Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

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

Administrator instructions

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.

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

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

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

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

Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]

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

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
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 transclued pages.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
  • Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
  • Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
  • Save the page
II.
Create its MfD subpage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator instructions[edit]

XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 0 0 94 87 181
TfD 0 0 0 4 4
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 0 5 5
RfD 0 0 2 12 14
AfD 0 0 0 33 33

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.

June 16, 2022[edit]

User:Tennisuser123/Hemisphere Airlines[edit]

User:Tennisuser123/Hemisphere Airlines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is a hoax and so unlikely to be useful for the project per WP:UP#GOALS and WP:FAKEARTICLE. The US doesn't have a flag carrier (it does have three primary airlines but they are not flag carriers). It most definitely does not have an airline named Hemisphere Airlines.

I would understand if the page were being used to test infoboxes, wikitables, or article writing. I'm also aware that we generally give wide latitude to pages in userspace. However, per WP:FAKEARTICLE, "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles ... Actual fake articles should be deleted as incompatible with the purpose of the project."

There seems to be a not-insubstantial amount of prose devoted to the destinations and fleet of this fictitious airline. It contains fake statistics like "Hemisphere and its subsidiaries employ 70,000 people worldwide. The airline reported $17.2 billion in annual revenue in 2017 and consistently places on the S&P 500 Index. The airline transports over 16 million passengers per year, averaging approximately 380,000 passengers per day, or approximately 13.8 million per year." These statistics are easily debunked by a quick search online. Since this user subpage exclusively contains information about a fictitious airline, I believe this falls under WP:FAKEARTICLE. Epicgenius (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction presented as fact is never ok. We quickly delete fictitious history pages. This looks no different. One thing different is the user has a long history of contribution. Maybe they can explain? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a fake article and as a hoax, without commenting on whether it is an obvious hoax calling for G3, but both obvious and unobvious hoaxes can be deleted at XFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tennisuser123/Levittown Branch[edit]

User:Tennisuser123/Levittown Branch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This is a hoax and so unlikely to be useful for the project per WP:UP#GOALS and WP:FAKEARTICLE. The Long Island Rail Road has no such branch. The stretch of railroad in question is described as Central Railroad of Long Island#Garden City–Mitchel Field Secondary - it is a freight line, not a passenger branch.

I would understand if the page were being used to test infoboxes, wikitables, or article writing. I'm also aware that we generally give wide latitude to pages in userspace.

However, per WP:FAKEARTICLE, "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles ... Actual fake articles should be deleted as incompatible with the purpose of the project." Since the track in question has no stations and is a freight line, statements like "Currently, the Levittown Branch is the sixth-busiest on the LIRR, serving over 20,000 passengers daily and over 7.3 million annually, with ridership up by 6.8% since 2007" evidently cannot be true. This user subpage has been around for five years without any edits and, since it mainly contains information about a fictitious passenger railroad branch, I believe this falls under WP:FAKEARTICLE. Epicgenius (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bromyard Cricket Club[edit]

Draft:Bromyard Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

miss-use of Wikipedia as a web host, we are not a permanent repository of random non notable cricket club details, user clearly has no intention of submitting for review. Theroadislong (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Comment) This is a wholly incorrect statement to make and unfounded. The user Theroadislong clearly has no cricket specialist knowledge and to suggest my edits are ‘random non notable cricket club details’ is offensive. This club has had notable players that have played International and First Class cricket for them. To suggest they are non notable suggests that the user has decided he will remove edits without careful understanding of what they contain. This cricket club plays in the same division as Old Hill Cricket Club that have their own Wiki page. I challenge the thoughtless process this user has used to suggest it be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerupdate (talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then why do you not submit it for review? Theroadislong (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NDRAFT. It looks like a draft. There is no evidence presented of NOTWEBHOSTING. Pageviews indicate no NOTWEBHOST abuse. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NDRAFT. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject does not meet either NCRICK or GNG, therefore it is entirely fair and correct to describe this as non-notable. The draft was declined nearly 11 months ago for inadequate referencing, and nothing has been done to address that. Instead, the creator keeps updating the statistics and other content which has no bearing on this issue, very much suggesting that there is no attempt to get the draft ready for publication; nor, indeed, has it been resubmitted since last July. The ultimate aim of a draft must surely be to produce a published article, otherwise we are merely providing a web hosting service, as the nom asserts. (And finally, just to point out that WP:NDRAFT is an essay, not a notability guideline.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 12, 2022[edit]

Draft:Hamek War[edit]

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

Was suspected to be a hoax by Nythar (talk · contribs), but they removed their own {{db-hoax}} tag without further comment. The draft is unsourced and with vague timeframe, and I found zero search engine results that mention something called Hamek in relation to Najmadin Shukr Rauf. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources; I did a search and didn't find evidence for such a war. Nythar (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a G3. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 10, 2022[edit]

Draft:Murat Arik[edit]

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

Draft for promotional purposes. Kadı Message 19:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Most drafts start out looking like this one and this was created by a very new editor who is learning about Wikipedia norms and policies. I support giving them a chance to improve this draft. Their first days on Wikipedia have been colored by a series of allegations that, if untrue, were a very bumpy introduction to the project. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a draft. Drafts are not deleted at MFD for being promotional. They may be deleted as being purely promotional via G11, but this is not a G11 draft. There are three ways to deal with drafts that are not ready for article space: ignore them; advise the author how to improve them; improve them. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletions for promotional / notability etc. concerns don't apply to drafts. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you see the external links, @Liz @PerfectSoundWhatever @Robert McClenon? Kadı Message 07:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the issue with them? Just looks like improperly formatted references to me. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 13:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @PerfectSoundWhatever, Unreliable websites, Instagram link and his website for backlink. Kadı Message 20:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a draft. Please read Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. A majority of drafts have similar issues; we don't delete drafts for reliability of sources. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 20:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, interesting! I understood the problem now. I am from Trwiki and there is no draft process there. I realized that I mixed the tr and enwiki's rules :) Thanks for pointing out, @PerfectSoundWhatever. Kadı Message 20:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad I could help! Face-smile.svg — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 23:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Drafts are generally isn't deleted in MfD for being promotional (if it is eligible for deletion then we just go CSD G11). The draft in question has some puff and the author has some COI issues, however, which is fixable. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Draft is fixable, and it isn't exclusively promotional. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a draft, and moreover even the nominator seems to concede that the reason for deleting the draft is not entirely cromulent here. --WaltCip-(talk) 12:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Murat Arık Photographer[edit]

Draft:Murat Arık Photographer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Draft for promotional purposes. Kadı Message 19:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Basically a copy of Draft:Murat Arik which is also been nominated at MFD. I support leaving the best version alone and turning the other draft into a redirect. By the way, I look at expiring drafts all day long and it isn't uncommon for brand new editors to create several versions of the same article with different titles. They need to learn that this is unnecessary. Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Draft:Murat Arik. This is not a Speedy Redirect because that only applies to redirects to articles, but this is similar in that it should also be redirected. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Draft:Murat Arik, per Robert McClenon. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/List of Templates/doc[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/List of Templates/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

The templates this documentation page is referring to: Template:Al-Odah, Template:14HighValue, Template:CSRT, Template:CSRT-No, and Template:CSRT-Yes, have all been deleted, so it is no longer useful to keep around a doc page stating that these templates are controversial. Hog Farm Talk 13:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an unused and obsolete template documentation page. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Delete or Mark Historical - Why not mark historical? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not seeing much to mark historical, as it doesn't seem to have been widely used in its time and it doesn't contain much wisdom for future generations. I'm not familiar with the old history here, but it doesn't seem useful to retain, and I've never really undestood the idea behind marking old superseded junk as historical when it was never widely used and lacks any clear future benefit. Hog Farm Talk 16:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Per the guidance on this, WP:HISTPAGES, They are kept as records of past Wikipedia processes to give context to historical discussions and to inform future discussions on similar topics.
      Marking stuff as historical is intended to be used when there is a continued need to access pages after they has ceased being active, e.g. keeping records of old dispute resolution processes or obsolete policies that were cited in discussions. I agree there is nothing here that would justify keeping as a historical page, all the discussions where the usability of these templates was decided are archived at TFD. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Celebrities sets bad example for the young generations to follow
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 03:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Celebrities sets bad example for the young generations to follow[edit]

Draft:Celebrities sets bad example for the young generations to follow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Clear WP:NOTWEBHOST violation that wouldn't stand a chance in article space. Nothing worth keeping here. Was prodded by @Demt1298: but prod cannot be used on drafts. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Multiple BLP violations. Possibly speedyable, but let's see if others agree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An editorial rant. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A clear delete. I agree with both of the comments above. --Bduke (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • G10 as a {{Db-negublp}}. This is just someone's rant about how celebrities are terrible people that are "corrupting the youth". This is not an article and contains a load of unsourced negative statements about living people. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for BLP violations. Does not fit any speedy deletion criterion, but needs deleting for BLP violations. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon I think it would fit the biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced clause of WP:G10. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I disagree. There is also neutral editorial commentary. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We are not a WP:WEBHOST for drunken ranting. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 18:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mainly because of the BLP violations, but also because this is a rant with little to no encyclopedic value. Glades12 (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a G10, as this is nothing but an attack page disparaging living persons. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This is just a rant intended to attack people for being famous and "immoral" (according to medieval standards). Of course, displaying their wealth is also a "major crime". Finally, its spiced up with the old nonsense about the corruption of youth... Its totally worthless. —Sundostund (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Rank and barren pontificating and moralizing, one might say borderlining on bigotry.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and consider giving {{Uw-vandalism3}} for the creator as still writting lots of ranting contents. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @Liuxinyu970226: I share your opinion that the creator should be warned because of this, maybe even with {{Uw-vandalism4}}. —Sundostund (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

June 9, 2022[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zhxy 519/sandbox
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 03:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zhxy 519/sandbox[edit]

User:Zhxy 519/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#m:Requests_for_comment/Global_de-adminship_for_Jusjih, there are concerns that this sandbox looks like an attack page and tones are inappropriate for us, shouldn't we encourage that user to re-write to avoid too strong tones? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete attack page with no obvious value Dronebogus (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The RFC this was created for was closed as unactionable m:Requests for comment/De-adminship for Jusjih in certain projects. I fail to see why the English wikipedia should host a laundry list of grievances dating back to 2007 based entirely on events that took place on other projects, per WP:Attack page On the other hand, keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above comments, and because it appears that the author wants to restart an RFC on a User, a procedure that has been disbanded for various reasons including creating more heat than light. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is empty now. It is a draft of previous rfc and I'm not "to restart an RFC on a User". You can check page's history first. Zhxy 519 (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zhxy 519 Please do not remove deletion tag while this discussion is ongoing Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, for later users participant this discussion, they may read what this page was via Special:Diff/1092386268. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shivprasad1966/sandbox
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete as promotional content under WP:G11. RL0919 (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shivprasad1966/sandbox[edit]

User:Shivprasad1966/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Business promotional draft relying mainly on self-sourcing, passing mentions, and Wikipedia links. No indication of notability. Blue Riband► 16:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - It's a draft. Notability is not an issue in draft space. Nominator appears to be ragpicking. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of the content appears to be copyright-infringing: [1]. However, since the whole draft is not blatant copy-paste from one (or several) links, G12 would not apply. Once the infringing content is removed and revdeleted, I'd go with a weak keep as well – either it will be improved or G13 will eventually take care of it. ComplexRational (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Infringing content removed and RD1 requested. ComplexRational (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly speedy per G11/G12. Spam article full of copyvios. Even with the copyrevdels completed the article is still full of copyvio material, e.g. the first remaining sentence of the "Products" section is copied from another website. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Copyvio concerns have been addressed. Notability / promotional tone etc. concerns don't apply to drafts. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These can apply if there are more problemic contents within drafts, and just, this particular one is an example. Just image if someone created a draft contain a lot of pro-Putin contents, then it's highly possible that a random user supports Putin Huilo will saw it full of unacceptable and more than nonsense+gibberish, but if we call that user "Hey notability-related SD tags can't apply to drafts", then what else we can help the later user to avoid their hurt-like-hell? Be smart and be bold to nominate SD for drafts. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @PerfectSoundWhatever Concerns about spam apply everywhere, G11 is a general criteria that applies to every page in the project, regardless of namespace. The copyvio concerns also haven't been resolved, huge chunks of this article have been copied from the companies website, just with "we" swapped for "they" [2]. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the copyvio was addressed when I wrote my !vote, but the editor reinstated it. I've removed it again and added redvel. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 20:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    it's still full of copyvio material [3]. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Even though G12 or G13 won't apply, {{db-G11}} applies. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a G11. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - drafts don't need to be notable, as pointed out, but it should indeed qualify for G11 — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Draft:Memgraph[edit]

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

Procedural move of a PROD by Autorko with reasoning "Duplicate of existing article" (Memgraph). Proposed deletion is not for articles. If in article space, this might qualify as a CSD A10. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the old page to new as it was suggested to me. Can I revoke this request for deletion since there is no need for it anylonger? Autorko (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mess! User:Autorko - What do you think that the template on former Draft:Memgraph that says "do not blank, merge, or move it" means? "Do not move it" includes do not move a nominated draft into article space. User:Sammi Brie - It is not necessary to nominate drafts for deletion because they are duplicates of existing articles. They are redirected to the article. That is what Speedy Redirect is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Autorko - Do you have a conflict of interest?
User:Autorko - Why are you moving a page that has no visible text but only a copyvio notice into article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that I have conflict of interest. I'm contributing to open source parts of that project, same as I do with some other opensource software, GPL, and similar projects for past 5 years. So if contribution to opensource project that I'm writing about on Wikipedia is a conflict, then I have "conflict of interest". Autorko (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep in draft space after the copyvio is dealt with so that the remainder of the draft can be viewed. What happened to the copy that was in article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Draft:Memgraph was moved to Memgraph and then back to Draft space, all after this MFD was filed. Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, some history:
  • the mainspace Memgraph page was first created by WP:cut-and-paste by Autorko, where it was (correctly) blanked as copyvio by Robert McClenon
  • Autorko then placed a prod on the draft
  • Sammi Brie nominated that for deletion here
  • I reversed the C&P move (redirected to the draft, deleted that as R2) and then blanked the draft because of the copyvios
  • Autorko moved it to mainspace despite the notice at the head of the page reading "please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice"
  • I undid that move.

It's liable to be deleted at any time for copyright reasons unless a viable rewrite is proposed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 5, 2022[edit]

Draft:WP:UNCERTAIN[edit]

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

Draft of a new proposed guideline by a now-banned editor, barely written and nobody else has contributed despite being pinged to do so, a week ago. starship.paint (exalt) 16:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I normally always !vote keep for drafts since G13 would take care of the ones that are inactive. But this is pretty clearly an attempt at dodging the outcome of a prior MFD. Delete per nom. WaltCip-(talk) 16:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, WaltCip's description of this is pretty clearly an attempt at dodging the outcome of a prior MFD is referring to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:What MEDRS is not, which was initiated on 28 May; the now-banned user started this draft on 29 May. The original MFD was later closed as delete. starship.paint (exalt) 02:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a stub potentially created to further WP:TE of the now-banned creator. I would not be opposed to an editor in good standing seeking to build a good-faith draft in this location, but without additional near-term edits the stub should be removed. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am in very good standing and would be happy to work on this draft. We don't retroactively delete everything a banned editor contributed, and I don't think the ban was justified. Francesco espo (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The draft is one line long and has a shortcut as a title. Why not simply start your own version (with a proper title)? Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 4, 2022[edit]

User:Seanisverybest/sandbox/~[edit]

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

Patent nonsense, gibberish, violation of WP:UP#GOALS, WP:NOTAWEBHOST. Page is 2 million bytes in size, 51st largest page on the English Wikipedia [4]. User’s last edit was to this page in March 2020. MxYamato (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete User pages aren't a free pass to do anything. There is more leniency in userspace but creating a page with over 2000 (useless) citations seems like a waste of server space. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 20:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted pages are still kept in server space. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I thought too. Deleting this page won't free up any storage. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - It's a sandbox full of sand. Stop ragpicking. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This page consists of the same citation repeated over 15,000 times. The article creator hasn't edited on Wikipedia in over two years. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JayPlaysStuff. starship.paint (exalt) 03:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and blank as a sandbox. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, blank if needed It's a sandbox. Deleted articles are kept in server space, so this page's deletion will accomplish nothing. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inappropriate tones are facing-to-facing {{db-attack}} if no conflicts. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an attack page, it's just a footnote repeated ad nauseam. G10 does not apply here. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and JayPlaysStuff. —Sundostund (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a sandbox. Sandboxes often have a bunch of nonsense in them. If you're not into nonsense, there's no need to poke around in other people's sandboxes. Nobody will ever see this other than the author and people looking for stuff to delete. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old business[edit]


Closed discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates

source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220617121800/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion