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, If this userbox is morally objectionable from some users perspective, that isn't grounds for deletion. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UPNOT: "'Wikipedia is not censored' relates to article pages and images; in other namespaces there are restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance, value, and non-disruption to the community." ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 17:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTCENSORED applies to article space, not userboxes. Wikipedia has deleted many userboxes promoting white supremacy, the Confederacy, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, userboxes against same-sex marriage, racism, all sorts of discriminatory points of view. This looks like a userbox that promotes anti-semitism and displays complete ignorance of the Holocaust. Liz Read! Talk!•
Maybe the wording can be tweaked to remove the "no different than" bit. I don't think this template was created in bad faith as academics have weighed in on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, While I condemn any form of anti-Semitism or Holocaust denial, I believe it's essential to address and criticize instances of racial discrimination and incitement of genocide against Palestinians wherever they occur, including in State of Israel. Lionel Messi Lover (talk)
  • Keep. According to the linked article, there is actually a debate on whether comparisons are antisemitic or not. Playing devil's advocate, what if the person who uses this user-box is trying to call attention to red flags? It can also go with the saying "Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" which isn't in the scope of hate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there’s a sizeable gulf between “no difference” and “comparison [can be made]”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Please. To be clear, I would be in favor of deleting a much wider spectrum of "here's my stand on controversial topic X" userboxes, but this kind of accusation is really far off the line. More pragmatically, imagine this user box comes to the attention of some mainstream newspaper. Do you really want to be explaining why Wikipedia has a userbox that says that Jews are the real Nazis? SnowFire (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not much more to add here, this really is unacceptable. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 22:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: The creator has not addressed the honest concerns brought about their userbox. I believe it's essential to address and criticize instances of racial discrimination and incitement of genocide against Palestinians and using WP:NOTCENSORED as an excuse is not really going to go in their favor. Though I really do wish that WP:POLEMIC was a speedy deletion criterion, then we could use it to our advantage with this userbox. It really is shameful that such a controversial userbox even exists. And to the userbox creator: Don't try using excuses like you're supporting Palestinian genocide, that really isn't what we're doing here, but we're trying to make sure that controversial, provocative userbox like yours don't exist. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 00:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheTechie: Why did you relist the discussion after voting on it? WP:RELIST says that Editor qualifications to relist a discussion are the same as required to close a discussion and WP:NACD clearly states that you can't close a discussion if you've offered an opinion on it. The relist should be cancelled or at the very least the relisting comment struck so people don't get the impression it was written by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor. Nickps (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted the pointless, and improper, relist. Relists without a good meaningful relist comment, by someone qualified to close, should not be done. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheTechie: Actually, you are the first one to offer an argument for deletion other than this userbox is unacceptable and morally wrong. Nobody here has put up a counter argument in regard to how academics have weighed on the matter of it being antisemitic or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unacceptable userbox, Fails POLEMIC. –Davey2010Talk 13:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:69.193.160.250/Brigid Dawson[edit]

User:69.193.160.250/Brigid Dawson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Seems redundant to Brigid Dawson. Both created by the same user. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 04:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If the IP user changes, then they might be wondering why that's associated with their IP. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old business[edit]


April 30, 2024[edit]

Draft:Kashana Cauley[edit]

Draft:Kashana Cauley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

I am the article's subject, I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and request that the article be deleted. Blacksun83 (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC) I am withdrawing this nomination since there's a good chance the article will be deleted in six weeks, which was a rule I didn't know before making the nomination. I don't want to waste anyone's time here, and appreciate all of you for what you do here on wiki.[reply]

  • Delete - One reviewer in December declined this draft because they said that this draft did not establish biographical notability. This draft would have been deleted in six weeks. See also Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People_who_are_relatively_unknown. We should extend the same courtesy to the relatively unknown subject of a draft as to the relatively unknown subject of an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see any private information in the article. Everything can be verified in the subject's own website and promotional materials and in the references that are already present. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Robert. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite the nomination being struck-through, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE still applies (given that the only reason for withdrawing was that there's a good chance the article will be deleted under G13). BLP is applicable in all namespaces, so it doesn’t matter for the purposes of BLPREQUESTDELETE that this is a draft rather than an article. Per Robert, the draft would have been deleted in six weeks anyway, and was previously declined for notability. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 07:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Robert McClenon. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 22:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Eastmain. Added a few reviews of the book, a television award nomination, and some best of the year lists the novel appeared on, meets WP:BIO. Subject has conducted many publicly available interviews about themself and their work, does not meet WP:LOWPROFILE. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (talk
  • Delete per Robert and per BLPREQUESTDELETE - Personally I would consider this person to be LOWPROFILE and as such I don't see a problem with this being deleted per the BLP subjects request. –Davey2010Talk 12:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 29, 2024[edit]

Draft:Pact Coffee[edit]

Draft:Pact Coffee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This draft appears to be an unambiguous advertisement. Samoht27 (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Probably could be G11, but we are here. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Has good looking referencing (though on examination they look nonindependent). It definitely is not g11-eligible. It is written up like a fair Wikipedia article. It merely fails WP:N. This is not a reason to delete from draftspace, and never should be. Advise the proponent to use WP:SIRS, and that two or three sources need to meet the WP:GNG, and if two or three do not, no number of additional worse sources will do. But, MfD is not the forum for this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks very promotional to me with lines such as "Customers receive freshly roasted coffee from Pact's roastery in Haslemere, Surrey, with delivery promised within seven days of roasting as part of its commitment to freshness." Draftspace should not be a permanent repository for unacceptable content. AusLondonder (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Luckily for you, its not permanent. Curbon7 (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    G11 is not for things that could be fixed, like a promotional tone.
    Your concern is taken care of by the implementation of WP:G13. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What if it's not abandoned? AusLondonder (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it stays. Short of it being tendentiously submitted, or submitted after rejection, draftspace is for people to try to improve drafts for as long as they choose. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: If this had no sources, it would probably be a delete. With the sources, I think it's just enough to meet the minimum of being a suitable draft. Curbon7 (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The draft has been submitted and rejected declined four times, it's clearly unsuitable. Per this RfC, the community consensus is inappropriate drafts repeatedly submitted may be deleted by MfD. The language used in the draft, such as "Customers receive freshly roasted coffee from Pact's roastery in Haslemere, Surrey, with delivery promised within seven days of roasting as part of its commitment to freshness" is unencyclopedic and promotional. Simply keeping an inappropriate draft in hope it will eventually be abandoned so it can then be deleted makes no sense. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have a problem with specific sentences, just delete those sentences; no need to blow the whole thing up. 4 declines but with improvement in between is not tendentious, it is a new editor not really knowing how we write on here but trying their best. Curbon7 (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why you're so passionate about this after your "weak keep". "A new editor not really knowing how we write on here but trying their best" is not the way I'd describe a paid contributor. AusLondonder (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is actually exactly how I'd describe a *disclosed* paid contributor. Curbon7 (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I firmly disagree. I don't believe Wikipedia is the place for paid advertorials about non-notable companies rejected at AfC four times. I'm surprised you do, but we'll have to agree to disagree. AusLondonder (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll leave it at this. At AfC, we get a lot of slop; practically every third draft submission is WP:UPE garbage, and there is usually no improvement between instantaneous resubmissions. So it is refreshing to see a draft like this where the creator is actively improving the draft after each decline ([3][4]), and where the draft has actual sourcing. Even the sentence you cite above has already been cleaned ([5][6]). As a draft, it doesn't have to be notable and doesn't have to be accept-worthy, it just has to not cross the line into requiring early deletion. And while I do share your detestment for paid editing - I find it contrary to the entire point of this website - it is currently allowed if they are transparent and disclose properly. Curbon7 (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:AusLondonder, I see no rejects. Reject is different to decline. Declines imply that it can be improved to become good enough. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing stance to Keep, I know I nominated this for deletion, but as i've become a bit more accustomed to draft space, i've become more accustomed to its very loose requirements, one could likely just let the draft run its course if it is not improved. Samoht27 (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I took a look and even if this were cleaned up for promotional tone, it does not meet notability guidelines. The references fail WP:ORGCRIT and I cannot see this surviving an AfD discussion should it go that route from the main space. I would actually reject it as a reviewer. Nothing wrong with keeping it in draft space but a WP:BEFORE shows there isn't anything available that can improve the notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity, so for MfD purposes it doesn't matter if it is notable or not. Curbon7 (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the sources are not good enough, primarily due to non independence. I agree that it would be deleted at AfD. I disagree that it should be REJECTed, as there is a claim to notability, and qualifying sources may exist or may appear in the future. In the meantime, I recommend that the topic proponent go to the advice at WP:THREE, and do not simply keep adding sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep probably not suitable for article space as is, but that's not a valid reason for deleting drafts. Pinguinn 🐧 03:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If it's not notable now chances are it won't be notable in 2 years time, This has been declined 4 times already and so at this point it's just wasting page reviewers time which could be better spent reviewing new articles. Delete. –Davey2010Talk 12:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 11, 2024[edit]

Template:User hate CCP[edit]

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

WP:UBCR and WP:POLEMIC. Divisive userbox. Broc (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The word 'hate' should not appear in userboxes.—Alalch E. 09:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I lean to supporting this, but not without limit. A userbox might mention hate without expressing or advocating hate.
    There are several transcluders. The transcluders should be advised of this discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy ping to the transcluders of this userbox: SunDawn Moreno Ardan1 EnverTheHero Magnatyrannus Partyfrittata R09a21045 TeddyRoosevelt1912 Carlinal Michigander901 PoisonHK Delta2571 -- Broc (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Broc, SmokeyJoe, specifically pinging people who are likely to !vote in a certain way is WP:VOTESTACKING. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not. The proposal is to alter these people’s userpages, altering their self-introductions, with an allegation that they are doing something wrong. There are therefore key stakeholders. Their contribution here is not to vote, but to explain, or defend. If the userbox is deleted, they may be accused of disruption if they put a similar back. This outcome is an obvious failing of natural justice. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve not found the input of any of the transcluders to be persuasive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If like to ask them, what is it about the CCP that they hate. Then, I’m sure it can be improved by an edit. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hate of a political class of tyrants should not be equated with a group of individuals. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is a party which counts 98 million members not "a group of individuals"? Broc (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dislike towards an organization (that has done "things") is different than hating millions of Chinese. I didn't think the word "hate" should immediately be construed as divisive. I didn't think "hating" the Nazi Party or ISIS is violating WP:UBCR.✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, now read the userbox as "This user hates the US Republican Party". Do you still consider it non-divisive? If the template said "oppose" I would have no problem with it, but hate is a different thing. Broc (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: My usage of the anti-CCP infobox isn't of any malice towards Chinese culture or society at all, but as a protest against the party's omnipresent dominance and human rights violations that led to a moral decline within the country's political state, if not with China altogether. This includes but is not limited to Mao Zedong's cult of personality (similar with Joseph Stalin's), several massacres (Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution and Red August, the Tiananmen massacre and suppression of its discussion and the related), declining human and Internet rights, and other forms of crimes against humanity. That's what I hate about the party and its impact; I believe other users with the infobox aren't drastically different in motive. The party's slogan is "Serve the People", but it only serves itself, of a code not revealed to anyone with any sympathy. I wouldn't be anti-communist in the first place if all of this never happened. My use of this infobox is not light, and it speaks out for the preservation of common sense and human dignity. Carlinal (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording Change: I am a Hong Konger, and this template sums up a large part about my childhood in the city, so I'm definitely against deleting the template entirely (please see Hong Kong-Mainland China conflict). I personally have no problem using the word "hate" towards a political organization that has no respect for human rights whatsoever, but I can understand why some would feel problematic about this. So, I would be fine if the template is re-worded to take out the word "hate" but keep much of the meaning, something along the lines of: "This user strongly condemns the CCP (for its gross violations of human rights)". TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for being more divisive than the current wording. NasssaNser 00:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is "strongly condemns" more divisive than "hates"? Broc (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not the venue for this divisiveness, and there is nothing positive that can come from this crude criticism. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hate is a strong word, so in the state it was nominated in, i'd have to agree! But this userbox is not unfixable! We are wikipedians! We can edit!. I think it would be a good choice to change the wording on this userbox, and change the name of the template. Possibly to something along the lines of "This user is opposed to the policies of the Chinese Communist Party" and the template name to "User oppose CCP"? Samoht27 (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword. Most just have a problem with the word "hate". Change it into "strongly condemns" or even "dislikes" would fix it. If you genuinely think all political userboxes violate WP:SOAPBOX, it would be more prudent to start a discussion on the talk page of the policy first. Northern Moonlight 00:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword: Easy to fix with "rejects", "dislikes", "condemns" or whatever. Cambalachero (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment CCP-related discussions tend to make highly heated Chinese language debates, more so when it's between a Mainlander and a non-Mainlander. NasssaNser 11:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to those suggesting a rewording: is it fair to reword userboxes? The user who added it to their user page might not have meant it with the new wording. Broc (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's usually fair unless the changes are sweeping, most suggested rewording would change it in a way where the meaning is retained. I think this scenario rewording would be a viable option. Samoht27 (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:SOAPBOX. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 02:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword "Hate" to "Opposes" per User:Winhunter/Userboxes/CCP. If you have those that support then there are going to be those who oppose. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was going to support rewording however Broc's point regarding the user may not wanting this is spot on, Someone can easily recreate this with "opposes" instead of "hate". –Davey2010Talk 12:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion&oldid=1223040688"