Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Administrator instructions

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 this page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion include:

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Education Program:, 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}}. 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.
  • Proposed deletion is an option for non-controversial deletions of books (in both User: and Book: namespaces).

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

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

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:

{}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {}}}
If the nomination is for a userbox, please put <noinclude></noinclude> tags around the {}, as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

or

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

or

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

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

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

{}
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
{}
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

    {} ~~~~

    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 and consider using the portal guidelines in your nomination.
  • If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions[edit]

XFD backlog
  Jan Feb Mar Apr TOTAL
CfD 0 31 90 3 124
TfD 0 0 12 12 24
MfD 0 0 1 0 1
FfD 0 7 29 8 44
AfD 0 0 18 41 59

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.

April 8, 2020[edit]

Draft:Crypto addresses[edit]

Draft:Crypto addresses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

It's a list of someone's cryptocurrency addresses. No encyclopedic value, wouldn't belong in userspace either, if I could find a CSD that applied I would have used that instead. creffett (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete - basically webhosting. Crossroads -talk- 02:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - Would be U5 in user space. In draft space, is a misuse of draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


Draft:Kathy Charmaz[edit]

Draft:Kathy Charmaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Delete as Kathy Charmaz already exists. - The9Man (Talk) 09:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

April 9, 2020[edit]

WITHDRAWN
This would be bad to delete as it would mess up tutorials. DemonDays64 (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Quick wikify[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Quick wikify (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

This is an old userscript that adds a deprecated maintenance template. I don't see a reason to keep something like this that serves no purpose anymore. DemonDays64 (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak keep I don't see what the harm is in keeping it. It's not adding additional clutter and although it maybe an outdated script, there's no telling what use it may serve in future scripts/bots/whatever. My votes open to be swung though if I can be convinced that keeping this script causes some sort of harm. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • keep. The nom’s rationale is for archiving, not deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Question - Is the nominator requesting to delete the project page or the talk page? This is a talk page. (Is nominator unable to tag the project page?) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: oh lol I meant to nominate the project page :P DemonDays64 (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
twinkle seems to have nominated the talk instead because the other thing is fully protected. DemonDays64 (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep I realize that this would be ill-advised to destroy; the script is used as an example to help teach how to make userscripts, and to not have it would be harmful to those tutorials. I am now going to close the discussion. DemonDays64 (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 7, 2020[edit]

User talk:My password is poopy[edit]

User talk:My password is poopy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Talk page of harassment username with no meaningful talk history. Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 07:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Backpacking/Navigation[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Backpacking/Navigation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) bibliomaniac15 06:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This is an unused, legacy template in Wikipedia:WikiProject space. Its intended purpose has been replaced by other tools on the main page of the project. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - I am not entirely sure what this is, but I don't think that we need it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 06:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Archive, unless the WikiProject wants it deleted. Do not nominate WikiProject pages without talking to the members. If you represent the members, then say so. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The conversation was opened with the team. The original project team created the navigation box. It was not used beyond the main project page. Since then we have rebuilt the main page, added subpages, registered with the various bots that support projects, and built out categories for the page assessment system. We do not anticipate needing this navigation box. —¿philoserf? (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete If there's zero objection from the Wikiproject to this being deleted, then deleting it is non-controversial housekeeping. I would go ahead and nominate it for CSD, but I think it would be best coming from someone involved with the project. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
“Zero objection from the WikiProject” would be assuming sufficient notification. Nominator’s should be expected to link the notification. Occasionally we have people nominating random stuff from others’ WikiProjects for no good reason. On this occasion, tacking the nom’s contribution history, it can be seen that he has taken on maintenance of this specific wikiproject, which is awesome, thank you. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Dylan V-K[edit]

Draft:Dylan V-K (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) bibliomaniac15 06:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Repeatedly resubmitted and declined draft. A google search shows porn sites and similarly not-notable-proving websites. I dream of horses (talk) (contribs) Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page 01:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Neutral - Doesn't need deleting immediately after rejection. This sort of thing is what Rejection was developed for. Delete it if the submitter attempts to resubmit it after Rejection. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 06:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep = Nominating for deletion unnecessarily forgoes the rejection process. If the submitters becomes a nuisance and resubmits after rejection then I support the nom 100%. Otherwise I feel an MfD is an unneeded extra WP:BITE. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Bonga (producer)[edit]

Draft:Bonga (producer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) bibliomaniac15 06:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft declined twice for non-notable music producer. Article was also added to article space, probably by paid editor, and was deleted from article space as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonga (singer and producer). No immediate likelihood of being worked on except by conflict of interest editors. Closer of AFD recommends MFD of draft, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Premeditated_Chaos&type=revision&diff=946275480&oldid=946273673&diffmode=source . Robert McClenon (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 06:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - User keeps recreating the same article with myriad names in hopes of WP:GAMING the system and is clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute to what we got going on. AGF is out the window and there's little to no hope that the page creator will actually put in the effort to improve and cleanup the article so that it might one day see mainspace. The page creator's talk page is an absolute minefield of warnings, flags, noms, etc. involving the subject. The unbrittled urgency to somehow, someway publish an article has all the smell of undisclosed paid editing, WP:QUACK. For all these reasons and because there's little to no chance the notability of this subject changes in the next six months, then this needs to be put down with maybe a pinch of salt. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Kerrie Wilson[edit]

Draft:Kerrie Wilson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) bibliomaniac15 06:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Abandoned draft by editor who has not edited in ten months. Only edit within six months by User:KylieTastic was formatting, not substantive. G13 was declined by User:Liz because of tweaking, which was correct because CSD is meant to be rigid and questionable cases can come to MFD. Draft:Kerrie Wilson (2) is waiting to be renamed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Swap the page histories if it is preferable to have the other page on this title. Draft:Kerrie Wilson (2) should become a redirect anyway, and there is no need to keep this page history from public view. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Okay. McClenon mobile (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 06:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

April 5, 2020[edit]

Draft:Sean Kennedy (Singer-Songwriter)[edit]

Draft:Sean Kennedy (Singer-Songwriter) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Page originally created as article in mainspace by a now-blocked socking user. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kennedy (Singer-Songwriter) was closed because the page got moved to draft and original blanked. This looks like an attempt to bypass the process, so bringing this back to discussion. There comments at AfD suggest the rough consensus was to delete. It appears this is also a recreation by the same user.

In any case, non-notable person failing WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN with no reliable independent in-depth sources. The only arguably significant coverage are interview and thus primary. Everything else is either some music hosting, or just random social profiles, song pages and directory entries. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable drab and page creator's attempts to bypass Wiki's rules and push this page instead of trying to correct it shows they are likely here for self-promotion and WP:NOTHERE to help build something. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't have much chance of being a legit article until it gets notability outside hyperlocal and connected sources, and until the songs and albums chart on Billboard. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per rationale of original AfD discussion: no significant coverage. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, with silver nitrate if necessary, as per nominator and others. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Should there be a speedy deletion reason for non-notable minors? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, you mean like sending it to oversight? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 04:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
No, I mean tagging it for G15. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

April 4, 2020[edit]

Draft:Anthony Martinez (boxer)[edit]

Draft:Anthony Martinez (boxer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Non-notable boxer being submitted promotionally. Submitted four times. After the removal of marketing buzzspeak, not much has been left. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete The rejection seems to have gotten the point across and as such I'd normally say keep to avoid WP:BITE. However, I fully believe this was either an attempt at self-promotion or non-disclosed paid editing (WP:QUACK) and as such I don't mind the extra chomp. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

April 3, 2020[edit]

User:Donnola 3/signature[edit]

User:Donnola 3/signature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

User signature template that the user refuses to stop using. As I have told Donnola 3,[1] per WP:SIG#NoTemplates, signature templates are expressly forbidden. The template was overwritten with warning text when ToBeFree blocked him and now appears all over Donnola 3's talk page. Despite requests and the warning text in the template, Donnola 3 refuses to stop using it.[2] He has even tried to deny that it is a template, which it obviously is.[3] Since the editor refuses to stop using a forbidden template, deletion and salting seems appropriate. AussieLegend () 13:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete - I was reviewing the history of this user, and what I found got uglier and messier, as the account has been globally locked by stewards for various matters including using this template as a signature and vandalizing the French Wikipedia. The conduct issues have been dealt with effectively. Just delete all of the content. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think that the Global Lock should accomplish as much as User:AussieLegend was asking with SALT. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt. This is a template in practice (despite not being in the namespace for them), and is thus a clear violation of the guideline on signatures. Letting it continue existing will only open the door to more disruption by the creator, whose conduct has already been enough for a global lock. To Donnola 3: if your account is unlocked at some point, please use Special:Preferences instead of this to customise your signature. Glades12 (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • DeleteSubst'ing is allowed if it is not used to exceed the 255-byte limit; my sig uses one of these. Unforutnately, this one was 513 bytes and cannot be reduced below 255 bytes without significantly affecting its appearance. Also, it has red text on a green background, making it unreadable for color-blind users. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 22:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The signature and its source code
[[User:Donnola 3|<font face="Trebuchet MS"><span style="background-color:#0DC140;color:#E00026">'''Donnola 3'''</span></font>]] ([[User talk:Donnola 3|<font face="Trebuchet MS"><span style="background-color:#0DC140;color:#E00026">'''talk'''</span></font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Donnola 3|<font face="Trebuchet MS"><span style="background-color:#0DC140;color:#E00026">'''contribs'''</span></font>]]) <font face="Trebuchet MS">  {} {} {} 2020 (UTC) nbsp;</font>

Donnola 3 (talk | contribs)   07:10 9 April 2020 (UTC) nbsp;

  • MfD should not be used for behavioural issues like this. The user should be warned, then reported, then blocked. However, I agree that a template like this that can not be used without violating policy probably should be deleted. As a template, and not a userbox, it should go to WP:TfD. The TfD regulars are much more conversant on technical stuff and could well come up with a non-confrontational solution. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    • The user has been warned, reported and blocked. Twinkle selected MfD as the venue so here it is. There is no "technical stuff" that needs to be addressed, this is simply the case of a prohibited template in user space and there is no solution other than deletion because the editor insists on using it as his signature. As it stands now, the page isn't really a template any more as ToBeFree replaced it with signature text which the editor is quite strangely continuing to transclude as his signature. --AussieLegend () 05:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I tried to follow the history. If the editor is blocked, how come the editor is still using it? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
        • He's obviously not using it now but prior to his talk page access being revoked he was still using it on his talkpage even though the text had been altered by an admin. When I asked him to stop using it he refused. His statements are rather bizarre. He has claimed that he wasn't using a template for a signature, which he was, and then that templates are allowed, which they're not. --AussieLegend () 07:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Twinkle offers all userspace pages default XfD selected to MfD, but you can change the selection. However, this is nothing to get excited about. Having read the history, I didn’t get the sense that the editor was open to suggestions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should never be used. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete If I have to adjust the brightness on my screen to see your username, then it's not in compliance. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Project Red Riding Hood Robot[edit]

Draft:Project Red Riding Hood Robot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

This is a draft of a how-to-guide and not an article. Wikipedia is not a web host for how to guides. Whpq (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Neutral - Needs declining if submitted. Doesn't need deleting yet. Could possibly be reworked into something, not sure what, but this is draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Procedural keep - Although there's no way this can be reworked into a valid encyclopedia article without starting from scratch, unless the user is particularly persistent in resumbitting it, we should just let it fall to G13 when the time comes. Passengerpigeon (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT. I disagree with the notion that this draft could in anyway be reworked to create a viable article. Also, if properly translated, it looks like the draft is almost entirely close paraphrasing or copy and paste from http://projectroodkapje.nl/; however I don't see a copyright claimed anywhere on that page. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete there is no point keeping hopeless drafts. DGG ( talk ) 09:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Note - The creator of this draft made a subsequent draft that was submitted to AFC and declined. See this. -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2, 2020[edit]

Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2019/The Great April Fools' Day Edit War of 2019[edit]

Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2019/The Great April Fools' Day Edit War of 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Speaking as someone who's still relatively new to Wikipedia, having this page led me to believe that vandalizing the April Fools' day page was acceptable. I think having this page up will encourage similar levels of chaos on future April Fools' Days, which seems to be something we want to prevent. Most Horizontal Primate (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Neutral - the level-bodied user has a point, but there is a banner at the top of the page that says "not to be taken seriously". Editors who can be convinced by a page like this that edit warring is acceptable are probably individuals we want to weed out. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe put a big disclaimer at the top of the page saying "PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN"? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete This is effectively a recreation of BJADON. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Future April Fools edit wars are almost certainly going to be banned by an ongoing RFC. This page provides documentation for why such a ban is necessary. (This logic is consistent with WP:HISPAGES, and is similar to what we did with controversial pages like Wikipedia:Valued pictures and Wikipedia:Esperanza.) Further, this is a part of our community's history whether we like it or not. We should absolutely make a note that this type of conduct is not permitted (assuming the RFC passes), but deleting this type of stuff would be a tragic loss to our community's culture and history. If we want to avoid vandalism, there are plenty of good alternatives like placing a warning on top of the page, removing the links to the page from highly visible locations, or even leaving the edit history intact but replacing the text with a quick summary of the events and why they aren't permitted (again, like what we did with Valued Pictures). Also, I really think deleting this page would cause needless hostility. If anyone wants to stop future edit wars, then they should absolutely say so in the RFC. However, deleting this page in addition to banning future edit wars comes off a little like spiking the football; keeping this page up in some sort is the outcome most compliant with the spirit of WP:CIVILITY. Additionally, there is a long-standing community consensus to preserve April Fools Day jokes and the documentation thereof; there is no reason why this page should be deleted and the main April Fools' Day kept or vice versa. If we are really going after such a wide swath of content, then we should have a community wide-RFC rather than an individualized miscellany for deletion discussion likely to be missed by the vast majority of the editors interested in April Fools Day. On a related note, I would also like to address the BJAODN argument: it is true that there was against such pages on 23 August 2007, but this consensus collapsed less than two weeks later. Further, we currently have tons of BJAODN stuff up meaning in practice the August 2007 consensus is no longer recognized (see for example Wikipedia:Best of BJAODN, Wikipedia:Yet more Best of BJAODN and Wikipedia:Still more Best of BJAODN). Consensus can change, and it has very clearly done so in the case of BJAODN.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge - Admittedly I mulled over MFDing this a few days ago, Personally I think it should be deleted and a shorter version added to Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2019. –Davey2010Talk 10:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Davey2010: Your argument appears to be self-contradictory. You're saying Keep ... I think it should be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
    Whoops sorry forgot to change the !vote, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - while I agree with Pppery that it is BJAODN, I also agree with Spirit of Eagle on the fact that deleting it could cause needless hostility, and that deletion would be a loss to the culture of Wikipedia. Deletion seems like it would just be more of a pain than it's worth, honestly. Also, the issues caused by the page would also be solved by simply applying semi- or extended confirmed protection to April Fools' pages in the future, as was done with the 2020 page. InvalidOStalk 13:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
    So, you're admitting that this page is in violation of past consensus, and yet still arguing it should be kept? * Pppery * it has begun... 14:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
    That consensus against BJAODN was overruled by the end of 2007. Besides, this is a part of the April Fools Day documentation page, and was split off solely for reasons of space. It’s different from BJAODN because this conduct was not considered vandalism at the time it occurred. There is no consensus to delete April Fools Day pranks, and by practice there is consensus against doing so. By the way, it looks like these types of edit wars will be banned; this page is a good demonstration of the necessity of such a rule. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
    • By the way, I’m willing to address you concerns about vandalism: we can lock the page, put a huge disclaimer at the top, change the title to something like “prohibited conduct” and even remove some of the more prominent links to the page. My objection is solely to the outright elimination of the page. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
    • The "Best of BJAODN" pages are akin to Davey2010's proposal, not this page as written. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I’m not really seeing any content-based difference between the two since they both document joke content. The one difference that I do see is that edits documented on this page were (and technically still are) permitted conduct that is governed by Rules for Fools rather than the more general policy on vandalism, so the comparison to BJAODN seems inaccurate. To reiterate, I recognize the concern regarding vandalism and think that the page should be squirreled away and have a massive disclaimer put at the top. However, for the reasons I’ve previously stated, I think deletion goes too far and will do more harm than good. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep The notion that this led you to vandalize the main April Fool's page is user error and due to an incomplete reading of the rules; that's not the page's fault. This nom and some of the comments just feel like WP:IDONTLIKEIT Sulfurboy (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Inversion theory of Anthropogenesis[edit]

Draft:Inversion theory of Anthropogenesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

non notable pseudoscience, declined 4 times, not improved, and not improvable. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete Fringe hogwash. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - The hypothesis is pseudoscience. Pseudoscience should be presented as pseudoscience, and is being presented as science in this draft. The repeated resubmission may also be a conduct issue, but MFD is a content forum. Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per above as fringe crapola. Crossroads -talk- 02:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:It's arj[edit]

Draft:It's arj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Flori4nKT A L K 19:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be AUTOBIOG; Self-Promotion: YouTube Channel (?); nn per NBIO; No COI disclosed Flori4nKT A L K 19:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Flori4nKT A L K 19:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

April 1, 2020[edit]


Draft:Technological Change in Education[edit]

Draft:Technological Change in Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Violates WP:NOT (specifically WP:NOTWEBHOST) - Wikipedia is not a hosting service for the essays of its users expressing their views about a topic. Unfortunately U5 doesn't apply as this is in draftspace, so bringing to MfD. JavaHurricane 15:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

User:ToxiBoi - The MFD notice says not to blank or move the page or remove the notice while the discussion is in progress. It appears that no harm was done, but please don't move pages that are under deletion notices, either for MOS reasons or for some other reason. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Decline if submitted or let it go the way of G13. Not a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST imho. This nom creates an unneeded WP:BITE on a very new user who should be pointed towards correct policies in hopes of cultivating a meaningful editor. Particularly since they do not seem to be here for advert or soapboxing reasons. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

March 31, 2020[edit]

Draft:Aglar[edit]

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

Resubmitted five times without improvement. Is not about to satisfy geographic notability, at least not with the current editor repeatedly submitting it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Redirect, with prejudice, to Shopian district. Newcomers should be advised to add material to existing articles, not create new thin orphans. If Aglar is an important village in the Shopian district, sure the Shopian district article should cover it? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Why is it that Wikipedia allows pages like this: Melita, California and thousands of other tiny settlements in the US that are either settled now or were in the past, but does not allow Indian villages of similar or larger size?—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
That’s a good question, but one very big problem is that the draft has no sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: http://www.census2011.co.in/data/village/4682-agral-jammu-and-kashmir.html I can't figure out why this Indian census site is on the spam blacklist.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates