Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.

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

Shortcut

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.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 5 disambiguation pages) and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

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

Before nominating a page for deletion

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

Deleting pages in your own userspace	If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
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

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

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 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.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
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

XFD backlog
V	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	19	19
TfD	0	5	5
MfD	2	6	8
FfD	1	1	2
RfD	6	42	48
AfD	0	0	0

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

Archived discussions

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

Current discussions

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

November 15, 2024

Draft:Castianeira: Part Three: Castianeira's Role

Draft space is not suitable for user-submitted fictional stories Ifly6 (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has not been rejected, only declined. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:NileRed (YouTuber)

blank Poxy4 (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either argue WP:G7 or redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Noam Cohen

We don't typically keep biographical articles or bibliographies in WP space, and I don't believe it's appropriate to have here. However, it's existed for so long at this location, I thought it best to nominate it instead of boldly moving it to user space, which is my preference at this point in time. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding this, Keep, and why not just mainspace it? as a list in his Wikipedia page (Noam Cohen). A treasure trove of articles on Wikipedia from the later 2000's on. Probably enough critical historical information here to keep as is, mainspace, or at least leave it in Wikipedia space as an exception to some rule or other. Should list and link it prominently on the Wikipedia in the news page etc. This one is worth digging around in. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: There's an article in main space at Noam Cohen. Hey man im josh (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't this list be added to his page bibliography? They are examples of his articles on one subject, and fill out his bibliography well. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be my preference, yes @Randy Kryn. I'm not a fan of the idea of author specific bibliographies about Wikipedia in WP space. It seems like a way to get around what we'd normally have regarding notability guidelines. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think mainspace biographies tend to include bibliographies individual articles, which are a lot less significant than e.g. books. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Sdkb ^talk 19:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userify if anything, I think this is too navel-gazey for the main namespace, but it should absolutely be kept in some form. Graham87 (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Graham87, the concept of pages about Wikipedia being navel-gazing seems a bit outdated since Wikipedia is notable as the world's largest and most read encyclopedic source. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of individual bibliographies about Wikipedia by author in Wiki space definitely fits the bill of navel-gazing from my perspective, regardless of the size of the site. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Graham87 (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Project space is, by definition, navel-gazing. We have a thousand essays, joke pages, satire, historical discussions, and IIRC even a few We have a handful of journalists that frequently cover Wikipedia and typically do it well. Cohen's articles about Wikipedia are rare examples of someone actually getting the community's point of view right. As such (especially back when he was more active on the subject), his articles come up in discussion, referenced by Wikipedians. So someone compiled them in one place. Seems mildly useful, but more importantly I'm having trouble finding a deletion rationale here. I don't have an objection if someone wants to merge the three "beat reporters" pages together, but also don't see that as a big gain. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is clear, WP space is not for bios / bibliographies. The examples you mention of similar content in this space (2 other pages) were also created by the same author of this article. So someone compiled them in one place. – Wikipedia is not a web host. It's either relevant enough to have a list of article in main space, or relevant enough for a bibliography section of a journalist's article.

There needs to be a line between article and WP space. We don't just dump anything tangibly related to Wikipedia in its own page in WP space and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument to support that. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bio, but it is a bibliography. Where is the policy about no bibliographies you're referring to? Presumably we should also get rid of other bibliographies, then, like Wikipedia:List of academic studies about Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media, Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs, Wikipedia:Wikipedia in books, Wikipedia:Wikipedia in cartoons, etc., not to mention the hundreds of bibliographies produced by wikiprojects. I do not think projectspace is as pure in purpose and as inflexible as your characterizing here, per what I said above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep Let's make a new rule that whenever any journalist or researcher publishes at least 10 articles where Wikipedia is the subject, and they do so in a top-tier venue like The New York Times or Slate, then Wikipedia: becomes a place to present their bibliographies. I have made no attempt to present biographies here, and only intended to list some of the best Wikipedia commentary which exists.

I am the creator. This is good information to index to publicly, rather than in userspace. The problem, if there is one, is that the Wikipedia: space does not have an existing format for cataloging it. Tag this as an essay or whatever works, because this content is comparable and at least as valuable as typical Wikipedia user essays. I also made Category:Wikipedia beat reporters and the other two article collections there. I would make more but unlike media platforms of similar popularity and impact, Wikipedia only attracts a journalist's attention every few years. This is the complete collection of top-tier Wikipedia beat reporters. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And a fine collection it is, thanks Bluerasberry, I wasn't aware of the pages before this discussion. Another option (but may not be needed if the Keep comments continue), combine all three articles into one 'Press coverage of Wikipedia' page or something similarly named, either in mainspace or Wikipedia space. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: Right, we already have press coverage by time at Category:Wikipedia press coverage and for example Wikipedia:Press coverage 2024. These three pages I set up are the only indexing of press coverage by author. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep largely for the same reasons as Rhododentrites. According to our Wikipedia:Namespace information page, Wikipedia (and Wikipedia talk) namespace, Contains many types of pages connected with the Wikipedia project itself: information, policies, guidelines, essays, processes, discussion, etc. This clearly is a page connected with the Wikipedia project itself and is, as noted by Rhododendrites, a bibliography which would not be well suited to other namespaces, except perhaps User, but there is no reason it must be there and indeed benefits by having it be colloborative to having it be in Wikipedia namespace. I will disclose that I have served as a background source for Cohen which is how the page was on my watchlist. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Keep - The subject of the page in question is not really Noam Cohen, who is the subject of the mainspace article. The subject of the page in question is Noam Cohen's articles about Wikipedia, and that list of articles should be kept in project space, either as WP:Noam Cohen, where it is, or as Noam Cohen articles about Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rename feels reasonable and while consensus to do so can come from this process doesn't rely on it, and so I hope it just gets done if this is kept. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Sdkb ^talk 19:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not a biography, but a collection of articles about Wikipedia. That makes it an important essay. Maybe it would be better renamed WP:Noam Cohen on Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Userfy. It belongs in Projectspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 13, 2024

Draft:Islamic Fighting Championship

Similar case to User:LilBanana123/sandbox, which was deleted as WP:U5. Today, I tagged this for WP:G11 and U5 thinking that it met the criteria for deletion. This was contested. Please note that this was originally located at User:LilBanana123 hence U5.

In my humble opinion, the article is extremely promotional and would need to be entirely rewritten to comply to our policies. The article looks like the dozens of other drafts that I tag for G11 that look like they were written in 10 seconds using ChatGPT or similar. I note that G11 says If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. I've explored this and I don't think that it's plausible. "Islamic Fighting Championship" has no hits on Google except one Facebook post. No hits on DuckDuckGo at all either. I would argue that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day applies to draft space as well as article space.

I actually believe this meets WP:G3 as a hoax due to the above. My best guess is that the 5 fighters described promotionally in the article are the article creator himself and 4 of his mates just having a laugh on Wikipedia. I see no reason for us to play web host to this silly spammy make believe nonsense for the next 6 months. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If I encountered this in AFC, in draft space, I would tag it for G11. I agree with the admin in declining the U5 because this does look like a draft and belongs in draft space, and U5 does not apply to draft space. I disagree with the decline of G11. I think that a less stringent standard of promotionality should be applied to drafts than to articles, because moderately promotional drafts can be declined or rejected, but this is not a moderately promotional draft, but, as the nominator says, an extremely promotional draft. Also, if the author hasn't taken the time to provide any low-quality sources, showing that they are not even trying for verifiability, that is further evidence that the purpose is promotion. Also, as the nominator says, it might be a hoax, and, at MFD, we don't need to distinguish between G3, almost-G3, G11, and almost-G11. Find the bit bucket. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I will say the only reason I tagged for U5 was because this was originally located in userspace but got moved after my deletion tag was applied. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably G3 eligible (maybe G11), but I could plausibly see that be less obvious so delete here. Skynxnex (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 12, 2024

User talk:Jack 6502

Only edit is off-topic, and by a user blocked as "not here to build an encyclopedia". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Speedy Keep 1 - Useless but harmless. Mere uselessness is not a reason to delete talk pages, and is not even a reason to redact or hat portions of talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just blank it and move on: it's not worth bringing to MfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 10, 2024

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 1, 2025

Don't have featured article badge. C-class article. Ampil ^{(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns)} 04:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article must be a Featured Article in order to be Today's Featured Article... ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 04:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Do I understand this correctly? Is this page queued to be placed on the main page on 1 January 2025? Does this mean that, when a bot determines that it is 1 January 2025 GMT, this page will be placed on the main page, making Gateway Mall (Quezon City) the featured article? As the nominator notes, that article has not had Featured Article review. It should be a B-Class article, but it shouldn't be better than B-Class without either Good Article Review or Featured Article Review. How did this pointer page get into the Featured Article queue? If I understand correctly, something has happened that should not have happened. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Has a new editor discovered or invented a new species of beans to stuff up the nose of the English Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an inappropriate experiment or test, by an editor who has also been blocked on Commons for out-of-scope editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a featured article. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have boldly changed the rating of Gateway Mall (Quezon City) to Class B. That changes nothing except the rating of the article. Beans come in various colors and flavors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 8, 2024

Draft:Animatic Battle

Object shows probably fall under WP:BFDI TheWikipede (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The Dream Island essay explains why we do not have articles about animated battles on the Internet. This is a draft, and it was properly declined five months ago. There was no need to nominate it for deletion. If the nominator had waited a month, this draft would have died of old age. Now it will die of old age in May 2025. Rag picking to get rid of useless drafts is itself useless. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed entirely with Robert McClenon, except that since we're here we might as well press the delete button rather than letting the page last longer out of spite. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and leave to standard AfC processes that suffice. The draft was merely declined, which carries the implication that it could be improved to be made acceptable. It has not been tendentiously submitted. It does not violate any line item at WP:NOT. This should not have been brought to MfD, and MfD should not be used to curate the worst of the drafts. Busywork is bad and should not be encouraged. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no harm in letting this page sit, longer, even indefinitely if kept alive by edits, in draftspace.

There is harm in misusing deletion processes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Pppery. charlotte ^👸♥ 04:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 22, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Aramea

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 23:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aramea

WikiProject Aramea was created in 2015, and through viewing the edit history, has rarely seen any edits or discussion on creation or editing of articles since that time. Additionally, many of its formerly active members were sockpuppet accounts of users that have since been blocked indefinitely. The WikiProject itself is almost an exact carbon copy of WikiProject Assyria, with the same sections, graphics, and layout. I am proposing that the WikiProject be deleted as it essentially acts as a content fork, which is one of Wikipedia's criteria for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surayeproject3 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would normally suggest keeping archive as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Dealing with inactive WikiProjects..... However reviewing the Page's history it seems that this is all shock puppetry.... so deletion is fine nothing to save here. Moxy🍁 18:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think it being a "content fork" is a good justification for deletion given that only really applies to articles, and all it is is made from the same template. The real reason for deletion would be that it is inactive and hasn't done much, plus the sockpuppets, I think: the relevant policy is:

"If an inactive project never seems to have grown beyond its founding, you may consider moving it to the founder's userspace or nominating it for deletion at MfD. In general, medium or larger projects are marked as defunct rather than deleted to preserve the project's history. For more, see Wikipedia:Project namespace#Deletion of project pages."

Looking myself there has been 1 non-bot comment on the talk page, 8 years ago, by someone who was not a member of the wikiproject. There are no members and because there is no category for WikiProject aramea articles, it is unclear how many articles are associated with it. Support deletion given if someone actually wants to make this wikiproject they can make another one, and it does seem to meet the criterion of not having grown much since its founding. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A WikiProject that has never had a post from a member on its project talk page in nine years and has a history of sockpuppetry is a project that is not worth keeping as a defunct project. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For future similar interests, engage with Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 23 September 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.

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 13:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC) ended today on 16 November 2024. 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.

November 7, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Abusefilter-blocker

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 blocker, delete blockreason. charlotte ^👸♥ 04:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Abusefilter-blocker

Abuse filter blocking is disabled on English Wikipedia. Thus this message is pointless. There is only one log entry attributed to User:Edit filter: Special:Log/Edit filter. Awesome Aasim 19:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blockreason per nom. Unfortunately we have to keep blocker, since deleting it will just make things worse (change to fake admin account to User:Abuse filter rather than User:Edit filter, and require the crats to desysop the former, and otherwise cause more trouble than it's worth). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Can someone explain what the function or purpose of these two read-only files is, and what would be the effect of deleting them, and so why they should be deleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki:Abusefilter-blockreason is the edit summary that would be used for blocks by the abuse filter if we had abuse filters configured to block accounts. Since we don't have that configuration, haven't had it in years, and have no plans to enable it, it's a useless leftover and can be deleted.
MediaWiki:Abusefilter-blocker is the username that would be used to carry out such blocks. Aasim thinks that it should be deleted for the same reason as my previous paragraph, and in an idea world I would agree. But unfortunately the AbuseFilter extension also forces that username to be an admin, even there are no blocks being issued and no technical reason it needs to be one. If we were to delete it, then it would revert to the upstream default of "Abuse filter", thereby causing that username to be an admin. A crat would then need to manually desysop "edit filter", and we would have caused a lot of churn and ended up in a much worse situation than we started in. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blockreason and keep blocker per Pppery, without prejudice against renominating if T212268 is ever resolved. (Would putting a different user's name on blocker really make them a sysop instantly?) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And also make the account unable to be logged into, so the (mis)feature is harmless. Stewards have removed redundant admin rights created by this feature on non-English wikis dozens, probably hundreds of times.
I used to think T212268 was a bad idea (at least on wikis that did have abusefilter blocks enabled), but I've become convinced over the years that practicality beats semantic purity here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:18, 13 November 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.

November 2, 2024

Template:User Oppose VHP

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 02:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userbox that appears to violate WP:UBDIVISIVE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - We have usually kept controversial political userboxes, as long as they did not advocate violence. This userbox does not advocate violence, but opposes an organization that is said to advocate violence. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say move the userbox to userspace (perhaps under User:UBX), but it is currently unused. Delete as unused and disputed (first choice) or userfy without redirect as disputed (second choice). House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a political soapbox. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 02:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Oppose Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

Unused userbox that appears to violate WP:UBDIVISIVE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just as there are userboxes that support various political ideologies, having a userbox that expresses opposition to a specific ideology contributes to a balanced representation. It’s crucial that Wikipedia reflects a spectrum of viewpoints, especially on contentious topics. Secondly the existence of such userboxes is constructive, they allow individuals to express their views and engage with differing opinions, which aligns with Wikipedia’s goal of providing a platform for diverse perspectives. There are several instances where userboxes representing differing ideologies exist without being flagged for divisiveness. This suggests that our community values the representation of diverse viewpoints. If the support template exists for a organization like RSS which is often regarded as terrorist organization or far right extremist, and often blamed for assassination Mahatma Gandhi, there is a need of the template which is in opposition to the ideology of RSS and PFI. ZDX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 14:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - We have usually kept controversial political userboxes, as long as they did not advocate violence. This userbox does not advocate violence, but opposes an ideology that is said to advocate violence. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say move the userbox to userspace (perhaps under User:UBX), but it is currently unused. Delete as unused and disputed (first choice) or userfy without redirect as disputed (second choice). House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a political soapbox. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Oppose PFI

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 01:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userbox that appears to violate WP:UBDIVISIVE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just as there are userboxes that support various political ideologies, having a userbox that expresses opposition to a specific ideology contributes to a balanced representation. It allow individuals to express their views and engage with differing opinions. There are several instances where userboxes representing differing ideologies exist without being flagged for divisiveness. ZDX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 15:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - We have usually kept controversial political userboxes, as long as they did not advocate violence. This userbox does not advocate violence, but opposes an organization that is said to advocate violence. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say move the userbox to userspace (perhaps under User:UBX), but it is currently unused. Delete as unused and disputed (first choice) or userfy without redirect as disputed (second choice). House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 01:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a political soapbox. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Ban PFI

Unused userbox that appears to violate WP:UBDIVISIVE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - We have usually kept controversial political userboxes, as long as they did not advocate violence. This userbox does not advocate violence, but opposes an organization that is said to advocate violence. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say move the userbox to userspace (perhaps under User:UBX), but it is currently unused. Delete as unused and disputed (first choice) or userfy without redirect as disputed (second choice). House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a political soapbox. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 1, 2024

Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?/Merge less well referenced articles to Afghan training camp... or to a new article...

I originally just redirected this but it was contested. Contextless Guantanamo related page, part of a project to make a lot of pages on a lot of Guantanamo prisoner BLPs (many of which are being slowly deleted as given our current rules they are non-notable) by an indef banned user that never went anywhere masquerading as a WikiProject page. Also, WP Terrorism is no longer a wikiproject so these are attached to a project that no longer exists. Marking it as historical is negative for that reason. I see no harm in letting it exist as a redirect so the page history is accessible but I do see issues with letting it remain attached to nothing.

Also nominating:

PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I would like to know whether I understand. It appears that there was a WikiProject until 19 October 2024, and then it was moved to become a task force of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo was a subpage of the project, and it had its own subpages. So the issue is what to do with the subpages of something that no longer exists. Is that correct? My own thinking is that marking them historical is exactly what should be done, to record the historical link to the renamed project. Is my reading of the history correct? If so, why shouldn't we record the strange history? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon What's the point of keeping project pages that have no project? I find they tend, even if marked defunct or historical, to attract random edits, vandalism, and people for asking for help on the wrong pages to get no response. Redirecting it stops that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 31, 2024

Wikipedia:WikiProject Percussion/Core

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary when Category:Top-importance Percussion articles exists. Has not been edited since the first day of its creation nearly twenty years ago. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Historical - No need to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it even historical? It has been edited by only one editor on one day over a decade ago. It does not represent the larger WikiProject at all. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mark as historical or redirect to main WikiProject page: was once useful and there's no reason its content should be inaccessible to non-admins, which is all that deletion achieves. Per the links to the page, it was mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Percussion/Archive 1 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Percussion/To do/Archive 1. Also, it was created in February 2008, which is more like 16-and-a-half years ago than 20 (fairly important because Wikipedia changed a lot between November 2004 and February 2008). Graham87 (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer a move to the original author's user page per WP:PRJDEL. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Percussion/Collaboration of the Month

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not been used since its creation in 2008. Wikipedia:WikiProject Percussion/In progress seems to be an attempt at re-creating it, thus this is unnecessary. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Historical - No need to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has never been used. The only edits are its creation and tagging of inactive. It is not historical. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mark as historical or redirect to main WikiProject page: was once useful and there's no reason its content should be inaccessible to non-admins, which is all that deletion achieves. As it says on the page, the only collabroation of the month was [[List of percussion instruments, so it was used for something. Graham87 (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates